Insurance Companies: Flip-Floppers on Health Care Reform
One of the strangest aspects of this health care debate has been the role of insurers. Shortly after President Obama was sworn into office, the industry and it’s lobbyists (through the group America’s Health Care Plans) pledged to support healthcare reform. Even though it would cut into their profit margins, they were willing to compromise on important issues. This was a contrast from their successful torpedoing of the Clinton administration’s health insurance reform plan in the 1990s. The government has been striving to insure all Americans, and a key obstacle to that is health insurance companies that refuse to sell policies to people with pre-existing conditions. That dilemma has become more pressing during the recession, as millions of unemployed Americans have lost their employer’s health insurance along with their jobs. Underwriting standards are stricter on the open market, since private insurers are unable to spread costs among a large group of employees.
In order to provide coverage to everyone, the major health insurance firms agreed to drop their objection to selling policies to people with pre-existing conditions. In turn, they wanted the federal government to mandate all residents to buy health insurance (albeit subsidized for the working poor). Private insurers are in favor of the Massachusetts healthcare reform model, which penalizes those who are able but unwilling to buy insurance coverage with fines and other deterrents. They believe that the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform bill in particular is flawed because it doesn’t include deterrents strong enough to prevent people from purposefully going without a health insurance plan until they become extremely sick. Obviously, it would be impossible for them to be profitable and satisfy shareholders if they pay out millions of dollars in claims without receiving premiums from the healthy. Massachusetts has managed to cover 97% of its residents with this strategy, but there have been complaints of cost overruns.
While the industry is willing to provide comprehensive coverage to all, as opposed to a few guaranteed issue health plans with minimum benefits, there are other sticking points with politicians. Prominent Democrats, including Speaker of the House of Representatives are adamant about including a public option in the healthcare reform bill. The possibility of a government-run health insurance plan directly competing with, and undercutting, for-profit insurance companies is something the latter are strongly against. Insurers are also opposed to proposed tax increases intended to cover a portion of the immense cost of reform, according to the Associated Press. Even though Congress has been working with doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies on reform, negotiations with the insurers have broken down as pressure on the Obama administration to include the public option has increased. Insurers have to consider whether it’s worth continuing to cooperate with congressional leaders so they can achieve the goal of passing reform this year, or if it’s a better idea for the increasingly vilified industry to cut its losses and fight back in earnest.
Watch the video related to health care reform bill
October 30, 2009 3:14 am 
By Tracy Turnblad, October 30, 2009 @ 3:24 am
First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it is cheaper. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover.
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Last of all if you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012.
By TomStar81, October 30, 2009 @ 3:57 am
Yes you are talking about TORT reform. the Democrats do not want to touch the Lawyers. it seems the Lawyers are in the democrats pocket.*
By Youtube Downloader, October 30, 2009 @ 3:32 am
véiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, que difuu
By URL Shortener, October 30, 2009 @ 5:01 am
dude, you own! this looks identical to a photograph
By Anonymous, October 30, 2009 @ 8:25 am
HOLY CRAP! Comparing this to the original picture, they’re identical!
By Short, Fast, and Loud, October 30, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Obama does not have a bill. He has only given guidelines to what he wants. His last address made it more specific.
The bills in congress are not healthcare bills. They are health coverage bills. The government is trying to take control of a large portion of our economy. They are trying to make it so the government is a single payer source (I know i will get thumbs down for this, but follow hr3200 to its logical conclusion).
The current bills want to cover everybody in the US (Illegals too, there is nothing in these bills to prevent illegals from being covered. Amendments to ensure citizenship were tabled)
The federal government wants to punish you for not having insurance (they will get your money one way or another)
The government wants to regulate what care you will get. (When the system becomes overblaoted as any government system does, they will have 2 options increase taxes or ration care)
I know that there are a lot of people that will disagree with this. If they actually read the bills, and follow to there logical conclusions, in 10 years we will be a whole lot worse of than we are now. So doing nothing would actually be cheaper.
Reform must actually deal with the underlaying problems. HR 320o does not. Obama gave lip service to 1 of them.
By The Conservative Resistance, October 31, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Under any Democrat President in history, the same M.O. emerges.
The Democrats "identify" a "crisis" and whip the people up into a frenzy about it. They proclaim themselves the carriers of the elixir that will heroically save all mankind from this "crisis.'' When Republicans seek to oppose the spending it will take for this elixir, they are automatically called hate mongers and obstructionists.
Clinton tried it with school lunch menus. He whipped that whole thing into some kind of "crisis." The Democrats wanted to raise the program by 10% and the Republicans wanted to raise it by 7%. That got reported in the media as a 3% CUT by Republicans. Only when a Democrat is President could an INCREASE be reported as a CUT. Just to make Republicans look bad, but too many people buy into the bullshit.
Al Gore, who wasn't even President, tried it with global warming and it didn't work. Today, it's health care. What'll it be tomorrow? The whole "world is ending in 2012" thing, or what?
By URL Shortener, October 31, 2009 @ 4:11 am
awesome stuff man,….ama practice hard to get to yo level!
By skinnyblink7, October 31, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
the new york times has an interactive feature which is actually very clear to understand. check it out.