A number of top insurers have announced that they plan to eliminate child-only policies as a direct consequence of the healthcare reform bill passed earlier this year:
Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.
Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”
I certainly agree that attacking the health insurers’ move on moral grounds is the right line of attack. Apparently, our legislators made the oversight of not mandating that health insurers lose money on health insurance while they were mandating that individuals purchase health insurance.
I do have a question, however. Let’s assume that you believe that it is immoral for health insurers to stop offering policies they believe they’ll lose money on. Under those circumstances is it moral for legislators to pass a law that would have that consequence as a foreseeable outcome? Just checking.
Plenty of reasonable legislation costs some group money, and insurers always lose money on some customers, as part of their model. Yes, it would be wrong for legislators to mandate that an industry begin losing money, but no it is not wrong to mandate an industry take on extra, reasonable costs while still making a profit.
Who is in a better position to make the determination that the costs are reasonable and that the insurance companies can make a profit while taking them on? The insurance companies appear to have already made the determination that they can’t. Or are they acting out of pique?
“Let’s assume that you believe that it is immoral for health insurers to stop offering policies they believe they’ll lose money on. ”
Why not just have insurers drop anyone’s coverage who is diagnosed with a chronic illness or one that will cost a lot to treat?
Steve
A related question: About 20 years ago, insurance companies began dropping out of the market for environmental insurance after a number of adverse court decisions. Only one company of significance was selling this type of insurance: AIG.
Question is AIG the only moral actor? Or greedy gamblers?