Health Insurance Lobby Supports "Bipartisan Reforms," Attacks Public Option (VIDEO)

The lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans, has launched a seven-figure advertising campaign claiming to support "bipartisan reforms" for health care.

In a testament to the strength of the health care reform movement, even insurance companies now admit the system is broken. In an ad called Illness, AHIP declares: "Let's fix health care."

But the group opposes the actual reforms President Obama and the Democratic leadership have proposed.

"We have serious concerns with that legislation, particularly having to do with a government-run insurance plan that's going to use Medicare rates," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for AHIP, in an interview with the Huffington Post.

Instead, AHIP favors a bipartisan solution, which, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), necessitates that Democrats eliminate the public option.

When asked point-blank whether AHIP opposes a public health option, Zirkelbach said, "That's very correct. A government-run plan in any form is simply not necessary." A public option, he claimed, would "bankrupt hospitals all over California" and force "as many as 120 million people" off the private system.

Last month, in a federal hearing, insurance industry executives were unapologetic, telling lawmakers that they would not stop denying medical care to policyholders based on sicknesses and pre-existing conditions. Now insurance companies are playing defense, after taking fire for this behavior.

AHIP has acknowledged that "health care costs are crushing our economy," but the group insists that premiums are rising in accordance with provider costs and are willing to make concessions to improve the system.

Health Care For America Now, a coalition of groups advocating reform, dismissed the sincerity of AHIP's campaign. "There's nothing in that ad that implies that they're at all culpable for America's health care problems," HCAN Communications Director Jacki Schechner told the Huffington Post.

"The health insurance industry is putting out an ad that totally ignores its own role in creating the health care mess. We know we can't trust them. The American people know they can't trust them. And their using a word like 'bipartisan' is incredibly transparent. What it shows is that they're obviously trying to slow down or stall the process," said Schechner.

Watch the ad, called Illness:

Transcript:

Illness doesn't care where you live. Or if you're already sick. Or if you lose your job. Your health insurance shouldn't either. So let's fix health care. If everyone's covered, we can make health care as affordable as possible. And the words pre-existing condition become a thing of the past. We're America's health insurance companies, supporting bipartisan reforms that Congress can build on.

Comments

[tightloops]

Don't you guys get it yet???? The insurance companies have lost hundreds of big manufacturing accounts because the companies have moved their jobs off-shore. They see Obamacare as a wonderful opportunity and fertile soil. The big health insurance lobbies include Kaiser, Humana, BlueCross/Blue Shield, and the list goes on and on. HMOs, Don't you see it??? Look at opensecrets.org and see who has given to whom in the past 3 years. Duh! The insurance has been telling the Democratic Majority WHAT TO WRITE TO BE PROFITABLE!!!! You liberals are so easy to fool! The unions support Obamacare so the Dems will take away worker secret ballots. Trial lawyers (Americans for Justice) just want to protect their right to sue for everything....which has been done. AND the banks don't care about any of that as long as they continue to get bailed out for stupid greedy mistakes. I can't believe the people on this blog, the writers and the readers are do mind-numb not to get it. No wonder there is an elitist oligarchy in D.C. Just a bunch of money hungry elitists all feeding off the sweat and toil of common folks. That must be where the term Obama Zombies comes from. You are so manipulated and don't even realize it!!!

[SteveDenver]

Insurance companies know that "bipartisan reform" really means "nothing will happen, nothing will change."

The Washington Post column on insurance spinning data reads:

"Opponents of a public option argue that it could put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors. Today, for people with commercial or employer-sponsored coverage, care is overseen by private bureaucracies. Where government bureaucracies answer to the body politic, the corporate versions answer to Wall Street."

[rxvette]

As a clinical staff pharmacist at my local hospital I see the numerous inadequacies of our current health care system everyday when I go to work. I've also spent countless hours researching what would comprise successful health care reform here in the United States. All parties involved will have to compromise a little to get this done. But the biggest responsibility lies on us as individuals to reduce long term costs associated with health care. Read my article to find out more - http://bit.ly/9QLV8

[johnwinner]

"Health insurance" companies are really investment agencies; the purpose of health insurance is to recycle workers' wealth into invesments. The whole purpose of the current debate is to distract us from that fact, to convince us that we hav "fixed health care" by doing precisely nothing. This is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

[quiviran]

Which might work if the policy holders were the owners, as in a mutual insurance company. But that's kind of history, unless the reform is to outlaw privately held insurance companies and to require all insurance companies to reorganize as policy-holder owned. And placed a legal cap on insurance company CEO compensation at, say, 10x the average policy holders annual income. That would be real reform.

[Diogenis]

Short and to the point. I have lived on Social Security for years. I live alone. Yes I have Medicare, but Medicare alone would not pay all the expenses for a medical problem..i.e. surgery, etc. that I have needed. I, as many other have silently suffered. Finally, I found a physician that assured me he will take care of me and give me the much needed surgery. Today...I shall go to be admitted to the hospital. I am relieved, yet...here in AMERICA there are 46 million people....like me...without health insurance.!!!!!!! We must back President Obama and his administration. We MUST speak out. It's OUR Government..a Government...."of the people, for the people, and by the people"!!!

[quiviran]

I just went on Medicare after 30+ years of very good employer based health care coverage. Medicare is so fraught with loopholes, limitations and exclusions that I can't see any way for a person to get by without a substantial supplemental policy. So I bought one. Medical insurance is now over 12% of my annual income, and I'm not sick and I don't take any regular medications. (Just as an aside, the employer doesn't actually buy a policy from a health insurance company. They see it as a waste of good money. They are very large and self-insure, they just hire the insurance company to do the paperwork.)

US Medicare seems to be what happens when you let a Congressman between you and your doctor. I'm for a Universal Health Care, but if it takes more than about ten pages to define the legislation and the process for funding in, then Congress has gotten way too far into the details. MIcro-management by a group of people, half of whom are against government at all, has lead Medicare into a much worse place than it should be. Congress needs to keep their noses out of the treatment plan and focus on the policy ie "all Americans are covered" rather than the treatment ie "diabetic testing supplies are excluded" (don't know if that's a fact, just an example of micro-management).

Good luck with your treatment. Sorry it was so hard to find a responsive provider.

[swift goat pet for truth]

IT is simple.

If Congress is for the American People, then Medicare for All should be available to anyone who wants it.

If Congress if for Big Corporations, especially insurers, then it will not be.

Who do you think your Congress person is for?

[Tankmaster]

Any health care plan that does not include a public option is no plan at all. The insurance industry will do nothing voluntarily to reduce my costs. Any senator ( or house member ) that does not vote for a public plan will incur the wrath of the American voter. I will donate and volunteer to any opposition of those who do not vote for a public plan.

[Chaimirija]

with no public option, it is the MassPlan on a national level. Feel free to Google the Connector site and see how much a premium would cost you.

[jsgaetano]

Hear that? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin, playing JUST for the Health Insurance Industry.

Yes, the world cries for the poor little Health Insurance Industry. I'll feel so bad when their obscene profits for being a middleman are gone! How terrible!

[OliverTwist]

We need to find out how much profit health insurance companies take from their health insurance business. It will be buried in their annual reports.

Must be a very very very big number.

[DougDeWitt]

I'm a big proponent of limiting the profits (oooh, I mean, "adminstrative costs") of health insurance companies.

As each state has a State Insurance Commission, I recommend that Congress empower these watchdog agencies with the power to limit profits to what most folks might feel is fair for a publicly-held (stockholder-owned) company.

Most companies can survive quite nicely on about 10%, SO, I recommend that profits be limited to 10% of the total claims paid out by the company during the fiscal year. In the event payout of claims is lower than anticipated, the company should be obliged to issue refund checks for premiums paid in excess of this level.

There actually is precedent for this being done, St. Paul's Fire and Marine having refunded rather large amounts to customers who paid more in malpractice premiums than the total of claims paid, plus the company's allowed profit margin, several years running back in the 80's.

[isis]

Grassley voted to have Medicare NOT be able to negotiate drug prices. What does he know about saving money?

[Renee27]

Secret Insurance Industry Memo Discovered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMzgTX6SM7k

This actual docs here -

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/ahip1.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/ahip2.pdf

Insurance company lobbyist confronted in DC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3OYKvNGdao

[DougDeWitt]

I suppose it would be appropriate to comment on the AHIP's statements; they seem to be fanning the flames of an already heated debate.

"We have serious concerns with that legislation, particularly having to do with a government-run insurance plan that's going to use Medicare rates," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for AHIP.

With apologies for its rather transparent pandering to the AMA and the AHA, both of which represent the AHIP's entire provider roster, the gentleman has a valid point:

Neither Medicare nor Medcaid reimburse providers even close to the cost of providing services; the costs are simply passed on to those patients with "better" insurance, ie. BC/BS, Aetna or Scott & White.

Hence, Mr. Zirkelbach's contention that, "health care costs are crushing our economy," the insistence that premiums are rising in accordance with provider costs.

By way of constructive suggestion, the AHIP would like us all, every family in America, to have upscale commercial health insurance, if we can come up with a creative way to finance it.

[swift goat pet for truth]

"Neither Medicare nor Medcaid reimburse providers even close to the cost of providing services; "

I read your other posts. I do not believe any of it. As an example, let us examine your quote above.

Nobody forces doctors to take Medicare or Medicaid. Many doctors do not take these patients.
If what you say is true, why would ANY doctor or ANY hospital take EVEN ONE Medicare patient?
Why not take only the profitable ones?

[DougDeWitt]

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. Medicare requires mandatory participation by most provider types, regardless of the reimbursement; to bill patients beyond the allowable amounts is a felony. Participation, as it is called, is the deal whereby providers agree to take chump-change payments, in exchange for having those chump change payments sent directly to them; the option is having payments go to the patient, with the likelihood of collecting any of that money approaching zero, unfortunately.

By all means, do independent research. Participation, accepting assignment, by provider type for Medicare Part A and Part B (hospitals, and doctors, respectively).

The whole debate is rather emotional for everyone; a truly educated opinion in such a climate is of benefit to Everyone involved.

[Chaimirija]

They accept Medicare because so many people have it. Basically, that is it. Medicaid, on the other hand, is a different story.

[KLordsha]

I saw the Harry & Louise 2009 ad today... It was riveting. We're going to get this done people!

[000Jade000]

And you're not concerned about why it is that BigPharma is running that ad?

The legislation contains a couple huge giveaways for them.

Read all about the giveaways here:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

[quiviran]

Harry and Louise are not our friends and they are not us. They are shills for the big pharmaceutical companies. If they like it, then it's going to be against our basic interests. Bet on that. Astroturf ads should be required to be shown with a fuzzy green border.

[Chaimirija]

It is true...at the end, they show who is sponsoring the ad!

[DougDeWitt]

Jim Lehrer had Barack Obama on his show tonight, for those of you who may have missed it. The President states that the House bill has the support of the AMA, the ANA, the AHA, and AARP; notably absent from his list is the health insurance industry.

Nonetheless, the President's perception is that the bill faces two remaining issues that need to be worked out before health care reform can move forward:

How do you fund coverage for everyone who doesn’t yet have coverage, ostensibly so that no one is left behind?

How do you keep from bankrupting the system on the back side?

I've covered these issues in the past, but in light of Mr. Obama's most recent observations, let me present these both again:

[DougDeWitt]

How do you fund coverage for everyone who doesn’t yet have coverage, ostensibly so that no one is left behind?
The proposed tax-credit system will effectively finance coverage for everyone in America, not only those who do not have ANY coverage, but for every filer and his/her family who does not have REAL health insurance coverage, the kind that pays bills for services as charged.

How do you keep from bankrupting the system on the back side?
Medicare needs to be eliminated, it doesn’t pay its own way. Medicaid needs to be eliminated, it doesn’t pay its own way either. It seems that both of these programs pay their own way, prima facie. But the reality is that the balances due in the provision of services to patients with either coverage, are simply being passed on to those patients with commercial health insurance.
When everyone’s health insurance premiums for the entire year have been “fronted” by the health insurance industry, this Great American Capitalist Machine of ours will put that money to work. Just as it put Reagan’s tax-cuts to work, building unprecedented economic growth and a deluge of federal income tax collected. 15 months after the system rolls out, when the books finally need to be reconciled, the coffers will be full once more, the proceeds of the same kind of economic growth from which we all benefitted, well after Reagan left office.

[DougDeWitt]

Please refer to the AMA’s comments, from their website: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/ama-supports-hr-3200.shtml

Our nation’s doctors like these features of the House bill:
• Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
• A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
• An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
• Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
• Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
• Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
• Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
• Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns

Premium assistance, for me this is the tax-credit system already proposed. The bill calls for fundamental Medicare reform; I contend we would no longer need it. I call on each state's Insurance Commission to be the venue for health insurance market reforms.

[DougDeWitt]

Oh, make no mistake: the health insurance industry *IS* in favor of health care reform. Specifically, they feel that every family in the US should have commercial health insurance. This is not exactly the Evil Empire, as the AHIP is being portrayed by groups like the HCAN.

The theory is actually fundamentally rock-solid: If everyone in America had a zero-deductible, zero-copayment, comprehensive policy that covered everything imaginable, including pre-conditions, the cost-per-taxpayer would equal the total health care sector of GDP, divided by every tax-filer in any given year. The math is equally compelling; with a cap on insurance profits locked in by state Insurance Commissions as a watchdog, the cost per filer would come in approximately 20% of current insurance levels.

Hence, the statement, "If everyone's covered, we can make health care as affordable as possible," and the follow-up comment, "And the words pre-existing condition become a thing of the past."

AHIP spokesperson is quoted, saying that "health care costs are crushing our economy." Yet, the group insists that premiums are rising in accordance with provider costs. This is not an unreasonable statement, given that over half the care given in the US is covered by M/Care or M/Caid, both of which reimburse providers far below the cost of providing services.