Private insurers to raise prices!

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:32:42 AM MST

Klein:

In the hallowed tradition of the tobacco and energy industries, the health insurance industry has commissioned a report (pdf) projecting doom and despair for those who seek to reform its business practices. The report was farmed out to the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has something of a history with this sort of thing: In the early-'90s, the tobacco industry commissioned PWC to estimate the economic devastation that would result from a tax on tobacco. The report was later analyzed by the Arthur Andersen Economic Consulting group, which concluded that "the cumulative effect of PW's methods ... is to produce patently unreliable results." It's perhaps no surprise that the patently unreliable results were all in the tobacco industry's favor. He who pays the piper names the tune, and all that.

Color me completely unsurprised. Even if this is all a sham intended to derail reform, who doesn't believe the insurance companies won't raise rates? Of course they'll raise rates!

I'm with Digby:

Frankly, I wouldn't expect any less of them. They will raise premiums sky high even if reforms don't pass. They always have before. Indeed, the only thing that kept them in check at all over the past 20 years was a roaring stock market, which allowed them to make huge profits while only gouging their customers at about 15% inflation. Lately, they've had no choice but to jack that up and gouge the sick customers even more. They are, after all, profit driven corporations.

Digby suspects this has something to do with an amendment capping industry tax exemptions for executive salaries at $500K instead of $1M. (Er...we allow companies to deduct executive salaries???) Digby jokes, "Nobody puts CEOs in the corner," and says this:

There has never been a better argument for the public plan than the one the insurance company just handed the Democrats in congress. They have produced a shoddy, self-serving report as a blatant threat to raise premiums higher than they already plan to raise them. If there has ever been a more obvious case of bad faith than this, I haven't seen it. The only thing that will keep these corporate criminals in line is either price controls or stiff competition and if they can't keep their companies solvent without giving their executives outrageous pay packages, charging ridiculous prices while denying care to sick people, then maybe their financial model just doesn't work.

Again, there are good elements of reform apart from the public option. Universal coverage, say, a community standard that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against the sick. But none of this works, IMHO, without a widely available public option as  a safety outlet for American consumers against rising policy costs and increased unreliability of coverage...

Take my Brown Shirt, please!

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:39:59 PM MST

Yeah, like, he was so out of line!

Which is why this Marine vet is my hero! He gets up and totally gives it to Baird! Gives him exactly what he deserves! And compares health care reform to both socialism and Nazism! Like, because socialists and fascists are exactly the same thing! (Tho' I'm sure everyone who died in WWII is kicking themselves now about that...) And Nancy Pelosi is totally a Nazi! Just check our her website!

Nothing says you're not a Brown Shirt like riling up a crowd against a democratic process with a bunch of lies, right?

When the GOP starts resembling LaRouche...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 15:53:31 PM MST

EJ Dionne:

This is not about the politics of populism. It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

There is a philosophical issue here that gets buried under the fear that so many politicians and media-types have of seeming to be out of touch with the so-called American heartland.

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.
On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

In other, related, news, UnitedHealth apparently encouraged its employees to attend an anti-reform protest organized by religious extremists...

Insurers, GOP believe private industry needs protection, subsidies to survive

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 13:06:51 PM MST

The first article - "Public-option insurance takes center stage" - explains what the term means, and gives some pros and cons about a public option; the second - "In Washington, public option is political dynamite" - describes the political lines forming around the issue. Baucus' role is discussed; his statements called, "cloudy."

Good stuff, and kudos to Dennison for singling out the public option for scrutiny.

I just wanted to blog a quick reaction to the Republicans' opposition to a public option, as described in Dennison's first report:

Private health insurer companies and most Republicans, however, remain staunchly opposed to creation of the public-option plan.

They say it would be an unfair competitor that ends up shoving aside private insurance, and that other insurance market reforms being considered will make private insurance more affordable and able to cover everyone.

I'm always mystified by this argument. After all, don't conservatives believe that the government is inherently incompetent, and that the private sector is the best delivery vehicle for goods and services? Why all the fuss about a public option driving away business from private insurers?

Those of us with private insurance know the reason, of course. Increasing and skyrocketing profits for the private insurers over the years has meant poor service for customers. After all, it's not like you can manufacture insurance for less money; the only way to increase profits is to charge more for less, a marketplace practice easily implemented because most of us feel obligated to have health care coverage.

If you read between the lines then, the insurance industry and their conservative backers are admitting they are not up to the task of delivering health insurance equitably. The industry needs protection, even subsidy. The quality of health care services for everyday Americans is a secondary consideration - if they consider it at all...