The Heavy Hand of Kathleen Sebelius

[View Blog]

Comment by JW 1 day ago Delete Comment The Heavy Hand of Kathleen Sebelius
By MERRILL MATTHEWS
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is upset that critics are accusing her of “thuggery” (the Wall Street Journal) and “soviet tyranny” (Newt Gingrich). My favorite came from the well-respected political analyst Michael Barone: “gangster government.”

The reason they are criticizing Sebelius was the secretary’s recent cease and desist order sent to health insurers. Some insurers have been notifying their policyholders of future premium increases. In addition to rising medical costs and inflation (which is very low), insurers have had to factor in all the new benefits that President Obama and Sebelius have been touting.

Writing to the largest health insurance trade association, Sebelius asserts, “I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” Writing in the Wall Street Journal she warns, “we will review large premium increases and identify those that are unreasonable.”




This is one way ObamaCare imposes price controls. The legislation requires lots of new health insurance benefits—benefits that come with a cost. But Democrats sold it by telling people they would get more and pay less. It was a lie, and now Sebelius has to fain shock at the price increases.

The secretary defends her heavy handedness by writing in the Wall Street Journal that it’s “required by law.” And in fairness, ObamaCare does vest the secretary of Health and Human Services with unprecedented new powers to make health insurers and health care providers do what the secretary demands. It’s the kind of top-down control by unelected bureaucrats we haven’t seen much of in the U.S.—at least until a couple of years ago.

But the truth is she adopted her strong-arm tactics before ObamaCare ever passed. Last year health insurer Humana sent out information warning seniors in its Medicare Advantage (MA) plan that an ObamaCare proposal to cut reimbursements for MA plans could have an impact on seniors’ benefits and coverage.

Well, the secretary fired off a strongly worded letter demanding that MA plans “suspend potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries about health care and insurance reform.”

But now the Boston Globe reports that Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of the largest in Massachusetts, is canceling its MA policies in three states, affecting 22,000 seniors, because of the new benefits and lower reimbursements. Expect even more unless parts of ObamaCare are rolled back.

The story raises an important question: How can insurers be “misleading” seniors when they’re right and Sebelius is wrong?

And speaking of misinformation, the secretary is handing it out in droves. In her Wall Street Journal article Sebelius asserts—astoundingly—that the health insurance market needs a Leviathan because it is almost totally unregulated. “These critics seem to believe that any oversight of the insurance industry is too much, and that consumers would be better off in a system where they have few rights or protections. … Over the past decade, Americans have seen what happens when health insurance companies have free rein,” she writes.

I’m speechless. Reasonable people can disagree over whether more or different regulations are needed for the health insurance industry, but no reasonable person can assert that health insurers have “free rein.”

Every state has an insurance commissioner—Sebelius was one herself—that monitors health as well as other types of insurance. Every state sets insurer entry rules. And if state regulators are dissatisfied with a health insurer’s performance, they can audit the company, fine it or boot it out. Some states are stricter than other states, but there is no “free rein” in health insurance. The secretary knows it and it is blatant “misinformation” to claim there is.

In the article, Sebelius also complains about rising health insurance premiums when she was governor. But she knows better than most that state laws and regulations have a major impact on the cost of health insurance. That’s why people in Pennsylvania can buy a health insurance policy for about half or less what the same policy would cost in neighboring New Jersey.

And while Sebelius’s home state of Kansas isn’t the worst state for health insurance regulations, it isn’t great. There are health insurers that do very well in other states that won’t even apply to sell in Kansas because of the state’s regulatory burden. That reduced competition means fewer choices and higher health insurance prices for Kansans—higher prices that she complains about.

It’s because every state regulates health insurance differently that Republicans want to increase competition, and perhaps lower prices, by allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. That means people living in one state could buy a health insurance policy that is regulated and being sold in another state.

But if Sebelius wants the “misinformation” campaign to stop, then she needs to talk to the president—because it’s the administration that’s misinforming the public. Heavy-handed warnings and demands that insurers get on the ObamaCare bandwagon are alienating both the health care industry and the public. As Michael Barone might say, it looks a lot like “gangster government.”

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas.

[JW]

I used to be very ambivilent about term limits because if you happen to elect a good one you want to keep them around but the more I've considered the matter I have decded that term limits woul be something I will agree with. Good one or no these elected public sevnts have got to be fully aware that they are on a mission for the people and limiting their time in the District of Coitus keeps them from being seduced by the perception of power..I also believe that every elected public servant should have to pay into the system,just like every body else and have to save for retirement and not collecte a salary for the rest of their lives just for serving only one term.....
I also believe that WE should go back to the appointment of Senators by State Congresses, that keeps the Senators much closer to the people and if a Senator goes to "that place" and screws off against the will of the people then it's just a matter of the state Congress recalling them and WE're not stuck with them for a full term....The power base must be returned to the people...................

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Mr. Mathews chiding of Ms. Sebelius, although absolutely correct, highlights those previously uncovered, ugly, and currently developing details about obamacare that the politicians didn't know about when they voted YES on the bill.
We have a responsibility to vote out ANY politician who votes on legislation without even reading the bill. I don't care if the bill is a thousand pages long. I don't care if the leaders of both houses tell us we NEED it in a hurry.
Hopefully the sounds of a THIRD PARTY (TEA PARTY) entering the houses of congress will forever stop this kind of insanity. If not then TERM LIMITS shall be our next priority.