Dear Editor,

Having worked in the international insurance arena for most of my insurance career and having been an expatriate who had to deal with nationalized or socialized or government sponsored health care, I have found it to be lacking in services provided, research and development of new medicines, vaccines, and equipment as well as adding a significant cost to the tax payer.  

The value received for the price paid is far most costly in human terms than the present private system, which we all know has problems.  So, nationalized insurance is out.  We see how it doesn't work in Washington State's workers' compensation.

That being said, our country needs mandatory health insurance.  So, should we have a public option (the public option, like Medicare works)?   Maybe! Healthcare needs to be reformed and reformed now.  I'm not advocating a Public Option, but, as an insurance professional, I believe that the OPEC like health insurance cartel, run by a cabal, needs to be controlled.  

The health insurance cartel is out of control.   Since they are an oligopoly, the uber left is taking them on and of course, the opposite reaction from the uber right.  It happened in the property and casualty insurance industry in the 1960s.   The liability insurers failed to pay legitimate claims, denied coverage, and took other arbitrary positions in violation of the insurance contract, and what did it spawn?  

The plaintiff attorney, which eventually drove liability rates sky high.  Look at medical malpractice and products liability coverage, which, by the way, is one fifth the cost in Europe.  The health cartel has earned this.   Too bad, you know one action often creates an equal and opposite reaction.

As for the public option that the right wing nut bars are against; ask them about Medicare.  They'll say it works and don't mess with it.  

Here are some simple facts:  

The expense ratio (those costs associated with providing the product, but not including claims payments or legal costs associated with claims) for the health insurance industry is about 35 percent plus of every dollar they take in.   In contrast, the property and casualty insurance industry is in the high 20 percent range (with State Farm less than 25 percent).  

The major reason for this is McCarren-Ferguson Act, which was passed in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled that insurance was interstate commence, thus should be regulated by the federal government.  

The states saw a loss of 'states rights', and hence the M-F was born.  This act has been modified over the years and P&C companies do business across state lines as long as they have filed in each jurisdiction.  Health insurers can't.  However, the health insurance industry is not in favor the repeal of M-F because they could lose favorable jurisdictional filing states and have on jurisdiction overseeing their actions.  

It is better for them to maintain the 'divide and rule' attitude. But, on the other hand, the P&C companies want M-F repealed as it will make them more lean and be able to provide their product at cheaper price, and, they believe, pick up market share and profit.

When the United Kingdom dropped is requirements for the P&C industry to file rates and forms with the government, the industry complained, but two years later prices were down, coverage was broadened and they were making more money than before.  The weaker companies were absorbed by the stronger.  It worked.

I am personally not in favor of a public option, but this country needs healthcare reform and needs it now.

Robert Callard
West Seattle