This is not lining up against Obama Care in my eyes, it’s rather saying that it is almost non Constitutional to force citizens to purchase insurance from companies that are actively traded on the stock market and have a responsibility to shareholders first, rather than the insured. I have made mention of this many times in the last few months and in a way it does make sense. If the health insurers we have today were in fact non profit and focused more on healthcare rather than dividend payments we may not be seeing this type of activity.
Why should individuals be forced to purchase insurance in this fashion? In some states there are choices and there are some good non profits like Kaiser Permanente, and hospitals that are non profits that are used frequently as role models, such as the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic. If these are the models being non profit that are working better for healthcare, why should consumers have to invest in the others. In some area where acquisitions and mergers have occurred, consumers may not have a choice. This is also one more big issue in many states with lack of competition, so if the ones traded on the stock market are the only game in town, well, you are kind of stuck.
Nobody will ever trust this type of business and openly share information for the betterment of healthcare as long as the potential of being dropped or having inadequate coverage hangs over their heads. It’s just plain and simple not a good business model today. It may have worked in years past but we have come to a crossroads today that needs to be changed. After the big bail outs of the banks and other firms on Wall Street, do you think there’s any incentive to have “for profit” carriers who serve the interest of investors to have any real success?
They are part of the environment and with current business models with algorithmic formulas used to “score” and “cherry pick” human lives for profit, there will never be any sort of peace. Times are changing. BD
WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today Virginia became the first state in the nation to enact legislation to protect their citizens from being forced to purchase health insurance or participate in any health care system against their will. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has identified 37 other states that have similar bills pending or have announced that they will introduce this legislation. Already, at least one house of the legislatures in Idaho, Missouri, and Tennessee have also passed such legislation.
These legislative initiatives are based on ALEC's model Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. Under the legislation, any state attempt to require an individual to purchase health insurance—or forbid an individual from purchasing services outside of the required health care system—would be rendered unconstitutional. The measure may also cause a federalism clash if Congress passes a law with either of these provisions.
The Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act has already been filed or prefiled in 33 states—Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Lawmakers in an additional four states—Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Utah—have publicly announced their intentions to file the legislation. A citizen-led initiative has also been announced in Colorado.