WENDELL POTTER on health reform bill: "There is a lot of new oversight of the insurance industry"

[ProSense]

BILL MOYERS: Is the president essentially saying that the gist of this bill is oversight of the insurance industry?

WENDELL POTTER: Much of it is. There is a lot of new oversight of the insurance industry that this legislation would bring at the federal level. There's-- there has not been anywhere close to adequate oversight of the insurance industry at either the federal or state level, and most of the regulation occurs at the state level, and it varies from state to state.

What we're seeing is regulation can work, but it can only work if the insurance departments have adequate resources and if they understand the importance of regulation. And there needs to be a federal component, because a lot of states don't do it adequately. It has been deregulated, or there has been deregulation a lot of states. And we have seen these price increases go up, and in a lot of states, the insurance coverage is woefully inadequate because there aren't many customer protections in the new states.

<...>

BILL MOYERS: So I hear Wendell Potter saying that if he were in the Senate or the House, he would vote for this reform?

WENDELL POTTER: I would vote for it. I was distraught when I saw what happened, what I saw the Senate voting on. But then I realized, you know, I studied a lot of these efforts over the past many years to get reform. And often we've come short because we've tried to get the perfect, and we've never been able to get anything as a consequence. So I fear that we may be--

BILL MOYERS: Not since Medicare, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Not since Medicare.

link

[jody]

1. We had oversight of the financial industry and look at how that turned out. n/t

[cutlassmama]

3. Then there was "deregulation". Give this a chance.

[HappyCynic]

17. Oversight

That happened because there was a failure of oversight, not because there was oversight.

[hulka38]

2. The entire SEC was turned into a zombie.

[depakid]

4. Looks like it's working well in the model- Massachusetts

Health insurers seeking rate hike

8-32%

http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/03/06/health_rate_hikes_flout_new_state_cap/

[andym]

5. It's too early to say: the regulators haven't approved the MA increases

"Patrick last month said the state Division of Insurance would review rate increases exceeding 4.8 percent as part of a broader effort to rein in health care expenses. If the insurers’ latest round of increases is rejected, it would mark the first time Massachusetts has capped health insurance rates."

I would hope that they reject them just in an attempt to hold down medical cost inflation.

I only wish California regulators had the legal power to block health insurers' rate increases. It would be very helpful here.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-26/news/17957301_1_rate-hikes-health-rates-rate-increases

[depakid]

7. Some states DO have the legal power and the duty- though it's rarely exercised

Hence, I'm skeptical of whether this new authority will, by itself, make much if any difference.

Better than nothing, to be sure- though in practice, that's what we often end up with.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. He also says about the Insurance Industry:

"Well, the way the legislation is structured, this will give them a lot of new business. And millions and millions, billions of dollars in new revenue, and much of it coming from taxpayers in the form of subsidies over ten years-- about half a trillion dollars will come from the US government to help cover the premiums, for people who otherwise couldn't afford to pay those premiums. So yeah, they will win. There's no doubt."

[ProSense]

8. Considering that the insurance industry and RW are claiming the mandate is unconstitutional, this

point outweighs that:

WENDELL POTTER: But there have been some improvements. People who are on dialysis, for example, they can you know, they now are qualified for the Medicare program. That's an improvement. And people with disabilities are eligible for Medicare. So, it can change. And who knows? Maybe in the years to come, there can be other substantial changes to Medicare and Medicaid, that will be beneficial to all of us. But yes, this is important. We need to have a foundation. And this may seem to be not an adequate foundation for a lot of people, but there are more than 50 million people in this country who don't have insurance. I don't want to go back and tell them, "I'm sorry. We just couldn't get a good enough bill. So you're going to have to wait to who knows when. Maybe you won't live long enough." 45 thousand people, Bill, die every year because they don't have health insurance coverage. And that's recent. In years to come, that will increase. People can't wait any longer.

[Cha]

9. Thank you for this..all this

is very encouraging.

[jenmito]

10. So? He's a Corporatist! Of COURSE he's for this-he's from a big insurance company!

Oh, wait... :sarcasm:

[jeanpalmer]

11. "I was distraught...."

but "I would vote for it." He sounds like he should be in Congress, he would fit perfectly. Everyone is caving, throwing principle overboard, to mandate high cost insurance for everyone.

[jenmito]

12. Being a purist like you and Jane Hamsher gets NOTHING done. I'm glad most liberals in Congress

are smart enough to realize this bill is WAY better than nothing.

[Go2Peace]

13. The apologists have so little to point to. So there will be some regulation. Good.

That is a good thing. But it is so much less than is needed. Why does that invalidate that people expect more? Why is it being a "purist" to push and expect more?

Well it isn't. The "talking point" brigade just likes to fight people who want democracy to work and Democrats to act on behalf of the people.

[ProSense]

14. "That is a good thing. But it is so much less than is needed." Yeah, because that is all that's

in the bill?

"Why is it being a "purist" to push and expect more?"

How does pushing for more equate to killing the bill?

[Go2Peace]

16. Your mistaken - I am not for killing the bill

Though I would prefer at this point that they break out the regulatory components and anti-monoploy components, and push and get those done, rather than pass this terribly weak and compromised bill that essentially bribes the insurance companies to keep them quiet and happy.

But at this point if this is my only option I am for it.

If that is a pursist position I have a bridge to sell you.

[Raine1967]

15. It's time people understood something,

Doing nothing is no longer an option.

I think Mr. Potter gets this.


I get it.

I wish more people would.