How the insurance companies are playing healthcare reform opponents for fools

[Vic Vega]

"The most vocal folks at the town hall meetings seem to share the same ideology as my kinfolks in East Tennessee and my former CIGNA buddy: the less government involvement in our lives, the better.

That point couldn't have been made clearer than by the man standing in line to get free care at Remote Area Medical's recent health care "expedition" at the Wise County, Virginia, fairgrounds, who told a reporter he was dead set against President Obama's reform proposal.

Even though he didn't have health insurance, and could see the desperation in the faces of thousands of others all around him who were in similar straits, he was more worried about the possibility of having to pay more taxes than he was eager to make sure he and his neighbors wouldn't have to wait in line to get care provided by volunteer doctors in animal stalls."



"So the next time you hear someone warning against a "government takeover" of our health care system, or that the creation of a public health insurance option would send us down the "slippery slope toward socialism," know that someone like I used to be wrote those terms, knowing it might turn many of the very people who would benefit most from meaningful reform into unwitting spokespeople for the industry."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

[Praktik]

Author of the piece, Wendell Porter, interviewed here. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html)

[T.A.M.]

Here is what is really insane. If you listed a top ten of what people would wish their taxes would go to pay, I am willing to bet health care would be one of them.

TAM:)

[Rolfe]

Here is what is really insane. If you listed a top ten of what people would wish their taxes would go to pay, I am willing to bet health care would be one of them.


Exactly. If the right-wingers who like to dredge up the British complaints about the NHS read to the end, they'd find that the complainants don't want the NHS to be abolished and a US-style system to take its place, they want the government to spend more of their taxes on it!!!!

Almost every single time you hear complaints about the NHS, the line is something like, please stop spending so much money on Trident and on screwing up people's lives in Iraq, and spend it on US!

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You guys are making too much sense on this thread.

Where's someone to come along and start spouting some nonsense?

[thaiboxerken]

Obama wants to use tax money to kill old people!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obama wants to use tax money to kill old people!!

Thank you! :)

[T.A.M.]

American: We voted for Obama, because we wanted change.
Canadian: Ok, well maybe you should get him to make health care available for all of you.
American: **** that. I *********** hate government. NIMBY!!! NIMBY!!!
Canadian: (Raises eyebrows, shakes head, and carries on with what he was doing).

TAM:)

[tyr_13]

But you don't understand! Private industry has always done everything better than government. Err, I mean, people who don't have insurance have only themselves to blame... Or, umm, I mean...

Oh! It doesn't work in other countries! Well fine, it works great in other countries... but they have to pay more! Except that they don't....

Maybe I'm too close to Canada, but this really shouldn't surprise anyone. I like the free market, but I like it to have rules that protect people.

[boooeee]

Does anybody have links substantiating the notion that health insurance companies are the ones funding and/or encouraging the vocal anti-reform people at the town hall meetings?

The commentary linked in the OP doesn't provide much.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

[boooeee]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks


Not a single mention of health insurance companies on that site.

[tyr_13]

Does anybody have links substantiating the notion that health insurance companies are the ones funding and/or encouraging the vocal anti-reform people at the town hall meetings?

The commentary linked in the OP doesn't provide much.

Did you read the article in the link? It's an industry whistle blower whose job it was to do such things.

[thaiboxerken]

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/08/astroturfing-healthcare.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32454754

[boooeee]

Did you read the article in the link? It's an industry whistle blower whose job it was to do such things.


Yep. The evidence he provided was in regards to health insurance opposition to prior reform efforts (Patients Bill of Rights, Clinton Era Reform, etc.). As far as I can tell, the industry is mostly on board with the reform efforts being proposed today.

[boooeee]

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/08/astroturfing-healthcare.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32454754


Video links. Very helpful.

[boooeee]

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/08/astroturfing-healthcare.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32454754


Just watched the entire 7 minute Rachel Maddow link. Excellent report. Not one mention of insurance companies.

I'm not gonna bother with your other video link.

[thaiboxerken]

I like how you look at the evidence and simply dismiss it without any regard to the facts. I guess that's just a bit too harsh. It seems that it's other big corporations that are fueling the anti-health reform lies and misconceptions. It certainly is not a grass-roots effort.

[thaiboxerken]

Not a single mention of health insurance companies on that site.

One of the board of directors is a health care executive. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/cppr-dci-astroturf/

[boooeee]

I like how you look at the evidence and simply dismiss it without any regard to the facts. I guess that's just a bit too harsh. It seems that it's other big corporations that are fueling the anti-health reform lies and misconceptions. It certainly is not a grass-roots effort.


There's plenty of disingenuous astro-turfing going on. But it doesn't seem to be the insurance companies, despite what is being claimed in the OP.

[T.A.M.]

There's plenty of disingenuous astro-turfing going on. But it doesn't seem to be the insurance companies, despite what is being claimed in the OP.

The insurance companies are to smart to have their hands DIRECTLY dirtied by this issue. Have you noticed their sweet little commercials on TV supporting universal coverage, supporting doing away with "pre-existing conditions" clauses. Take it from a doctor (albeit a Canadian one), the health insurance industry DOES NOT want to get rid of "pre-existing health conditions" clauses.

Publicly they are either remaining silent, or pretending to be the good guys.

TAM:)

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Take it from a doctor (albeit a Canadian one), the health insurance industry DOES NOT want to get rid of "pre-existing health conditions" clauses.

What the health insurance industry has proposed -- and something that IMHO actually makes sense -- is that they would be fine with getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses if health insurance was mandatory (a bit of an oddly socialistic proposal from an otherwise capitalistic group). Whether this is a genuine proposal is perhaps another matter, but it is a proposal, nonetheless.

The reality of the system today is that it makes no sense for health insurance companies to not have pre-existing condition clauses. If those clauses didn't exist, people would simply buy insurance when they got sick, and then drop it when they got better (it would be like buying an auto insurance policy after you rear-ended somebody and then expected the insurance company to pay for it). If you simply get rid of pre-existing condition clauses without doing anything else to fix that basic problem, it doesn't make sense. Hence why the system itself needs an overhaul.

[DC]

health insurance has to be mandatory

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

One of the board of directors is a health care executive. ;)

That's a bit disingenuous. He was talking about health insurance, and the person you are referring to (as far as I can tell) is Robert J. Stephenson, the CEO of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America -- a group of hospitals. Not the same industry.

It is a valid point, though, that for all the focus on health insurance companies, there are a heck of a lot of other very wealthy industries involved in healthcare that are trying to influence things (including hospitals, big pharma, doctors, etc.).

It does note that Express Scripts, which is a pharmacy benefit manager/pharmaceutical distributor (a related, but not the same, industry as health insurance) has been involved with FreedomWorks.

[Praktik]

Just watched the entire 7 minute Rachel Maddow link. Excellent report. Not one mention of insurance companies.

I'm not gonna bother with your other video link.

You could read the transcript of the interview I posted in post #2, if the video version is not conforming to your media-type filter..;)

[boooeee]

You could read the transcript of the interview I posted in post #2, if the video version is not conforming to your media-type filter..;)


Is there any evidence presented in the transcript which substantiates the claim made in the OP: "How the insurance companies are playing healthcare reform opponents for fools".

Specifically, that health insurance companies are the ones behind the current vitriolic protests and attach ads opposing healthcare reform.

[Praktik]

I think the point of the article, written by a guy whose job it was to shape PR for the insurance industry, was that these kinds of protests at the town halls and so on are really lifting the PR language of the industry.

The evidence is in the words they use.

Now this is not an overt, top-down, "you guys go here and say this stuff" kind of thing, and I'm not sure anyone is alleging that.

Its about messaging, and when people are carrying your exact message to these town halls, its evidence that your PR machine is working quite well. Your friendlies in the media are receptive to your press releases and your personal contacts. They repeat your message on-air and in their columns. The public who trust these figures than take the xerox and and repeat the carefully shaped "facts". Nothing is direct. And it would be foolish to say that ALL these protesters at the town halls are buying into this messaging, or that there aren't other factors at play here including genuine concern over the defecit, and higher taxes - but the point is that among all these factors, there is a chain that leads back to the PR machines behind the industries affected.

I would urge you to read the full article and either read the transcript or view the interview I posted, and get out of the dichotomoy of "is the industry directly organizing these protests or not", because if that's your focus then you're missing the point.

[Newtons Bit]

Here is what is really insane. If you listed a top ten of what people would wish their taxes would go to pay, I am willing to bet health care would be one of them.

TAM:)

It would definitely be on mine. Or at least on an individual states top-10 expenditures.

However, the current Obamacare plan is going to raise health-care premiums for just about everyone. We'll have better access, we'll end up paying less when we do need medical care, but the total net cost will be the same. It will just be distributed about more.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does anybody have links substantiating the notion that health insurance companies are the ones funding and/or encouraging the vocal anti-reform people at the town hall meetings?

The commentary linked in the OP doesn't provide much.

I don't think the claim is that the people disrupting town hall meetings are part of some corporate conspiracy. I think instead, the misinformation is being fed (in part) from the insurance companies to very sympathetic political hacks commentators, and the people disrupting the meetings are mostly buying the lies those people are repeating.

There's pretty strong evidence that this is indeed what's going on.

In addition to that, there's also the overt ad war.

ETA: Just got caught up and realized that Praktik made largely this same point but much more eloquently.

[T.A.M.]

It would definitely be on mine. Or at least on an individual states top-10 expenditures.

However, the current Obamacare plan is going to raise health-care premiums for just about everyone. We'll have better access, we'll end up paying less when we do need medical care, but the total net cost will be the same. It will just be distributed about more.

you know what though. I guarantee you won't give a **** when you are rolled in for that bypass surgery, and your bill on discharge is a small deductible.

I only hope your country, and more importantly, your politicians, have the balls, the courage, to get a decent health care bill/option/plan through.

TAM:)

[boooeee]

I don't think the claim is that the people disrupting town hall meetings are part of some corporate conspiracy. I think instead, the misinformation is being fed (in part) from the insurance companies to very sympathetic political hacks commentators, and the people disrupting the meetings are mostly buying the lies those people are repeating.

There's pretty strong evidence that this is indeed what's going on.

In addition to that, there's also the overt ad war.

ETA: Just got caught up and realized that Praktik made largely this same point but much more eloquently.


There's a lot of opposition to healthcare reform, but I guess my overall point is that it's not the insurance companies driving the opposition. Why would they? The key element of the reform is a law that forces people to buy their product.

Just because insurance companies opposed different reforms in the past doesn't mean they are opposing reform now. And I still don't see any "strong evidence" that insurance companies are funding these PR firms to do their dirty work for them. In fact, I don't see any evidence of that at all.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a lot of opposition to healthcare reform, but I guess my overall point is that it's not the insurance companies driving the opposition. Why would they? The key element of the reform is a law that forces people to buy their product.
That's one element in some of the proposals. Most of the proposals also include outlawing per-term and lifetime caps on benefits; most of them would forbid them excluding pre-existing conditions; most would forbid insurers canceling coverage following a claim; some of them include expansions of Medicaid and a public insurance option; etc.

This article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080401447.html)says that health insurance companies have been airing ads on the debate. (Do you suppose they're in favor of the reforms Obama wants?)

This article (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/health-insurers-owe-policyhold.html) points out that while health insurance companies tend to underpay claims, they're shelling out huge sums in political contributions.

Just because insurance companies opposed different reforms in the past doesn't mean they are opposing reform now.
You think maybe they've had a change of heart and realized that don't need to make as much money as they do?

I think they're willing to accept the inevitable (the stuff about pre-existing conditions and covering everyone), so it's better for them to make it sound like it's something they're in support of. (Again, right this minute, the insurance quotes I'm looking at still exclude pre-existing conditions at least for a time--like 6 months.)

I agree they're happy with the proposal for a universal mandate (that everyone has to have insurance), but they're not at all happy with a public option or expanding Medicaid to cover many of the currently uninsured.

Here's an article (http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/08/truth-squad-the-insurance-industry-spreads-misinformation-about-what-a-public-sector-plan-would-mean.html)that looks at the claims made by an insurance industry spokesperson.

ETA: In June, a House committee held hearings with insurance industry representatives on the topic of canceling coverage when people get expensively sick ("rescission"). All the transcripts are here (http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1671:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-hearing-on-terminations-of-individual-health-policies-by-insurance-companies-&catid=133:subcommittee-on-oversight-and-investigations&Itemid=73). This memo (http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf) (pdf) summarizes the committee's findings.