Bachmann on health care, bipartisanship, her legislative accomplishments
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Stillwater sat down recently with a reporter from the biggest daily paper in her district, the St. Cloud Times, and answered questions about entitlements, health insurance, her accomplishment so far in Congress. The transcript of the full interview is here and there is a link to the audio if you want to listen for yourself.
One the recent hot topic of what Bachmann meant by "weaning off" people from Medicare and Social Security, or whether she endorses Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program, nothing new here. She says something must be done before the big entitlement programs go broke, but doesn't endorse any proposal. She cites the Ryan plan as one she has "looked at," but doesn't commit to it, nor anything else.
On health care, Bachmann endorses the concept of allowing any American to buy health insurance across state lines (in the current system, Minnesotans can buy only from companies that have met state regulatory requirements. This buy-across-state-lines idea has been one of the main Republican proposals of late, and I've been wondering whether there would be any regulation or any minimum requirements. As Bachmann describes it:
"Any American can buy any health care policy from anyone they want in any amount they want in any state they want. I would do away with the barrier that prohibits people from buying insurance policies in other states. That is true choice, that is true competition."
it sounds like the answer is no, no regulation, no minimum requirements. But maybe she has more in mind.
On a topic I wrote about the other day -- whether Republicans would vote for something like the Dem health care bills if it had some of the pet Republican proposals -- St. Cloud Times reporter Dave Aeikens pressed her on that. The answer appears to be no. The Dems should just pass the Republican ideas. But Bachmann says she is very interested in working with Dems on bipartisan ideas.
Aeikens asked her to cite her legislative accomplishments. Strangely, although she is completing her second term this year, she described herself as a freshman:
"Q: Name three bills or amendments that you have gotten passed that are the most beneficial to the people of the 6th Congressional District.
Bachmann: I was involved in a foster care amendment to support and encourage people in foster care. It is a very important issue. Sen Mary Landrieu and I are working on the Haiti situation. We are trying to put together initiatives so that children can actually go into homes and not stay in institutions their whole life. I was able to pass this resolution honoring people in foster care. I am in the deep minority in Congress and a fairly new freshman, so I don’t have substantive bills that I have passed. I would love to. The very first bill I introduced was the Health Care Freedom of Choice Act."
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
27 comments
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
24 comments
Comments (5)
In other words, she's not really interesting in accomplishing anything.
Eric --
Here's one way "across state lines works."
If an insurance company is licensed in another state, it can sell into Minnesota. It would only have to meet the requirements of the state in which it was licensed, not those of the state of Minnesota.
So, for example, Minnesota has (last count I heard) 67 mandated coverages. all of which add to premium costs. If I could purchase a policy from say S.C. with fewer mandates and was comfortable with the risk or could purchase separate riders ala carte for additional coverage, presumably I could purchase insurance at lower cost.
Couple of points. The intent here is to get state regulators competing. If MN insurance companies have to compete with SC (just and example) maybe Minnesota legislators wouldn't make hair replacement an insurance mandate.
Second, just because another state has lower cost insurance doesn't mean that Minnesotans will get that price. A SC insurance company will do the cost benefit analysis on Minnesotans before setting a policy price. With fewer mandates price should be lower, but not necessarily as low as in SC (again only an example).
Third,Gov. Pawlenty's proposal is more along the lines you imagine -- setting requirements and agreements among regional states to have common insurance standards. That doesn't get the job done as ultimately there is no competitive pressure. I don't think the governor gets it.
Hope that helps.
Craig Westover sneers at "hair replacement" insurance mandates by Minnesota as though it covers Rogaine for balding men. What it covers is "hair prostheses" for people who lose all their hair due to a disease called alopecia areota.
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2...
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/flexben.pdf
But misinformation has never stopped Westover from making a point before.
Or, it could end up like credit cards (another consumer friendly operation), with most products sold out of a couple of states with minimal regulations.
Craig,
Not that I disagree with the notion of their being a national health insurance market but a few things stand to be contextualized.
First, a large chunk of the Minnesota market is not subject to individual mandates. Only about 30% of Minnesota's health insurance market (and shrinking) is part of the fully insured market which is not subject to the ERISA laws. The rest of the market is self insured (think Best Buy, Medtronic, General Mills). They do not have to offer the mandates and they can have their insurance managed (but not the economic risk) by anyone in or out of Minnesota.
And yet - their cost of care is still too high.
The lower cost of insurance in other states is often related to community rating requirements or lack there of. Being able to purchase insurance from a state without community rating would significantly lower the cost of care...for the young and healthy...but significantly increase it for the old or sick. There is always a trade off.
The final piece is that some minimal national standard is likely a necessity. Why? Regulatory competition can go to far. Health insurance is very complex and it is quiet easy for scam artists to take advantage of the elderly or uneducated. Our AG is suing the pants of some companies right now for doing that.
We certainly do not need to have a Cadillac plan as the minimal, but we should at least have lemon laws.