AHIP Not Into Obama/BaucusCare

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:36:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The irony is rich:

A report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans alleging that the Senate Finance Committee legislation would cause health care costs to go up faster than under the current system. [. . .] It's interesting that the report comes from AHIP, which has spoken publicly in favor of overhauling the health care system, but has worked behind-the-scenes to kill aspects of the president's plan, including attempts to create a government competitor to private plans, Insurance companies have also balked at the watered-down individual mandate in the Finance bill.

[. . .] UPDATE: An administration official called. The White House isn't happy. AHIP chief Karen Ignagni met with White House and Senate Finance officials last week, and she said they were "a ways away from doing an analysis," the official said. "There is a feeling among White House officials that they were misled." This might be the first rift unfolding in public between an industry player and the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Governing is hard work. Especially when you play footsie with the folks trying to destroy your supposed agenda.

Speaking for me only

< He Was Never That Into You | Monday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

AHIP Not Into Obama/BaucusCare | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We don't need no stinking (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:57:49 AM EST

public option...it'll be easy as pie to regulate the insurance industry...

...

The Dems need to read more (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:05:03 AM EST

"Mr. Snake approaches Mr. Turtle on a river bank and asks Mr. Turtle for a ride across the water since he can't swim the river himself. Mr. Turtle politely refuses to oblige, reasoning that if he were to give Mr. Snake a ride across the river, he would surely be bitten. Mr. Snake protests saying that it would be foolish for him to bite the one carrying him, since it would result in him perishing also. Mr. Turtle considers the argument, then agrees to ferry Mr. Snake over the broad river. When they are half way across the river Mr. Turtle feels a sharp pain and realizes he has been bitten by Mr. Snake. As the venom is beginning to take effect, Mr. Turtle sadly and resolutely asks Mr. Snake why he bit him, since the biting will also result in Mr. Snake's demise. A wry smile came upon Mr. Snake's face. `I bit you because I am a snake, Mr. Turtle; that is my nature.'"

: Perfect. thank you! (none / 0) (#5)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:29:32 AM EST

30% profit (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:20:43 AM EST

"A report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans alleging that the Senate Finance Committee legislation would cause health care costs to go up faster than under the current system"

scare tactics from an industry that takes a 30% profit through denial of care.

AHIP does favor the "overhauling the health care system", as long as that "overhaul" includes the indiv mandate, and the destruction of any possible competition to their monopoly of healthcare.

please, let some politician (grayson? kucinich? sanders? someone?) press legislation that will make it a crime to profit off of the care of seriously sick children. let's start there. let's make it a crime for private insurers to finance their yachts/mansions on the backs of seriously ill children. sick child = no one profits. no profiting from children with disease. none. nada. bupkus. zero. zilch.

in a democracy we, the people, could do this.

(however unlikely with a sheepified populace, a corrupt govt and media that is controlled by ruling class interests)

Well let's see (none / 0) (#1)
by SOS on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:53:03 AM EST

first they try to bribe you, if that doesn't work they then try to destroy you, if that doesn't work . . never mind. . .

so maybe Obama has at least resisted the "would like cash in a briefcase or an electronic transfer" system like Bush Co enjoyed.

Wasn't one of the goals (none / 0) (#6)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:30:18 PM EST

Of health care reform to REDUCE costs? According to today's Washington Post the average family will see their health care insurance costs rise by $4,000 a year!!!! Who can afford that? We can barely afford what we're paying now! What happened to reigning in the cost of health care?! Sounds like it's going to explode.

There is NO WAY that I will support this bill. Time to write my Senators, again.

You can't reduce the cost of something (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Slado on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:20:37 PM EST

When you expand the size of it.

The big insurers aren't going to pay more because they'll pass the cost down to us, the small employers or privately insured. We'll pay higher premiums or have more taken out of our take home pay so that someone we don't know gets access to "free" care.

Some have a problem with that and some don't but no one should deny that is the reality of expanded care.

The government can't afford to just pay for the extra care because it won't make cuts to anything else. Instead those paying into the system pay more and the government doubles down on working Americans by taxing them more to make up the difference.

This plan will make sure middle class America gets it on both ends.


: unreality (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Illiope on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:36:29 PM EST

this is not "the reality of expanded care", this is the reality of a corrupt and protected industry.
an industry that is not forced to compete, that has bought off the congress, and is conspiring to ensure that their 30% profit is not jeopardized.

You are relying on (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Steve M on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:36:16 PM EST

a study that was commissioned by the insurance companies to undermine the reform effort. You can find specific criticisms of the study all over the blogs today, but suffice it to say that this is far from a definitive source.
