Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[...]Last week, confronting a perfect storm of policy snafus and public indignation, the president announced that he would allow health insurers to renew current policies for an additional year. But he left the final decision to the companies or state authorities, who promptly warned that the result would be higher premiums.
That, not the cancellations or the HealthCare.gov website, is the fundamental problem with the Affordable Care Act: The law places no limits on the price insurance companies can charge for the coverage we are required to buy. This was no drafting error. In 2010, neither Congress nor the White House wanted to risk the opposition of the powerful insurance industry.
Thus it's no surprise that the insurers are now jacking up premiums and copays while limiting prescription drug benefits and dumping doctors and hospitals from their networks.
California lawmakers made a similar egregious error in 1984 when they passed a law requiring residents to buy automobile insurance but failed to regulate prices. So, of course, the insurance companies took advantage, imposing double- or triple-digit premium increases. A voter revolt ensued.
And therein lies the solution to the current healthcare law debacle.
Twenty-five years ago this month, angry California voters passed a ballot measure to stringently control automobile, as well as home and business, insurance premiums. An unprecedented $63-million campaign by the insurance industry could not stop the grass-roots rebellion. In a historic upset, Proposition 103 swept away decades of deregulation, discriminatory practices and barriers to competition in the insurance marketplace.
The voters also enacted critical protections against any last-minute chicanery by insurance companies before implementation of their reforms. For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989.[...]
Proposition 103 did not originally apply to health insurance, unfortunately. To remedy that, Consumer Watchdog has qualified an initiative for the November 2014 ballot that would place health insurance companies doing business in California under Proposition 103's regulatory controls. The nation will be watching as California voters once again lead the way in insurance reform, this time with a state-based strategy to close the loophole in the Affordable Care Act.
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
[...]Last week, confronting a perfect storm of policy snafus and public indignation, the president announced that he would allow health insurers to renew current policies for an additional year. But he left the final decision to the companies or state authorities, who promptly warned that the result would be higher premiums.
That, not the cancellations or the HealthCare.gov website, is the fundamental problem with the Affordable Care Act: The law places no limits on the price insurance companies can charge for the coverage we are required to buy. This was no drafting error. In 2010, neither Congress nor the White House wanted to risk the opposition of the powerful insurance industry.
Thus it's no surprise that the insurers are now jacking up premiums and copays while limiting prescription drug benefits and dumping doctors and hospitals from their networks.
California lawmakers made a similar egregious error in 1984 when they passed a law requiring residents to buy automobile insurance but failed to regulate prices. So, of course, the insurance companies took advantage, imposing double- or triple-digit premium increases. A voter revolt ensued.
And therein lies the solution to the current healthcare law debacle.
Twenty-five years ago this month, angry California voters passed a ballot measure to stringently control automobile, as well as home and business, insurance premiums. An unprecedented $63-million campaign by the insurance industry could not stop the grass-roots rebellion. In a historic upset, Proposition 103 swept away decades of deregulation, discriminatory practices and barriers to competition in the insurance marketplace.
The voters also enacted critical protections against any last-minute chicanery by insurance companies before implementation of their reforms. For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989.[...]
Proposition 103 did not originally apply to health insurance, unfortunately. To remedy that, Consumer Watchdog has qualified an initiative for the November 2014 ballot that would place health insurance companies doing business in California under Proposition 103's regulatory controls. The nation will be watching as California voters once again lead the way in insurance reform, this time with a state-based strategy to close the loophole in the Affordable Care Act.
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
[...]Last week, confronting a perfect storm of policy snafus and public indignation, the president announced that he would allow health insurers to renew current policies for an additional year. But he left the final decision to the companies or state authorities, who promptly warned that the result would be higher premiums.
That, not the cancellations or the HealthCare.gov website, is the fundamental problem with the Affordable Care Act: The law places no limits on the price insurance companies can charge for the coverage we are required to buy. This was no drafting error. In 2010, neither Congress nor the White House wanted to risk the opposition of the powerful insurance industry.
Thus it's no surprise that the insurers are now jacking up premiums and copays while limiting prescription drug benefits and dumping doctors and hospitals from their networks.
California lawmakers made a similar egregious error in 1984 when they passed a law requiring residents to buy automobile insurance but failed to regulate prices. So, of course, the insurance companies took advantage, imposing double- or triple-digit premium increases. A voter revolt ensued.
And therein lies the solution to the current healthcare law debacle.
Twenty-five years ago this month, angry California voters passed a ballot measure to stringently control automobile, as well as home and business, insurance premiums. An unprecedented $63-million campaign by the insurance industry could not stop the grass-roots rebellion. In a historic upset, Proposition 103 swept away decades of deregulation, discriminatory practices and barriers to competition in the insurance marketplace.
The voters also enacted critical protections against any last-minute chicanery by insurance companies before implementation of their reforms. For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989.[...]
Proposition 103 did not originally apply to health insurance, unfortunately. To remedy that, Consumer Watchdog has qualified an initiative for the November 2014 ballot that would place health insurance companies doing business in California under Proposition 103's regulatory controls. The nation will be watching as California voters once again lead the way in insurance reform, this time with a state-based strategy to close the loophole in the Affordable Care Act.
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
Yes!
It is Lib Paradise. First we mandate a bunch of stuff that increases prices. Then we mandate the prices.
Shit, let's just mandate that doctors work free and hospitals don't charge.
Proving yet again that Libs never took Econ 101.
For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989. Once the second-most expensive state for auto insurance in the nation, California now ranks 30th, according to the report. The federation also found that California motorists have saved more than $100 billion since 1989, an average annual savings of more than $8,000 for every household in the state. The report concludes that under Proposition 103, "California has provided auto insurance consumers the most effective and protective regulatory system" in the United States.
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
Yes!
It is Lib Paradise. First we mandate a bunch of stuff that increases prices. Then we mandate the prices.
Shit, let's just mandate that doctors work free and hospitals don't charge.
Proving yet again that Libs never took Econ 101.
Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989. Once the second-most expensive state for auto insurance in the nation, California now ranks 30th, according to the report. The federation also found that California motorists have saved more than $100 billion since 1989, an average annual savings of more than $8,000 for every household in the state. The report concludes that under Proposition 103, "California has provided auto insurance consumers the most effective and protective regulatory system" in the United States.
Typically confusing coincidence with causation. No, it isnt me denying Prop 103 was successful. It's the insurers themselves. It seems actually tort reform was responsible, as tort reform always and everywhere brings blessings to those who are not trial lawyers.And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
Yes!
It is Lib Paradise. First we mandate a bunch of stuff that increases prices. Then we mandate the prices.
Shit, let's just mandate that doctors work free and hospitals don't charge.
Proving yet again that Libs never took Econ 101.
Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
]
A competitive market, less litigation and safer vehicles have made auto insurance coverage in California, and elsewhere, more affordable for drivers, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). The I.I.I. made the observations in response to a report issued today by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which left the impression Proposition 103 was the most significant reason for this trend. "The Insurance Information Institute calculated last year that annual auto insurance expenditures for the typical U.S. driver rose only 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2012, even as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over these same 10 years grew by 27.6 percent," stated Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the I.I.I. and an economist. Indeed, the Insurance Information Network of California has noted that, since the passage of Proposition 103, several factors having nothing to do with the issues raised in that statewide ballot referendum have played a significant role in the stabilization of California's rates. They include:
* The California Supreme Court decision in 1988 to overturn its own 1979 ruling (Royal Globe), which previously allowed third parties to sue auto insurers directly for bad faith. As a result, auto-related lawsuits fell from 91,000 in 1988-89 to 42,000 in 1998-99;
* In 1990, the fatality rate on California's highways was two people per every 100 million miles driven. In 1999, it dropped to 1.19 persons. By 2011, the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven dropped to an all-time low of 1.1 persons;
* In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 213, the "no pay, no play" initiative. Under the law, uninsured motorists can receive only actual damages--medical, lost wages, etc.--and no pain and suffering compensation for injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by an insured driver;
* Safety advances such as airbags, tougher enforcement of drunken driving and governmental crackdowns on auto insurance fraud, have also contributed to reducing claim costs.
Typically confusing coincidence with causation. No, it isnt me denying Prop 103 was successful. It's the insurers themselves. It seems actually tort reform was responsible, as tort reform always and everywhere brings blessings to those who are not trial lawyers.Yes!
It is Lib Paradise. First we mandate a bunch of stuff that increases prices. Then we mandate the prices.
Shit, let's just mandate that doctors work free and hospitals don't charge.
Proving yet again that Libs never took Econ 101.
Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
]
California's Auto Insurance Market Has Changed For a Variety of Reasons Beyond Enactment of Proposition 103 25 Years Ago - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
A competitive market, less litigation and safer vehicles have made auto insurance coverage in California, and elsewhere, more affordable for drivers, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). The I.I.I. made the observations in response to a report issued today by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which left the impression Proposition 103 was the most significant reason for this trend. "The Insurance Information Institute calculated last year that annual auto insurance expenditures for the typical U.S. driver rose only 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2012, even as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over these same 10 years grew by 27.6 percent," stated Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the I.I.I. and an economist. Indeed, the Insurance Information Network of California has noted that, since the passage of Proposition 103, several factors having nothing to do with the issues raised in that statewide ballot referendum have played a significant role in the stabilization of California's rates. They include:
* The California Supreme Court decision in 1988 to overturn its own 1979 ruling (Royal Globe), which previously allowed third parties to sue auto insurers directly for bad faith. As a result, auto-related lawsuits fell from 91,000 in 1988-89 to 42,000 in 1998-99;
* In 1990, the fatality rate on California's highways was two people per every 100 million miles driven. In 1999, it dropped to 1.19 persons. By 2011, the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven dropped to an all-time low of 1.1 persons;
* In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 213, the "no pay, no play" initiative. Under the law, uninsured motorists can receive only actual damages--medical, lost wages, etc.--and no pain and suffering compensation for injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by an insured driver;
* Safety advances such as airbags, tougher enforcement of drunken driving and governmental crackdowns on auto insurance fraud, have also contributed to reducing claim costs.
Typically confusing coincidence with causation. No, it isnt me denying Prop 103 was successful. It's the insurers themselves. It seems actually tort reform was responsible, as tort reform always and everywhere brings blessings to those who are not trial lawyers.Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
]
California's Auto Insurance Market Has Changed For a Variety of Reasons Beyond Enactment of Proposition 103 25 Years Ago - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
A competitive market, less litigation and safer vehicles have made auto insurance coverage in California, and elsewhere, more affordable for drivers, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). The I.I.I. made the observations in response to a report issued today by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which left the impression Proposition 103 was the most significant reason for this trend. "The Insurance Information Institute calculated last year that annual auto insurance expenditures for the typical U.S. driver rose only 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2012, even as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over these same 10 years grew by 27.6 percent," stated Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the I.I.I. and an economist. Indeed, the Insurance Information Network of California has noted that, since the passage of Proposition 103, several factors having nothing to do with the issues raised in that statewide ballot referendum have played a significant role in the stabilization of California's rates. They include:
* The California Supreme Court decision in 1988 to overturn its own 1979 ruling (Royal Globe), which previously allowed third parties to sue auto insurers directly for bad faith. As a result, auto-related lawsuits fell from 91,000 in 1988-89 to 42,000 in 1998-99;
* In 1990, the fatality rate on California's highways was two people per every 100 million miles driven. In 1999, it dropped to 1.19 persons. By 2011, the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven dropped to an all-time low of 1.1 persons;
* In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 213, the "no pay, no play" initiative. Under the law, uninsured motorists can receive only actual damages--medical, lost wages, etc.--and no pain and suffering compensation for injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by an insured driver;
* Safety advances such as airbags, tougher enforcement of drunken driving and governmental crackdowns on auto insurance fraud, have also contributed to reducing claim costs.
So you do seem to like some regulation don't you? You cannot deny the effect Prop 103 had on Insurance rates. Watch as we do the same to Health Insurance.
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
Yes!
It is Lib Paradise. First we mandate a bunch of stuff that increases prices. Then we mandate the prices.
Shit, let's just mandate that doctors work free and hospitals don't charge.
Proving yet again that Libs never took Econ 101.
Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989. Once the second-most expensive state for auto insurance in the nation, California now ranks 30th, according to the report. The federation also found that California motorists have saved more than $100 billion since 1989, an average annual savings of more than $8,000 for every household in the state. The report concludes that under Proposition 103, "California has provided auto insurance consumers the most effective and protective regulatory system" in the United States.
*smacks head*- why yes of course
car insurance and health insurance are so compatible....I should have had a V8!!!!Typically confusing coincidence with causation. No, it isnt me denying Prop 103 was successful. It's the insurers themselves. It seems actually tort reform was responsible, as tort reform always and everywhere brings blessings to those who are not trial lawyers.Are you denying the success of Prop 103?
]
California's Auto Insurance Market Has Changed For a Variety of Reasons Beyond Enactment of Proposition 103 25 Years Ago - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
A competitive market, less litigation and safer vehicles have made auto insurance coverage in California, and elsewhere, more affordable for drivers, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). The I.I.I. made the observations in response to a report issued today by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which left the impression Proposition 103 was the most significant reason for this trend. "The Insurance Information Institute calculated last year that annual auto insurance expenditures for the typical U.S. driver rose only 4.2 percent between 2002 and 2012, even as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over these same 10 years grew by 27.6 percent," stated Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the I.I.I. and an economist. Indeed, the Insurance Information Network of California has noted that, since the passage of Proposition 103, several factors having nothing to do with the issues raised in that statewide ballot referendum have played a significant role in the stabilization of California's rates. They include:
* The California Supreme Court decision in 1988 to overturn its own 1979 ruling (Royal Globe), which previously allowed third parties to sue auto insurers directly for bad faith. As a result, auto-related lawsuits fell from 91,000 in 1988-89 to 42,000 in 1998-99;
* In 1990, the fatality rate on California's highways was two people per every 100 million miles driven. In 1999, it dropped to 1.19 persons. By 2011, the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven dropped to an all-time low of 1.1 persons;
* In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 213, the "no pay, no play" initiative. Under the law, uninsured motorists can receive only actual damages--medical, lost wages, etc.--and no pain and suffering compensation for injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by an insured driver;
* Safety advances such as airbags, tougher enforcement of drunken driving and governmental crackdowns on auto insurance fraud, have also contributed to reducing claim costs.
So you do seem to like some regulation don't you? You cannot deny the effect Prop 103 had on Insurance rates. Watch as we do the same to Health Insurance.
Typically confusing coincidence with causation. No, it isnt me denying Prop 103 was successful. It's the insurers themselves. It seems actually tort reform was responsible, as tort reform always and everywhere brings blessings to those who are not trial lawyers.
California's Auto Insurance Market Has Changed For a Variety of Reasons Beyond Enactment of Proposition 103 25 Years Ago - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
So you do seem to like some regulation don't you? You cannot deny the effect Prop 103 had on Insurance rates. Watch as we do the same to Health Insurance.
What drugs are you whacked out on today? Prop 103 had nothing to do with lower rates.
Then again, you are a known liar so anything you say is suspect.
So far, United Health, Aetna and Cigna have all pulled out of the California market. Which doesn't even come CLOSE to the doctors that have left.
Watch as California has NO healthcare.
The secondary effect is even worse than the primary effect. Doctors who are unqualified will be naturally drawn to California with the state's limitations on lawsuits the reduced competition from qualified medical personelle, it will be a magnet.
So you do seem to like some regulation don't you? You cannot deny the effect Prop 103 had on Insurance rates. Watch as we do the same to Health Insurance.
What drugs are you whacked out on today? Prop 103 had nothing to do with lower rates.
Then again, you are a known liar so anything you say is suspect.
Yes, it did...as this study outlines.
Prop 103: California Insurance Reform | Consumer Watchdog
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
[...]Last week, confronting a perfect storm of policy snafus and public indignation, the president announced that he would allow health insurers to renew current policies for an additional year. But he left the final decision to the companies or state authorities, who promptly warned that the result would be higher premiums.
That, not the cancellations or the HealthCare.gov website, is the fundamental problem with the Affordable Care Act: The law places no limits on the price insurance companies can charge for the coverage we are required to buy. This was no drafting error. In 2010, neither Congress nor the White House wanted to risk the opposition of the powerful insurance industry.
Thus it's no surprise that the insurers are now jacking up premiums and copays while limiting prescription drug benefits and dumping doctors and hospitals from their networks.
California lawmakers made a similar egregious error in 1984 when they passed a law requiring residents to buy automobile insurance but failed to regulate prices. So, of course, the insurance companies took advantage, imposing double- or triple-digit premium increases. A voter revolt ensued.
And therein lies the solution to the current healthcare law debacle.
Twenty-five years ago this month, angry California voters passed a ballot measure to stringently control automobile, as well as home and business, insurance premiums. An unprecedented $63-million campaign by the insurance industry could not stop the grass-roots rebellion. In a historic upset, Proposition 103 swept away decades of deregulation, discriminatory practices and barriers to competition in the insurance marketplace.
The voters also enacted critical protections against any last-minute chicanery by insurance companies before implementation of their reforms. For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989.[...]
Proposition 103 did not originally apply to health insurance, unfortunately. To remedy that, Consumer Watchdog has qualified an initiative for the November 2014 ballot that would place health insurance companies doing business in California under Proposition 103's regulatory controls. The nation will be watching as California voters once again lead the way in insurance reform, this time with a state-based strategy to close the loophole in the Affordable Care Act.
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
What drugs are you whacked out on today? Prop 103 had nothing to do with lower rates.
Then again, you are a known liar so anything you say is suspect.
Yes, it did...as this study outlines.
Prop 103: California Insurance Reform | Consumer Watchdog
There was no study.
The org that pushed that move is taking credit for something. That's all that is. I posted the real reasons.
Wow you're real gullible, aren't you? Then again, you were told women were really men and believed it.
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
[...]Last week, confronting a perfect storm of policy snafus and public indignation, the president announced that he would allow health insurers to renew current policies for an additional year. But he left the final decision to the companies or state authorities, who promptly warned that the result would be higher premiums.
That, not the cancellations or the HealthCare.gov website, is the fundamental problem with the Affordable Care Act: The law places no limits on the price insurance companies can charge for the coverage we are required to buy. This was no drafting error. In 2010, neither Congress nor the White House wanted to risk the opposition of the powerful insurance industry.
Thus it's no surprise that the insurers are now jacking up premiums and copays while limiting prescription drug benefits and dumping doctors and hospitals from their networks.
California lawmakers made a similar egregious error in 1984 when they passed a law requiring residents to buy automobile insurance but failed to regulate prices. So, of course, the insurance companies took advantage, imposing double- or triple-digit premium increases. A voter revolt ensued.
And therein lies the solution to the current healthcare law debacle.
Twenty-five years ago this month, angry California voters passed a ballot measure to stringently control automobile, as well as home and business, insurance premiums. An unprecedented $63-million campaign by the insurance industry could not stop the grass-roots rebellion. In a historic upset, Proposition 103 swept away decades of deregulation, discriminatory practices and barriers to competition in the insurance marketplace.
The voters also enacted critical protections against any last-minute chicanery by insurance companies before implementation of their reforms. For example, to prevent opportunistic price-gouging before Proposition 103 went into effect, the law imposed a one-year postelection freeze on rate increases, plus a 20% across-the-board premium rollback. It also barred insurance companies from arbitrarily canceling or refusing to renew auto policies. These safeguards, missing from the Affordable Care Act, made the transition from deregulation to price protections a smooth one. And it netted Californians $1.2 billion in refunds for unjustified price increases.
A study issued last week by the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America quantifies Proposition 103's pocketbook impact. It found that California is the only state in the nation where the average auto insurance premium is lower today than it was in 1989.[...]
Proposition 103 did not originally apply to health insurance, unfortunately. To remedy that, Consumer Watchdog has qualified an initiative for the November 2014 ballot that would place health insurance companies doing business in California under Proposition 103's regulatory controls. The nation will be watching as California voters once again lead the way in insurance reform, this time with a state-based strategy to close the loophole in the Affordable Care Act.
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
You do know that Insurance Companies must submit rate increases to the Government 1 year before they go into effect?
They don't get to do anything arbitrairily.
You do know that it is the HHS Secretary that sets rates now?
All rhetorical questions.....you don't and you don't want to.
SEC. 1003. ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS GET VALUE FOR THEIR DOLLARS.[edit]
Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91 et seq.), as amended by section 1002, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 2794. ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS GET VALUE FOR THEIR DOLLARS.
`(a) Initial Premium Review Process-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in conjunction with States, shall establish a process for the annual review, beginning with the 2010 plan year and subject to subsection (b)(2)(A), of unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage.
`(2) JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE- The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.
`(b) Continuing Premium Review Process-
`(1) INFORMING SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASE PATTERNS- As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (c)(1), a State, through its Commissioner of Insurance, shall--
`(A) provide the Secretary with information about trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State; and
`(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.
`(2) MONITORING BY SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Beginning with plan years beginning in 2014, the Secretary, in conjunction with the States and consistent with the provisions of subsection (a)(2), shall monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange.
`(B) CONSIDERATION IN OPENING EXCHANGE- In determining under section 1312(f)(2)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act whether to offer qualified health plans in the large group market through an Exchange, the State shall take into account any excess of premium growth outside of the Exchange as compared to the rate of such growth inside the Exchange.
`(c) Grants in Support of Process-
`(1) PREMIUM REVIEW GRANTS DURING 2010 THROUGH 2014- The Secretary shall carry out a program to award grants to States during the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 2010 to assist such States in carrying out subsection (a), including--
`(A) in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law, approving premium increases for health insurance coverage; and
`(B) in providing information and recommendations to the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
`(2) FUNDING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Out of all funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary $250,000,000, to be available for expenditure for grants under paragraph (1) and subparagraph (B).
`(B) FURTHER AVAILABILITY FOR INSURANCE REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION- If the amounts appropriated under subparagraph (A) are not fully obligated under grants under paragraph (1) by the end of fiscal year 2014, any remaining funds shall remain available to the Secretary for grants to States for planning and implementing the insurance reforms and consumer protections under part A.
`(C) ALLOCATION- The Secretary shall establish a formula for determining the amount of any grant to a State under this subsection. Under such formula--
`(i) the Secretary shall consider the number of plans of health insurance coverage offered in each State and the population of the State; and
`(ii) no State qualifying for a grant under paragraph (1) shall receive less than $1,000,000, or more than $5,000,000 for a grant year.'.
And here you have it, California leading the way again!
A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums
Something like this might make me like the CA initiative process again...
You do know that Insurance Companies must submit rate increases to the Government 1 year before they go into effect?
They don't get to do anything arbitrairily.
You do know that it is the HHS Secretary that sets rates now?
All rhetorical questions.....you don't and you don't want to.
Couldn't find anything about submitting rate increases a year in advance.
SEC. 1003. ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS GET VALUE FOR THEIR DOLLARS.[edit]
Part C of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91 et seq.), as amended by section 1002, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 2794. ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS GET VALUE FOR THEIR DOLLARS.
`(a) Initial Premium Review Process-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in conjunction with States, shall establish a process for the annual review, beginning with the 2010 plan year and subject to subsection (b)(2)(A), of unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage.
`(2) JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE- The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.
`(b) Continuing Premium Review Process-
`(1) INFORMING SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASE PATTERNS- As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (c)(1), a State, through its Commissioner of Insurance, shall--
`(A) provide the Secretary with information about trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State; and
`(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.
`(2) MONITORING BY SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Beginning with plan years beginning in 2014, the Secretary, in conjunction with the States and consistent with the provisions of subsection (a)(2), shall monitor premium increases of health insurance coverage offered through an Exchange and outside of an Exchange.
`(B) CONSIDERATION IN OPENING EXCHANGE- In determining under section 1312(f)(2)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act whether to offer qualified health plans in the large group market through an Exchange, the State shall take into account any excess of premium growth outside of the Exchange as compared to the rate of such growth inside the Exchange.
`(c) Grants in Support of Process-
`(1) PREMIUM REVIEW GRANTS DURING 2010 THROUGH 2014- The Secretary shall carry out a program to award grants to States during the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 2010 to assist such States in carrying out subsection (a), including--
`(A) in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law, approving premium increases for health insurance coverage; and
`(B) in providing information and recommendations to the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
`(2) FUNDING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Out of all funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary $250,000,000, to be available for expenditure for grants under paragraph (1) and subparagraph (B).
`(B) FURTHER AVAILABILITY FOR INSURANCE REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION- If the amounts appropriated under subparagraph (A) are not fully obligated under grants under paragraph (1) by the end of fiscal year 2014, any remaining funds shall remain available to the Secretary for grants to States for planning and implementing the insurance reforms and consumer protections under part A.
`(C) ALLOCATION- The Secretary shall establish a formula for determining the amount of any grant to a State under this subsection. Under such formula--
`(i) the Secretary shall consider the number of plans of health insurance coverage offered in each State and the population of the State; and
`(ii) no State qualifying for a grant under paragraph (1) shall receive less than $1,000,000, or more than $5,000,000 for a grant year.'.
Perhaps you have a link?
