ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Boehner Requests, Receives, Then Criticizes Health Care Reform Transparency

Our guest blogger is Emma Sandoe, a Health Care Researcher at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Last week, House Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent a letter to the White House with a list of requests for the February 25th bipartisan health care reform summit. In it, he asked the White House to post the text of a compromised bill online:

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Well, the White House sent its official invites to Congressional leaders late Friday, and the text of the invite suggests that a final compromise between the House and Senate health bills will, in fact, be posted online prior to the meeting.

So according to Boehner’s statement from last week, this means there is an ability to move forward in a bipartisan way. But he apparently thinks differently now:

A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper,” Boehner said in a statement. “We now know that instead of starting the ‘bipartisan’ health care ‘summit’ on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats — a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation’s economy and affect every family and small business in America.”

Boehner’s request shows the Republicans appear confused and once again have chosen obstruction over honest engagement. With its invite, the White House has adhered to several more of Boehner’s demands, including inviting the Congressional Budget Office and allowing additional staff and Congressional leaders to attend. Yet, the Republicans still aren’t assuaged.

While Boehner argues there is little point to meeting if the final bill has already been negotiated, consider the alternative. If Congressional leaders were to meet without any formal proposals, this discussion would become one regarding hypotheticals rather than concrete policies. By posting the a compromised bill online, Democrats and the White House are putting their cards on the table, hoping Republicans will show theirs as well. What will be posted online will not be a final bill. The White House would not post legislative language of a final House and Senate compromise, if such a compromise truly existed. Rather, what ends up online will likely be a series of proposed compromises, which could have the potential for improvement through honest negotiations, if the Republicans were willing.

The Difference In Selling Insurance Across State Lines

Our guest blogger is Emma Sandoe, a Health Care Researcher at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

As Democratic and Republican leaders make their final preparations for the February 25th bipartisan health summit, Republicans continue to argue for selling insurance policies across state lines — a provision already in both the House and Senate bills.

This weekend David Herszenhorn of the New York Times noted that while Republicans and Democrats may agree on the idea of selling across state lines, their respective paths to accomplishing this goal couldn’t be more different. Some experts argue, if done incorrectly this could become “a race to the bottom.”

Republicans argue the current insurance system, in which each state has its own set of regulations, restricts competition in the marketplace with the added barrier of 50 different sets of insurance regulations. Their proposal allows the health insurer to self-designate a “primary state” “whose covered laws shall govern the health insurance issuer” and avoids regulations in other states by allowing insurers to market policies without adhering “to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the state.” U.S. territories such as the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas were given the title of “states” in the Republican bill under the definition of a “primary state.” This could lead to insurers finding sanctuary in less regulated havens.

Despite claims that selling policies across state lines would serve to expand insurance options and lower costs to consumers, the Congressional Budget Office found older and sicker individuals who continue to purchase in-state expanded coverage plans would likely pay more under the Republican proposal. The ability to sell across state lines coupled with meager benefit standards induces insurers to cover fewer benefits and move their operations to states, or territories, with the least regulation.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), a long time proponent of selling across state lines, argued, “if you turn on the television station at night…you see Allstate and Geico and Progressive and State Farm pounding each other’s heads in…You never see that kind of advertisement for you and I to go out and buy health insurance.” While more competition is needed in the health insurance market, a desire for greater competition should not put benefit standards at risk. Transparent and accessible information on policies, the health insurance exchange, and enforceable fair practices in the health insurance market will go a long way to increase competition without reducing benefits under comprehensive reform.

The House and Senate bills, meanwhile, provide for more regulated “compacts” to “facilitate the purchase of individual health insurance coverage across State lines.” The House bill allows residents of one state to buy health coverage from another state and the laws applied would be determined between the states. The Senate bill also allows states to enter “compacts” with other states, but rather than negotiate which laws would apply, the laws from the original state where the policy is issued or written would govern the policy.

Theoretically the plans sold under the Office of Personnel Management would also achieve the goals of selling policies across state lines, although the Congressional Budget Office cast doubts on the chances insurers would participate.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up