Insurers Using Familiar Playbook to Protect Profits in California For the next two months, Californians will to be subjected to a barrage of TV, radio and online ads, which, ironically, they unknowingly will be paying for with their health insurance premiums. The ads are a part of a multipronged, multimillion-dollar campaign -- developed by public relations, advertising firms and political consultants for the state's biggest insurers -- to convince voters that an initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot designed to protect them against unreasonable rate increases will actually cause their premiums to go up. As of last week, a small handful of health insurers had contributed tens of millions of dollars to an organization called Californians Against Higher Health Care Costs. If you think the companies' CEOs opened their personal checkbooks to finance that group's work, think again. It is their customers that are paying for the propaganda campaign. Californians Against Higher Health Care Costs (CAHHCC) is not a grassroots, consumer-led organization as the name implies. If you check out its website, you'll read that it's a "coalition of doctors, nurses, hospitals, health plans, and California employers" who want the state's residents to vote against Proposition 45, which would give the state's insurance regulators the ability to reject health insurance rate increases they deem excessive. But while a number of business and health care provider groups presumably have joined the coalition, it doesn't appear that any of them have put any money on the table. According to state filings, the campaign is being financed almost exclusively by five insurers with the most customers in the state: Anthem/WellPoint, Blue Shield of California, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Health Net, and UnitedHealthcare. Of $37.9 million donated to CAHHCC as of August 22, $37.3 million came from those insurers and their PR and lobbying group, the California Association of Health Plans. The rest came from a small group of insurance brokers and their PR and lobbying groups, the California Association of Health Underwriters and the National Association of Health Underwriters. The main argument cited by these groups' opposition to Proposition 45 is that it might interfere with the efforts of Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, to provide individuals and small businesses with affordable coverage options in a timely fashion. California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, who is up for re-election this year, rejects that argument. In a letter to state lawmakers this summer, Jones wrote that if voters pass Proposition 45, his department -- which has long had the ability to reject proposed rate increases from auto and property and casualty insurers -- will work cooperatively with other state agencies "to ensure that rates are reviewed and approved to meet Covered California... deadlines." Jones also pointed out that insurance regulators in 35 other states already have the ability to disapprove unreasonable rate increases, and he offered a point-by-point rebuttal of a report commissioned by the insurance industry that suggested Proposition 45 could undermine provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Jones wrote that his department has had more than three years' experience reviewing individual and small group health insurance rates under the federal reform law "including experience last year completing review of health insurance rates in time to meet Covered California's deadlines to allow health insurers to offer health insurance in the California exchange." As a former health insurance company executive, I'd be willing to bet that the state's health insurers care far less about meeting Covered California's deadlines than meeting their profit goals. Their real concern, in my opinion, is that regulators with more experience reviewing insurers' business practices than Covered California staffers might be more likely to detect proposed rate increases designed more to pad their bottom lines than to cover expected increases in medical costs. According to the Los Angeles Times, a recent poll showed that 69 percent of registered California voters support Proposition 45, which means that the health insurers have their work cut out for them. But $38 million deployed strategically can change a lot of minds. And insurers know from successful campaigns they've conducted in the past that carefully targeted negative ads -- and the use of front groups and surrogates -- can quickly turn public opinion.. Having been a part of planning and implementing such campaigns in my previous career, I can tell that the industry is conducting a "bifurcated" campaign in California. The industry's message for conservatives, communicated by its allies in publications like Breitbart.com, is that if a Proposition 45 passes, Democrat Jones would become a health care "czar" empowered to destroy the "free market." Another message for conservatives is that it would enable "trial lawyers who fund Jones's campaigns" to get rich by intervening on behalf of health plan members and policyholders in the rate-approval process by filing "frivolous lawsuits" against health insurers. The industry's key message to scare liberals, communicated by its "coalition," is showing up in media seldom seen by most conservatives. Some of that $38 million was spent last week on an ad in Salon.com featuring a large picture of President Barack Obama and this message: "Protect Obamacare from Legal Attacks. Prop 45's Dirty Little Secret: More Attacks Against Obamacare. Vote No on 45!" Wendell Potter
In all honesty, I get your point. But you can't be so short sighted as to think rates won't go up if Prop 45 passes. Follow the bouncing ball, if you will. Prop 45 passes and the state regulators now can reject health care premiums they deem excessive, what happens? They do just that, and the insurers begin to leave the state of California because they just can't make their models work in that state. It's happened already. Less insurers means less competition. Eventually, prices on policies go up no matter what. So they're right when they say premiums will eventually go up because of it.
On the one hand, most states already have this authority. On the other, when was the last time democrats in California proposed something that turned out to be a good idea? The problem here is that democrats know massive rate increases are coming courtesy of obamacare. They want to be able to blame greedy insurance companies ranther than accept the blame themselves.
It should be illegal to sell health insurance in USA. I'm all for insurance. Everybody should buy it to protect your business.
Right to Work Increases Jobs and Choices By James Sherk 30 Email Print PDF Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws. Right-to-work laws reduce the financial benefit from organizing workplaces where unions have limited support. This makes unions less aggressive and encourages business investment, creating jobs. States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states. Right-to-Work Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs. Workers must pay 1 percent to 2 percent of their wages in dues, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1] To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills. Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out The union movement strongly opposes right-to-work laws. It has self-interested motives in doing so: Union membership fell 15 percent after Idaho and Oklahoma passed right-to-work laws.[2] Most of the union-represented workers who choose not to pay dues when given the option are those who do not benefit from union contracts. Disproportionate numbers of highly educated workers, for example, choose not to pay dues—the very workers held back by union seniority systems.[3] Without the threat of losing their jobs, the union movement will not persuade these workers to pay dues. Making union membership voluntary would save workers—and cost unions—a lot of money. Losing 15 percent of their dues-paying members would cost private-sector New Hampshire unions $1.9 million a year. Right-to-work would similarly save private-sector workers in Indiana $18.4 million a year. In Michigan, right-to-work would save workers $46.4 million a year. [4] Giving workers a choice means less money for unions. Less Aggressive Union Organizers For the same reason, right-to-work reduces the aggressiveness of union organizers. Making union membership voluntary reduces the financial incentives for unions to target workplaces where they have lukewarm support. Even if they win, unions cannot force reluctant workers to pay dues. Research shows that union organizing falls 50 percent within five years of a state passing a right-to-work law.[5] Workers who feel mistreated have the right to unionize. Right-to-work laws encourage union organizers to restrict their attention to such workers. Increased Investment in Right-to-Work States Right-to-work states are much more attractive for businesses investment. Unionized firms earn lower profits, invest less, and create fewer jobs than comparable nonunion firms.[6] Boeing’s decision to build a new plant in South Carolina—a right-to-work state—illustrates a larger trend. Businesses consider the presence (or absence) of a right-to-work law a major factor when deciding where to locate.[7] It was no accident that foreign automobile brands located their U.S. plants primarily in right-to-work states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Research suggests that foreign direct investment in Oklahoma and Idaho increased after these states passed right-to-work laws.[8]
More Jobs States that attract more investment should create more jobs. In fact, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates (9.2 percent) than states without right-to-work laws (9.9 percent).[9] However, right-to-work states exist predominantly in the South and West. Their lower unemployment rates could simply reflect regional differences. To get around this problem, researchers have studied neighboring counties on state borders with and without right-to-work laws. Such counties share the same geography and economic environment, but their main difference is the presence of a right-to-work law on one side of the border. The share of manufacturing jobs in counties in right-to-work states is one-third higher than in adjacent counties in non–right-to-work states.[10] Right-to-work laws attract jobs. Wage Effects Small Economic theory does not predict how right-to-work laws affect wages. Unions restrict the supply of jobs in unionized companies. This reduces the pay of nonunion workers—they do not have as many good job opportunities—while raising the wages of union members. The additional business investment a right-to-work law attracts usually raises the demand for labor, increasing wages. Yet unions argue that businesses will cut wages if the risk of union organizing falls. These factors largely cancel each other. Most studies show that right-to-work laws have little effect on wages in either direction.[11] Right-to-work states do have lower average wages than non–right-to-work states, but this is because they are located primarily in the South, which was once much less developed than the North and still has a lower cost of living. Research controlling for this shows that workers in right-to-work states have, if anything, slightly higher wages.[12] Members-Only Contracts Permissible In a free society, workers should not have to financially support organizations they oppose. Unions justify forced dues by arguing that the law requires them to represent non-members. They argue that right-to-work laws allow workers to free-ride off of union contracts—enjoying the benefits without paying the costs. This interprets the law selectively. Unions do not have to represent workers who do not pay dues. They can negotiate contracts that apply only to their members. The law requires unions to represent nonmembers only if they negotiate as “exclusive bargaining representatives.”[13] That status lets them negotiate on behalf of all workers, union and nonunion alike. If they do so, the law requires unions to bargain fairly. They cannot selectively negotiate the minimum wage for nonmembers. But unions do not have to claim exclusive representative status; they could negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. Unions almost never do this. They prefer exclusive representative status because it enables them to get a better contract for their supporters. Consider seniority systems: They ensure that everyone gets raises and promotions at the same rate, irrespective of individual performance. If a union negotiated a members-only contract with a seniority system, high-performing workers would refuse to join. Those workers would negotiate a separate contract with performance pay. The best workers would get ahead faster, leaving less money and fewer positions available for those on the seniority scale. The union wants everyone in the seniority system—especially those it holds back. In non–right-to-work states, the law allows unions to force nonmembers to accept the union contract. The law should not force workers who are disadvantaged by these contracts to pay union dues. Unions could choose to represent only their members. Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs. However, right-to-work laws appear to have little effect on wages. Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs.
Higher Fast-Food Wages: Higher Fast-Food Prices By James Sherk http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/higher-fast-food-wages-higher-fast-food-prices
Raise Minimum Wage, Kill Jobs By Steve H. Hanke http://www.cato.org/blog/raise-minimum-wage-kill-jobs