Editorial: Mandate-free insurance plans eyed - Tulsa World

The debate prompted a couple of lawmakers to suggest insurers would nevertheless cover the mandated services even if not required to do so. Which prompts us to ask: Why in the world do you think the mandates were passed by the Legislature in the first place? If insurance companies were willing to cover the services in question, why would we need mandates?

Senate Bill 1059 would allow Oklahoma to enter a compact with other states to sell health insurance policies across state lines. Backers of the measure say it would lower insurance costs, promote competition and result in more choices for policy buyers.

But opponents say it would lead to Oklahomans obtaining inadequate policies that don't cover needed services, such as mammograms and immunizations.

Rep. Glen Mulready, R-Tulsa, said insurance companies would cover inexpensive screenings if it would save money in the long run.

Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, did not agree. "Insurance companies don't volunteer to pay because it's the right thing to do," he said, adding that mandates are in place for a reason.

We agree with Shelton. It defies logic to believe insurers would cover the mandated services without mandates.

But don't take our word for it or Shelton's. The language of SB 1059 is reason enough to run from this bill:

"This policy is primarily governed by the laws of (insert state where the master policy is filed); therefore, all of the rating laws applicable to policies filed in this state do not apply to this policy, which may result in increases in your premium at renewal that would not be permissible in an Oklahoma-approved policy.

"Any purchase of individual health insurance should be considered carefully since future medical conditions may make it impossible to qualify for another individual health policy."