Last updated on 2014.05.18
Bob Mercer writes this morning that campaign advisors for Marion Michael Rounds played a role in passing legislation related to the Affordable Care Act in Pierre last winter. The law, 2013's Senate Bill 139, protects South Dakota insurance salesman like Rounds from competition from out-state insurers on the ACA health insurance exchanges. SB 139 also protects Rounds and pals' commissions, requiring that commissions for exchange policies be the same as commissions for non-exchange policies. Mercer notes that Rounds opponents Sen. Larry Rhoden and Rep. Stace Nelson both voted for SB 139, as did everyone else in the Senate and House except for Rep. Elizabeth May, who was probably just confused.
Senate Bill 139's passage likely has little impact on the whole RINO debate over whether the mainstream GOP in South Dakota really opposes ObamaCare. SB 139 did nothing to implement the ACA. A legislator could oppose the ACA and still have voted for SB 139 as a way to protect South Dakota insurers from bad things that might happen under it, like... loss of market share to competitors offering more affordable products?
If there's a Republican consistency call, let's look at Section 3 of SB 139, now SDCL 58-33A-28:
Multi-state plan sale or solicitation of health insurance outside of exchange prohibited. No multi-state plan as described in Section 1334 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) may sell, solicit, negotiate, or otherwise transact health insurance in this state outside of any public exchange which may be operating in this state [South Dakota Codified Law 58-33A-28, enacted 2013].
Note that the multi-state plans (so far offered only by Blue Cross Blue Shield) were another compromise we made in the ACA with Republicans who didn't want insurers to face competition from a public option. I invite my smarter readers to correct me, but a multi-state plan actually sounds a lot like buying insurance across state lines, one of the rare specific if paltry policy alternatives Republicans offer when asked what they would like to do instead of the Affordable Care Act.
Sen. Rhoden says he supports selling insurance across state lines... but his vote on SB 139 suggests he doesn't want it happening outside the ACA exchange. Rounds supports SB 139 but not basic free market theory: he's afraid that allowing insurers to compete across state lines would drive up rates.
This year's Senate Bill 139 is not an example of Republicans tripping themselves up with support for the Affordable Care Act. It is an example of the ease with which they forget the ideas they preach to do favors for wealthy businesspeople like Mike Rounds.
You are now onto something. Check out the main lobbyist for this giveaway and you will see all roads lead to Marion. Now think of all the insurance agents and agency's that will get a piece of the pie and whose lives they all touch. Soldiers all for singing the praises of Marion to get the message out. Wadhams and Rob Skjonsberg are grinning as Rhoden and Nelson did not even whimper while they were stepping into the bear trap.
So am I following you correctly? ObamaCare does not allow for health insurance to be sold across state lines (that I knew), but in theory that does not stop a health insurance company from establishing a multi-state available plan that has to be licensed in each individual state that it is offered, whose actuaries and financials are all a part of a greater single business plan and this bill tries to prevent this from happening, because such a "super" business plan could threaten the monopolistic capabilities of a intrastate insurance company like Rounds's?.... Interesting!!!
Just seems so funny that Rounds, his brain trust and Rhoden would all look and legislate to hamper the free market.
These guys are such hypocrites when they go against free market principals and think that government should pick the winners and losers.
All of them voted for it. This is not about picking winners or losers, it is about picking a winner among them. That is how they work and why they simply loves them some ALEC along the way. This is a scheme that fleeces the public to fund extravagant lifestyles of the top ponzi guys at the expense of the sick and poor. There is more to it than just being about Rounds and his sidekick Rhoden, we also have Nelson in the thick of it along with all the rest of the republicans. As Cory said, one voter against from our republican masters.
I'm confused. Are you all saying that everybody, Demmies and Repubs alike, should have voted against this 139 bill? Why?
Yes, Grudz, you are confused. I'm saying that SB 139 doesn't really play out as a vote for or against the ACA and thus won't serve as a voting-record bludgeon that Bosworth could use against her opponents. I am saying that SB 139 seems to run against Rhoden's assertion that he supports selling insurance across state lines.
Oh. Thank you for clarifying this fellow out, Mr. H.
I don't think young Dr. Bos is going to use anything against her opponents, she will run on her own virtues.
Bosworth? Virtues? Surely you're just baiting me.
Look at the voting record of insurance isssues in the legislature since Marion got elected. It tells a tale of stacking the deck to give insurance corporations every advantage and step on the necks of everyday South Dakotans to force them to pay more for health insurance that pays less and less to cover real-life health calamities.
Mercer article also said legislature guaranteed "customary" commissions to agents. Like most SD agencies, the Insurance Commission does little to control insurance abuses, and makes little attempt to publish fine print fraud.
Too many years ago, we looked at an insurance accident policy. Fine print indicated it only would pay in the event we would be riding in a commercial, regulated carrier vehicle or train. I sent the info to SD Insurance Commission since hardly anybody in the state of SD would ever be in a commercial carrier vehicle. No response, and no warning to the public either.
Maybe in the next legislative session, they can strip all regulatory functions from the insurance commission except taxation. Then combine it with the Enviromental protection disagency.
Commercial vehicle only—sneaky devils!