rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 12, 2009 7:52:23 GMT -7
Lawmakers Receive $35 Million in Donations from Insurance Industry Written by Cyber InsuranceNews Monday, May 25 2009
The last two election cycles have been lucrative for certain members of Congress seeking to retain their seats. The insurance industry has seen to it.
According to Consumer Watchdog, auto, home, business, and life insurance companies contributed more than $35.7 million to Congressmen during the last two elections. In fact, about $5 million went to members of the House subcommittee that recently held the “How Should the Federal Government Oversee Insurance?” hearing.
Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.), $2,287,345; Sen. Chris Dodd (D–Conn.), $1,102,056; and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D–Pa.), $491,545 were the top recipients of insurer contributions in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Sen. Dodd heads the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over insurance matters, and Rep. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee.
Other top recipients include Rep. Melissa Bean (D–Ill.), $358,603, and Rep. Ed Royce (R–Calif.), $297,574, who are co-sponsoring legislation to allow large insurers to choose state regulation in favor of a federal regulator.
House Financial Services Committee Chair Rep. Barney Frank (D–Mass.) and Vice Chair Rep. Spencer Bachus (R–Ala.) have received $342,796 and $312,550, respectively, from insurance industry sources.
“The insurance industry is using the chaos created by failed federal oversight of other financial players to ask for the same weak treatment and regulatory options given to the banking industry,” charges Doug Heller, executive director of Consumer Watchdog. “And insurers have invested tens of millions of dollars in politicians to help their cause.”
Carriers such as Allstate, State Farm, and Zurich favor the Optional Federal Charter (H.R. 1880) legislation authored by Reps. Bean and Royce (H.R. 1880). The bill would offer big insurance companies the ability to opt out of state regulation and select a federal overseer instead. It also would prohibit the regulation of rates by the new federal agency and would preempt state rules governing rates and unfair rating practices.
Among the key supporters of H.R. 1880 is Subcommittee Chair Kanjorski, the House’s top recipient of insurance donations.
Consumer Watchdog contends that the Optional Federal Charter, or any federalization of insurance regulation aimed at preempting state laws, will undermine consumer protection laws.
“Giving insurers the ability to opt out of state regulation in favor of a legislatively neutered federal agency is nothing other than deregulation by another name,” Heller argued. “It would be disastrous to support federal insurance deregulation as a response to the banking deregulation debacle that has left the American economy in shambles.”
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 12, 2009 7:56:06 GMT -7
From The Washington Post
Health Sector Has Donated Millions to Lawmakers By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 8, 2009; Page A09
Health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th Congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping health-care legislation, according to a study to be released tomorrow.
Health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the House and Senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group.
The biggest beneficiaries in the Senate included John McCain (R-Ariz.), with $546,000; Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), with $425,000; and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), with $413,000, who as head of the Finance Committee will play a leading role in the debate over health-care reform.
In the House, the two groups gave $257,000 to Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and $249,000 to Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). On the Democratic side, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) received contributions from the insurance sector ($104,000), while Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.) took in $180,000 from drug companies.
The donations underscore the stakes in the health-care debate as President Obama pushes for dramatic changes by year's end, with the aim of sharply expanding the number of Americans covered by health insurance. Obama held a health-care summit at the White House last week and has proposed a $634 billion reserve fund to kick off the process.
The health-care sector has long ranked with financial services and energy interests as one of the most powerful political forces in Washington, and it spent nearly $1 billion on lobbying in the past two years alone. As momentum moves toward overhauling health care, major medical groups have stepped up their lobbying and campaign activities while shifting money and attention to newly empowered Democrats, according to federal records and industry experts.
"This is the next big fight on Capitol Hill," said Craig Holman, a governmental affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, which did not play a role in the new study. "Now that Obama is about to start making health care one of his greatest priorities, we are going to see these legions of health-care campaign contributions and lobbying activity as they try to win a seat at the table."
Consumer Watchdog, formerly known as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, says the amount of money pouring into Congress from the health-care sector raises questions about the independence of lawmakers as they consider dramatic changes to the health-care system. The group conducted the study using Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, isolating the insurance and pharmaceutical categories from the broader health-care sector.
Obama, who is not included in the analysis because he is no longer in Congress, received more than $2 million from the insurance and pharmaceutical sectors during his record-breaking presidential campaign. All of the contributions were from individuals, however, as Obama forswore donations from political-action committees.
Jerry Flanagan, Consumer Watchdog's health-care advocate, noted that Baucus was the top Democratic recipient of contributions from health insurers and drug makers over the past four years. Baucus has taken a leading role in the health-care reform debate, and he issued a "white paper" in November advocating the kind of mandatory-coverage approach favored by major insurance companies.
"The concern here is that money is buying influence and policy changes that help the industry but hurt the American people," Flanagan said. "They want a policy that requires Americans to buy their product."
But Baucus aides say the Montana senator has championed many policies opposed by health insurers and drug companies, including cuts in payments to Medicare Advantage plans and support for importing lower-cost drugs from Canada.
"For 30 years, Max Baucus has only been influenced by one thing: what's right for Montana and what is right for the nation," Baucus spokesman Ty Matsdorf said. "Health-care reform is the same. His only goal is to make sure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care."
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican House member from Louisiana who runs the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said campaign contributions from his industry simply reflect participation in American democracy.
"We do what most people do in political systems: We support people with whom we agree and with whom we believe in," Tauzin said, adding, "We also support other people who don't always agree with us but are honest and fair and open-minded."
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 12, 2009 7:56:55 GMT -7
Webrunner, don't worry, I'll get the rundown from the other lobbies too, I just don't have the time right now....
something else I'd be interested in seeing is how this correlates locally, TENET, the other hospitals, MHMR/RGCOG, and the rest....
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jun 12, 2009 9:26:35 GMT -7
OK, my question is pretty naive, but here goes What value do HEALTH insurance companies add to the delivery/availability of health care? I spent almost 14 years working for Prudential Insurance (none in the health care market), and hold a State of TX General Insurance Lines license. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I do understand the fundamentals of how Insurance Companies use the payments of all insureds to cover the costs of paying for health care for those that use it. The basic principle is that they will collect more in premiums (add to that the investment income they make while holding those premiums) on any given day than what they pay to providers (Hospitals, Doctors, Pharmacy etc). They also claim that by bringing a large group of insureds to the table they gain leverage when negotiating costs for drugs and medical services. Basically they strong arm the providers into accepting only a portion of what they would otherwise attempt to charge a patient in return for a steady stream of patients (and potential patients - "In-Network") and theoretically regular stream of payments (IE instead of 1000 check or CC transactions from individual patients, a monthly or quarterly single large payment from the insurer). In theory this sounds like a great deal for the providers and the patients. From where I am sitting this whole theory seems to have failed miserably as evidenced by the rising costs of medical care and the number of uninsured - who for the most part are either priced out of the insurance market or simply impoverished. Let's put some real numbers to this. I pay approximately $7,850.00 per year to provide health insurance to my wife and one child. This is before any co-pays, and deductibles. My company pays an estimate of $4,800.00 for my health care. So just out of the pay check that is $12,650.00 a year. This is just for Insurance - no relationship to what services I use. Now looking at El Paso only. If you use the population of 583,419 with a median age of 32 years of age. Let's say all people 32 and over (50% of the population) pay the same rates I pay for health insurance. That would be 291,709 people X $4,217.00 (my cost / 3 people covered) = $1,230, 136,853.00. That is $1.2 BILLION in premium payments flowing through the Health Insurance Companies, just in El Paso. Thomason Hospital in their 2007 financial statement www.epchd.org/webshell/thomasonweb2.nsf/Financial%20Statements.pdf?OpenFileResourceshows operating expenses of $220,672,000.00; interest expense of $1,718,000; and intergovernmental transfers of $10,622,000.00. A total of $233,012,000.00 expenses. Seems to me if we some how eliminated the Insurance Companies and paid directly to the Hospital instead we could pay to operate Thomason 5 times and give everyone free health care. Obviously this seems silly and not completely worked through - but in theory eliminating the insurance company and changing our Medical Care Delivery paradigm to a cooperative structure can be a viable alternative to both Government Control and the existing third party system. Still thinking this through - but for me the bottom line is we do NOT have a health care crisis. We have a health care cost crises deriving from the paradigm we use for delivering and financing the cost of care.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 12, 2009 16:27:45 GMT -7
am I reading this correctly? Are you advocating for single payer, snil?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jun 13, 2009 5:44:44 GMT -7
am I reading this correctly? Are you advocating for single payer, snil? Worse than that. I am advocating community owned - or a mutual ownership arrangement. There is plenty of cash in the current system to not only keep doctors well paid, but to provide the care needed without a profit
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Jun 13, 2009 7:03:16 GMT -7
I thought I was getting hosed by paying $632.00 a month for my wife and 2 kids ( I am not included because I am 70% VA disabled, and am not "affordably insurable"). I own my own business, so there is no co-premium payer. In the past 3 years we have gone to the doctor...once. My son. Doctor's visit only.
I changed to Blue Cross Blue Shield from Unicare. Started Unicare at $525 a month including dental, went, in the space of 2 1/2 years to $832.00 a month, NOT including dental. No hospitalizations, one doctor's visit...period...in the 2 1/2 years...
I don't understand the increase, but my knowledge is limited...
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 13, 2009 8:49:06 GMT -7
when there seems to be no way to account for the increase, they will tell you that increases (those seemingly unrelated to your actual use of the policy and its benefits) are related to those created/driven by the market years ago, in one year....I think the policy was from AMS, don't remember who underwrote the policy though......our policy jumped from approx $200 per month to over $680, with no explanation. We didn't use it, no doctor's visits and nobody got hurt or sick that year. So we dropped the policy altogether (husband's coverage was "limited" but automatic), and we prayed like hell nothing would happen while we looked for another. We had two kids at the time, both of us were working and there was still no way we could afford the expense...it was like trying to carry another mortgage. We didn't qualify for CHIP, so for years, we paid out of pocket for the kids because we couldn't qualify for any family coverage, even after we lowered our income so we could qualify. The year we finally did, they changed the rules And we didn't qualify. We still make "too much". What dental coverage? ;D
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 13, 2009 8:57:57 GMT -7
I have always liked the idea of a "Community owned" model, but I would settle for the infamous "choice" package that "Harry and Louise" pooped all over when the Clintons ( ) were in office single-payer will never happen. we should look at all of the doctor-owned/pharma-owned health care related industry and try to mitigate their impact on the system, and that would take an honest assessment of the political influence they have over health care delivery until the electorate is ready to hear it, things will not get better
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Jun 13, 2009 9:03:59 GMT -7
If I could have my wish...it would be to take that money I pay to BCBS, pay for a catostrophic illness or accident policy, and put the rest in a savings account
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jun 13, 2009 9:15:06 GMT -7
it's a profit-driven model of access and delivery snil; it's not patient-centered care and the current attacks against a "socialized" form of health care delivery are obscuring the reality...it's industry-driven rhetoric, and I don't think Obama or the Democrats will do much to stop it because they know who will put them out of office if they try anything too "drastic" to override the profit model
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 22, 2009 4:40:29 GMT -7
www.postcrescent.com/article/20090722/APC06/907220489/1003July 22, 2009 Wendell Potter column: We can't trust health insurance industry The insurance industry says it has no intention of ending the practice of canceling the health care coverage of many people who get sick. In a rare moment of candor, executives at three of the largest insurers made the admission at a congressional hearing last month. Don't expect to hear much else like it for the rest of this year. Health insurers prefer to tell the American people what they want to hear while the industry keeps doing whatever it can get away with to maximize profits and please Wall Street. As a former health insurance executive, I see the spinning gears of the industry's richly funded PR machine in Washington as it shapes the debate. Some congressional leaders and Beltway pundits have praised big insurance companies for claiming to offer unprecedented commitments to change and compromise. But if Congress reviewed testimony it heard during the last national health reform debate 16 years ago, lawmakers would see that industry leaders said the same things and made the same promises then as they're offering now. At a House committee hearing in October 1993, insurance executives supported steps to ensure every American is covered, eliminate pre-existing condition limitations, standardize benefits "so consumers truly can compare health plans" and simplify paperwork. One of the witnesses was Karen Ignagni, now head of the industry's biggest lobbying group. A year ago, I left my job as a health insurance company spokesman because I did not want to be part of another disingenuous campaign to kill good reform. I did not intend to go public, however, until I saw that the industry's charm offensive is working. It's quite possible that health reform will wind up benefiting Wall Street investors more than average Americans. I worked inside the health insurance industry for nearly 20 years, leading corporate communications at Humana Inc. and CIGNA Corp. and serving on numerous industry committees and coalitions. I traveled on corporate jets. I saw executives served gourmet meals on fine china in their offices because they were too spoiled to leave for lunch. I saw company-provided drivers take them to and from work in shiny black BMWs — all paid for with your skyrocketing insurance premiums. I accepted perks and even thought I deserved them. It wasn't until a rainy weekend at a county fairground back home in Tennessee when I witnessed the desperation that our inhumane, for-profit health care system was inflicting on the American people and realized I was on the wrong side of this issue. I was shaken to see thousands of men and women standing in long lines to go into cattle barns for free medical care provided by volunteers, all because they were uninsured or underinsured. I felt a responsibility to come forward. I know better than most that the American people cannot and should not trust the health insurance industry, which has evolved into a cartel of huge for-profit companies. Nearly one in three Americans is enrolled in a health plan managed by one of the seven largest for-profit insurers. Because Wall Street investors expect insurers to pay as little as possible for medical claims, companies cancel policies when people get sick. It's all connected to a key financial indicator for insurers, the "medical loss ratio." That's the term for the share of total premiums paid to doctors and hospitals. A report prepared last year by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows how well the insurers have been meeting Wall Street's expectations: the industry's average medical loss ratio dropped from more than 95 percent in 1993 to around 80 percent in 2008. It isn't just individual members who get dumped. Big for-profit insurers routinely "purge" small businesses that may have only one worker with a family member who gets sick. Sometimes that's enough to prompt an insurer to hike premiums so high that the employer drastically cuts benefits, shops for another insurer or discontinues coverage. One insurance CEO recently told Wall Street analysts that, unlike in 1993, insurers are "working hard to position ourselves as part of the solution," and indeed the industry is spending millions on PR and lobbying to create that impression in Congress. At the same time, they tell Wall Street they will do whatever it takes — shift costs to consumers, purge the sick or reduce their own work forces — to book more and more profits. While some think the insurers have offered "concessions" to lawmakers, watch out for the industry's drive to maintain "benefit design flexibility" — jargon for the freedom to sell skimpy policies with large deductibles and co-payments that offer only the illusion of protection. Those are the kinds of "affordable" health plans that people will be herded into if the industry wins and Congress doesn't create a voluntary public health insurance plan with a standardized benefit package, ready on Day One. Congress must not fall for the idea that this is suddenly a kinder, gentler insurance industry we can trust.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 22, 2009 5:09:04 GMT -7
Okay, one thing. I'm guessing this is in response to the declining public support for Obama care. Here's my question, why must it be the case that support is waning due to the evil charms of insurance execs? Could it actually be that, as details emerge, folks, including political folks (my hopes are resting with those Blue Dog Democrats) are starting to see real problems? Naaaaaaw.
Okay, one more question. I thought part of the current reform actually mandated insurance, such that failure to have it subjects one to fines ('cause that'll help the poor). How exactly is that mandate going to work to vanquish evil insurance companies?
BTW I actually know the answer to my last question. I'm just testing everyone else.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 22, 2009 5:31:43 GMT -7
support is indeed waning because people see the holes in this promise for "change" Web, and because they realize that in order to maintain their credibility and stand behind these and other promises, politicians are willing and able to adopt the same (or similar) misleading spin in order to market "change" while they enact legislation that is still friendly to the idea of profit-centered care packages
see, in order to maintain the illusion of fairness, you have to denigrate that evil "socialism" by employing the idea that we are all the "same". Nobody wants to be "the same" or "equal"....not here
we want what we're entitled to and what we have "earned", right? I mean, you make a good living and have coverage, right? You have worked for that, you went to school and earned your degree. There is little that compares you to, say for example, a maid, whose education is limited. Granted, she works too, but really now, is that really enough for her to be considered "the same" with the likes of you, and mid-level managment, whose toilets she scrubs?
That is not the way our capitalist and class-based society is structured.
Now, with that off my chest: the notion is a very "capitalist" one, if you ask me. If you take away the hold that third party payers have on politics and the entire health care industry by providing alternatives, including a government model for reimbursment, making it competitive, forcing them to earn what they believe is their very own piece of the pie...they are not going to like this challenge
it forces them to actually work to compete in an industry they have dominated for decades. It forces through the model of choice for consumers, some of whom would presumably "choose" to give their money to someone else. This means less money for that particular industry.
How do we avoid this? Well, for starters, we ensure "stability" of the market by making sure politicians vote the way they "should". We ensure that whatever legislation they enact has a minimized negative effect on our hold in this market.
I'm sure there are politicians out there that are less beholden to special interests, somewhere...but I suspect there aren't enough to ensure that real change takes place. Because nobody out there can stomach the notion that health care shouldn't be a commodity for sale. To do so would be un-American, a communist notion. And we are not Commies.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 22, 2009 5:50:34 GMT -7
Webrunner, you are one for calling this administration on half-truths and outright lies, and you're to be commended for that. Now, my challenge is: take it all the way and show us where there is a model out there that suits itself to the needs of the growing numbers of un/underinsured
because they are costing the rest of us TONS of money in both the short and the long term
the Obama administration is attempting to spoon-feed the notion of "change" in the industry, and the public, but it's at odds with who pays into re-election campaigns: the insurance industry. So the idea is to move slowly, allow them to stay on top and adapt? And what happens to all of the people who were sold (and banked on) this notion of "change"? This is what they voted for, right?
the other extreme cries "foul" and spins dire warnings of socialized medicine, but the truth is that none of the models currently proposed were what was sold during the last presidential campaign. And there is not one model currently being "examined" or proposed that does not unseat third party payer or the profit-based model of health care.
Further, none of the proposed models that I have seen have any reliable degree of oversight which would hold the third party or government-based systems accountable to instances of mismanagement, waste or outright fraud.
All this administration is doing is repackaging existing models in the hopes of selling the IDEA of change, rather than doing what it said it would. Even then, you would have to spoon-feed fiscal responsibility and equality to those who worship the bottom line. And even then, these are but mere notions, and there isn't one politician out there that doesn't already know this.
|
|