After the Senate Finance Committee passed Chairman Max Baucus's health reform plan on a 14-9 vote, America's Health Insurance Plans--hot off the controversy of the report it commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers--insisted that it does support comprehensive health care reform...just not the Finance Committee's plan.
AHIP's stance all along has been to support the ideals of reform publicly, even as the White House and liberal action groups attacked it. But after the study it released yesterday, which suggested Baucus's plan would raise costs over the long term, many observers suggested the gloves had been taken off.
Here's AHIP's full statement from AHIP CEO Karen Ignani on the Finance Committee vote:
We strongly support comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform that covers all Americans, improves quality, and puts the health care system on an affordable, sustainable path. Health plans have proposed guaranteed coverage, elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and no longer basing premiums on health status or gender. Experience in the states has shown that market reforms need to paired with universal coverage to make health care as affordable as possible.
While we agree with the objective of the current proposal, we are concerned about its workability and cost. The bill imposes hundreds of billions of dollars in new health care taxes and provides an incentive for people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage. A recent analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that these provisions will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. We believe these issues can and should be addressed.
Health plans will continue to work towards comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform that covers all Americans, improves quality, and makes coverage more affordable.
Why should we give any credibility to what the insurance industry says at this point?
They are clearly interested in their bottom line, which is fine.
But to think they should be trusted in the debate over what is best for the healthcare of the American people is laughable.
Exactly, all of the math that is used to argue against reform assumes that the current system continues with insurance companies administering health care and skimming 30% off the top for doing paperwork.
Do the math without an insurance industry, do it as medicare for all and it gets pretty good.
And if we have to raise taxes on the rich to pay for any of it that's great. They have so much more than anyone else they can afford it and they only use it to keep score in the great game of life.
Two points in rebuttal.
First: It's worth recognizing that a sizeable proportion of the health insurance industry consists of not-for-profit companies. As such, the bottom line isn't the only motivating factor here.
Second, and more importantly: Insurance is a complicated business, and I think it's hopelessly cynical for us as a society to disregard the technical insights of the people who live with these complex concepts day-in and day-out. Frankly, I would be much more skeptical about the credibility of most of the other pieces of analysis out there, due to the possibility that they've been written by people whose understanding of risk selection principles has not been honed by experience.
Did you see the PWC report that AHIP commissioned?
Does that represent any type of nuanced view of the legislation under consideration?
That was their shot and it was nothing but a scare tactic to allow them to maintain higher profit margins.
The insurance industry just flushed their last bit of credibility on that issue down the toilet with that misleading report.
Reminds one of that wonderful FDR clip where he pokes fun at the Republicans for being FOR all kinds of ameliorative measures,BUT (FDR adjusts pince nez) "It is just that we don't agree with the way the current administration is doooing these things.......we will do allllll of them.......we will do moooore of them.......and most important of allll......the dooooing of them won't cost annnnnyone annnnything at allll" (Crowd collapses in laughter)........at times Obama could do with a bit of FDR's ability to take the piss.
There is a valid point in all this that's being overlooked by all. That being the ability and financial incentive to not get insurance till you need it. The point being that you can wait to buy coverage to the point right after the doctor telling you that you need a knee replacement, you have cancer, or just after you find out you're pregnant. Go out and get guaranteed coverage at costs not squed by your pre-existing condition or other medical problems. Rack up the expenses to the insurance company (or government) and drop the policy after you think you're done with treatment. $1000 a year penalty sure beats a $1000 a month premium payment.
If that loophole exists, and no one says it doesn't, then it's an issue that, while not a deal killer, should be dealth with BEFORE passing the legislation.