Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) introduced a bill called the Affordable Health Choices Act[1] that seeks to bring the government to the forefront of health coverage, displacing many existing providers from this role.

This replacement won’t come cheap to taxpayers, either. According to the Cato Institute, the expected cost of this bill amounts to 1-1.5 trillion dollars[2]. This would commit each citizen of the United States including dependants, homeless, and unemployed to pay between $4,000 and $6,000 dollars within the next decade to dismantle an existing private sector that already has similar interests in mind.

The role of the government is to regulate existing private jobs in order to protect both the citizens that rely on their services and the market itself from those who seek to harm domestic markets. This bill seems to lose sight of that, as instead of assisting and regulating private sectors, Kennedy seeks to replace portions of the existing industry.

Insurance companies aren’t opposed to universal health care coverage—quite the contrary. Insurance companies would like everyone to be covered in case anything happens, but this bill would cut out consumers options in what they want covered. Instead of being able to choose more or less coverage as it fits your lifestyle, you would be subject to the same expenses and burdens as everyone around you. An office worker would be paying the same as a worker in the demolitions field for health insurance.

Next is the role of a “Navigator’s Program” mentioned within the bill. Insurance News & Views expresses this program’s role in great clarity:

“[The Navigators grant program] would award grants to public and private entities to conduct public education, distribute information and assist with health insurance enrollment. The legislation specifically states that health insurance issuers, including agents, would be prohibited from participating in the grant program.”[3]

Consumers should be informed. The navigator’s program aims to encourage people to understand the decisions they should make as it pertains to insurance enrollment. However, to encourage those who are completely unaffiliated with insurance to do so is folly. Insurance agents exist specifically for this purpose. It is our jobs to inform the consumer about what exactly policies cover and don’t, and suggest routes that make the most sense tailored specifically to the varying needs of each individual. By removing the agents from this grant, Kennedy is setting up a scenario where the blind lead the blind.

Imagine a scenario where an individual, under the advice of someone from the navigators program, buys a policy. They get sick or injured, and find out that the incomplete advice they received led them to purchase a policy that does not cover a service that was necessary and was available. That individual has no recourse from the program or advisor and no way to get the services they need for the medical care, except out of his/her pocket. In any market in the United States, that would be labeled a scam. Professional advice which competitive market choice of coverage or products needs to remain available in health reform to prevent scenarios such as the above example.

sources:

[1]. http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

[2]. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10289

[3]. http://www.iiaba.net/IAMag/NewsViews/061109.html