Question: Could we regulate insurance companies like utilities

and establish reasonable rates and profits if they are going to be in the business of processing claims? They could have their claim denials audited.

I'm posting from my phone, so I won't go into much detail.

Are you really satisfied with your utility bill when you maintain your families comfort levels especially when it really hot or cold outside?

in the event we have less than that or even less than a public option.

And to answer your question, it would be the lesser of two evils.

I'll bet you don't

I have had Georgia Power and I am now with Jackson Electric Membership Corporation. Yes the cost is a tad higher but I don't have as many unexpected power outages and when power does go out they are quickly on top of it.

Depending on what power utility you pay for determines how many power outages you have?

Do the competing companies actually change your power hookups?

Are there power guys standing in your front yard holding cables, screaming "buy from us!!"?

But that is a different matter. I live in California where our Republican governors took all of the teeth out of the Public Utilities Commission which used to be pretty good at regulating the utility companies, but which now exists as little mote than a figure head agency with little or no enforcement power.

However we do have an insurance commission here in California, which was created by a ballot initiative called Proposition 103. Except for the brief period of time when it was taken over by a Republican candidate, it has regulated rates, claims processing and other aspects of commerce within the insurance industry. It takes the position that if you sell insurance in California and do business here, you abide by California law. A few years ago they helped me out with a health insurance claim I was having trouble with where the company was in another state. I got my claim paid adequately and fairly with their help. We also have a law here which could benefit people in other states who have intransigent insurance companies. It is called first party bad faith, and the grist of it is that if your insurance company knowingly deals with you or stalls your claim or goes against your contract you can sue them for punitive as well as actual damages. There have been some hefty settlements. I don't know the state of insurance law right now. We do, after all have another conservative Republican governor after all. But if there was a nation wide law like that, a consumer agency and perhaps an ombudsman who would help out consumers I'm sure the insurance companies would be much more responsive than they are now. Of course a public option would help ever so much too.

Does that cover both issues? Comparing utilities and health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges, but even so both can and do function better with oversight and regulations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for the insurers... based on their 2008 numbers.

Unitedhealth Group, Inc. (UNH)
2008 Total Revenue $81,186,000,000
Operating Income $5,263,000,000
Pre-tax margin: 6.5%

WellPoint Inc. (WLP)
2008 Total Revenue $61,251,100
Operating Income $3,592,200
Pre-tax margin: 5.9%

CIGNA Corp. (CI)
2008 Total Revenue $19,101,000,000
Operating Income $378,000,000
Pre-tax margin: 2%

and historical S&P 500 pre-tax margins are about 9%, so these profit figures would be on the low end.

Quit waiting for the government or the current health insurance companies to give you what you want.

All you need is some big money charities to donate the start up capitol (Bill and Melinda Gates?) and an honest and knowledgeable person to serve as CEO for a reasonable salary. As a not for profit they could except donations and means test your customers to set premiums. Use grass root volunteers that are now being used for political organizing to keep costs down. You have everything you need to do it right already, quit waiting for permission from DC. Take it out of the hands of the politicians and start changing the system.

Years back Rochester NY experimnted with it. I don't know what happened but it sounded like a good idea.

the insurance companies wouldn't like it and their Congressional stooges won't cross them on something like this.

If the following happened:

1) Coverage available to everyone - no denials, no "pre-existing conditions".
2) Premiums must be means tested and affordable to everyone, no more than 15% of household income above poverty level (i.e. you earn poverty or below, you get "free healthcare").
2a) Employers would have to contribute too - based on a percentage of employees' wages, unless they self-insure - in which case their self-insurance must be adequately funded.
3) Coverage must be comprehensive - as good as the UK's NHS.
4) Coverage must include drugs and dental and vision.
5) No co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance - free at point of delivery.
6) Doctors / Clinics are to be reimbursed at least Medicare rates, if not more.
7) Doctors to decide if procedures are necessary, not health insurance companies (and definitely not the government).
8) Consumers must still have full choice of their doctors, clinics etc.
9) Insurers must not deny coverage for procedures that a doctor has deemed clinically necessary.
10) Medicare/Medicaid/VA/etc exists as it is today.

If all the above were in place, everyone would have coverage, the private companies would still be involved, doctors would be happy enough as they'd get a guaranteed reimbursement rate, and in a lot of cases we'd have expanded coverage because most people who have medical have to have separate dental and vision.