The unintended consequences of ObamaCare continue to pile up. The latest is that some insurance companies are now refusing to write new policies that cover children as individuals, reports the Associated Press.

The reason, according to the AP: “Starting later this year, the health care overhaul law requires insurers to accept children regardless of medical problems. Insurers are worried that parents will wait until kids get sick to sign them up, saddling the companies with unpredictable costs.”

This is, in fact, a very well-founded fear. RomneyCare, the Massachusetts prototype for ObamaCare, has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in individuals who buy health insurance and then cancel within six months — obviously because, knowing that insurers can’t refuse them for pre-existing conditions, they wait until they need insurance to purchase it and then drop it once they are well again. This, in turn, “is driving up the cost of coverage for everyone else,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans of Washington, D.C.

Of course, most children are covered under their parents’ employer-based insurance or government programs, which won’t be affected by this mandate; but, says the AP, “industry officials estimate that children’s policies account for 8 percent of single coverage plans sold directly to consumers.”

The insurance commissioners of both Florida and Oklahoma have stated that some insurance companies in their states have stopped issuing new policies that cover children as individuals. In Florida, at least, the insurers in question are heavyweights — UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield — which does not bode well for such coverage in other states.

Alissa Fox, a lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, expressed concern that parents may wait until a child becomes ill before purchasing health insurance for that child and that “there is nothing in the law that would stop a hospital from buying a policy for a [sic] uninsured child who came into the emergency room,” as the AP paraphrased her comments.

“Insurance companies and state insurance commissioners are pressing the federal government to require an open enrollment period for the guaranteed children’s coverage, which is one of the main early benefits of the health law,” reports the AP. “Parents could only get the guaranteed coverage during a designated month each year.” This is similar to the way many employer-based and government health insurance programs handle enrollment, and it would prevent most cases of parents’ waiting until the last minute to buy needed insurance for their children.

The AP adds that “state officials have also brought the problem to the attention of the Obama administration,” but “there was no immediate response from the administration.”

Additional regulations, however, will not solve the underlying problem; they will merely put a government-issued bandage on top of a gaping, government-created wound. Third-party healthcare payments, themselves a result of government policy, coupled with government regulations and programs, have brought us to the current pass. ObamaCare is merely the addition of a Mt. Everest of mandates, regulations, and programs on top of the existing Mt. McKinley of them. To that will be added another heap or two of regulations to fix the problems created by Everest, until finally the whole mountain comes tumbling down.

Yes, the problem of uninsured children needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed at the root of government interference in the market, not the branch of a particular mandate. ObamaCare needs to be repealed; and after that, the rest of the government healthcare edifice. The health of our children — and our country — depends on it.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Guffy Conservative said:

... ObamaCare needs to be repealed; and after that, the rest of the government healthcare edifice. The health of our children — and our country — depends on it. Amen.

July 26, 2010 | url

Emily said:

... Hi, I see you are referencing an Insurance News article about short-term insurance users in Massachusetts. You must have missed this other article about the Massachusetts Division of Insurance report that comes to a different conclusion than the one from Robert Zirkelbach: "Although the number of short-term health insurance subscribers in recent years significantly increased in Massachusetts' nongroup and small group health insurance markets, it did not dramatically increase health insurers' costs, according to an analysis released in June by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance's Health Care Access Bureau." http://www.groupbrokerageinsurance.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=52104 I'm sure you want to present fair and balanced information so I thought I should fill in this missing piece of information!

July 26, 2010

John Foster said:

... This is yet another example of why trying to kludge together a private market solution to health insurance is insane. The obvious answer is Single Payer. Medicare for all. Then we wouldn't have insurers trying to race each other to the bottom to see who can offer the worst product in order to minimize costs and maximize shareholder (not consumer) value.

July 26, 2010

Daniel said:

CEO John, Not every insurance company is looking to maximize anything for shareholders because not every insurance company is owned by shareholders. If you didn't know this, now you do. Mutual companies such as, Mutual of Omaha is owned by the policy owners who when the time comes vote on who they feel is right for the job of running the company, and to add to this you get dividend checks from Mutual companies not the stockholders (so its as if you yourself was the stockholder). Learn before you speak!

July 27, 2010

Robert said:

Welcome! John, Firstly, I'd like to welcome you to America. Obviously you are not familiar with our ways here, friend, so let me take a moment to explain. Medicare is based upon our taxes, mainly from the 2 Medicare Trust Funds headed by the US Treasury Department. According to the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) close to 45.2 million Americans were covered by Medicare based coverage in 2009. That's nearly 15% of the 305 million Americans in our country at that time. The Medicare taxation amount is 7.65% and the current average household income is around $45k so let's do some math... $45,000 X .0765 = $3442.5 per person, per year in FICA taxes. There are 260,000,000 people that remain without Medicare each year. $3442.5 X 260,000,000 = 895,050,000,000. That's almost a trillon bucks in taxes! Let's keep in mind that although not everyone has Medicare, although you may want them to, they still pay taxes just in case. So what does that mean for the average American? That means a nearly 341% increase in taxation! That's over $15,000 in yearly taxation.... Would you rather pay $200 a month for private health care or $1200 a month for Single Payer gov't insurance? (that is missing 20% coverage) Glad you're now an American and can enjoy your new Single Payer plan with the rest of us smucks! Yippee!!

July 27, 2010