National Journal - "Health Insurers Funded Chamber Attack Ads"

[TomCADem]

If you ever wonder where all that Chamber money for those anti-HCR attack ads is coming from, this just confirms our suspicisions.

http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php

Just as dealings with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats soured last summer, six of the nation's biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.

That money, between $10 million and $20 million, came from Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, according to two health care lobbyists familiar with the transactions. The companies are all members of the powerful trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.

The funds were solicited by AHIP and funneled to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help underwrite tens of millions of dollars of television ads by two business coalitions set up and subsidized by the chamber. Each insurer kicked in at least $1 million and some gave multimillion-dollar donations.

"There's no question that AHIP has quietly solicited monies from their members which were funneled over to the chamber for their ads," said a source. The total donated by the health insurers, according to one estimate, was as much as one-quarter of the chamber's total health care advertising budget.

[johnaries]

1. Yep, puts the lie to the "Corporate Giveaway" meme, doesn't it. nt

[depakid]

2. Only to the astonishingly naive

[sandnsea]

3. Explain please n/t

[depakid]

6. Insurance lobbyists wrote a lot of the legislation!

and were cheering for it back in December when the Dems finally killed the charade of the public option with refrains of we win!

[sandnsea]

8. While secretly funding its death?

They got a seat at the table. They did not get to buy the whole table.

That's what was promised and that's what happened. And despite all their duplicity and millions of dollars funneled in every which direction, we're getting a better bill than what was proposed in 2004 by any candidate.

They didn't win jack and they know it. This is a huge win for Democrats, unbelievable win. And President Obama stood firm and got almost exactly what he campaigned on, and may still get the public option if we help Harry Reid fight for it when he puts it up for a vote in the next few months.

Fight FOR it. You never win throwing rotten eggs at people.

[depakid]

11. That's how Washington works!

No they didn't get everything they wanted- and like the banksters that's always their goals- and usually what they get in most of the states and on the federal level but they got about 90% by playing both sides of the field.

As with most Republican ideas, the bulk of the legislation reflects poor public policy that doesn't address the root causes of the problem.

EJ Dionne pretty well sums it up:

Here is the ultimate paradox of the Great Health Care Showdown: Congress will divide along partisan lines to pass a Republican version of health care reform, and Republicans will vote against it.

Yes, Democrats have rallied behind a bill that Republicans—or at least large numbers of them—should love. It is built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.

Republicans have said that they do not want to destroy the private insurance market. This bill not only preserves that market but strengthens it by bringing in millions of new customers. The plan before Congress does not call for a government “takeover” of health care. It provides subsidies so more people can buy private insurance.

Yes, the Dems have to pass this for political reasons- and to get the turd out of the living room, but that doesn't there won't be repercussions for the Dems as over time the premiums rise and insurer abuses continue.

[TomCADem]

4. Well, Why Did AHIP Publicize The A Report In October 2009 Attacking The Baucus Senate Bill?

I know a lot of folks want to distill everthing into a Bush type world of good and evil, black and white, and corporatist and non-corporatist. Some folks have made up their mind, and have decided that the bill is only being done to give away money to insurers, and that President Obama and the Democrats really do not care about the American people.

Yet, we not only have the fact that coverage is expanded to millions, but we also have the increasingly obvious efforts of AHIP and the Chamber to kill the bill. Heck, even the so-called pro-insurer Baucus bill was attacked by AHIP with Republicans gleefully citing to this report to justify their opposition. You would think that if AHIP really wanted the bill to pass, they would at least STFU and stop publishing studies attacking the bill, and funneling money to the Chamber to run ads against the Bill.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-pricewaterhousecoopers-premium-problem/

It makes for a pretty easy day of fact-checking when the very authors of a less-than-thorough analysis of a bill come out and say, you know, that study wasn’t exactly thorough.

And we didn’t pay them to say that.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance industry lobby, however, did pay PricewaterhouseCoopers to take a look at certain aspects of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill – certain aspects AHIP doesn’t really like. PwC concluded that the bill would increase health care premiums substantially more than they would rise otherwise. AHIP released the study in what’s widely interpreted as an attack on the legislation, but now PwC cautions that its analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.

The PwC report estimated that the average family premium would cost $25,900 in 2019 if certain provisions of the bill were implemented, $4,000 more than the average premium cost under current law. The report projects the most significant increase to hit the individual market (as opposed to small-group and large-group markets), with premiums increasing 47 percent more than they otherwise would by 2016. PwC acknowledged in its report that it didn’t factor in various provisions, such as premium subsidies, that would lower its estimates

[Ikonoklast]

5. Like Bernie Sanders? Dennis Kucinich? Howard Dean?

Real bunch of naifs there.

I'll gladly stick with the naive.

[depakid]

7. Dean, Kuch and Sander ALL know that this legislation- to use Deans words is crap

But the sorry Democrats backed themselves into a corner- and now have no choice to pass REPUBLICAN legislation that relies on failed policy models.

Insurers won alright- and they're LAUGHING AT YOU.

As well they should, because they'll keep on bleeding you dry and not only will you LIKE it (and thanks to the Dems, there won't be anything you can do about it).

[sandnsea]

10. It's practically the same as Dean's plan

And that's not just me saying that,

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/howard_dean_and_the_goalposts.html

In fact, I'd say it's better than Dean's plan because of the Medicaid expansion. I don't know why Dean calls what is essentially his own plan... crap.

[depakid]

12. Sorry Ezra it's essential Romney's plan!

And I surely ain't the only one who's noticed that:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_democrats_are_fighting_for_a_republican_health_plan_20100320/?ln

[sandnsea]

13. Well he must have copied Dean and Kerry

The Massachusetts plan was written by Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature, just like the one in Oregon and the one in Vermont. Subsidized health insurance is not Romney's plan and never has been. Please note the Republicans lined up against this bill.

[depakid]

14. Actually, it's more or less what Nixon proposed almost 40 years ago!

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Sans much of the big money thrown to private insurers.

[Political Heretic]

15. Not even close.

From:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7956377

And yet, there has never been a more ambitious spin campaign than the one undertaken to rebrand this insurance industry hand-out as “health reform.” Supporters of insurance reform argue that the Insurance Industry’s past public opposition to the legislation is indication that the bill does not benefit them. Such a claim reflects a dangerously naive lack of understanding of how lobbying works.

It is in the best interests of the Insurance industry to spend a fraction of its multi-billion dollars on a campaign against any reform legislation. Why? Because it puts them in a position to win compromises from the White House, which is exactly what happened. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals won all sorts of concessions over the last year including special exemptions, removal of language that would have regulated drug pricing, the elimination of any public plan competition, weakening of federal oversight, etc.

There is no reason for them not to keep pushing public opposition when doing so has won them private concessions month after month after month through this process. Privately however, industry insiders tell a completely different story. “We win!” wrote one such insider, according to Politico.com.

And why shouldn’t they celebrate? Their strategy of public opposition and private lobbying and negotiation has delivered to their bank accounts nearly a trillion dollars every ten years. With millions of new customers and little to no regulatory oversight on Insurance’s ability to raise rates, limit services or deny/cancel coverage, business is about to boom.

The insurance industry is too smart to stake everything on one outcome. Thanks to their strategy, if insurance reform passes, they win. If it does not pass, they win.

The rest of us lose.

[strategery blunder]

9. Health Insurers=Money Launderers

:grr:

[Political Heretic]

16. Insurance Companies do this because its to their tactical advantage: either way, they win.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7956377


And yet, there has never been a more ambitious spin campaign than the one undertaken to rebrand this insurance industry hand-out as “health reform.” Supporters of insurance reform argue that the Insurance Industry’s past public opposition to the legislation is indication that the bill does not benefit them. Such a claim reflects a dangerously naive lack of understanding of how lobbying works.

It is in the best interests of the Insurance industry to spend a fraction of its multi-billion dollars on a campaign against any reform legislation. Why? Because it puts them in a position to win compromises from the White House, which is exactly what happened. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and for-profit hospitals won all sorts of concessions over the last year including special exemptions, removal of language that would have regulated drug pricing, the elimination of any public plan competition, weakening of federal oversight, etc.

There is no reason for them not to keep pushing public opposition when doing so has won them private concessions month after month after month through this process. Privately however, industry insiders tell a completely different story. “We win!” wrote one such insider, according to Politico.com.

And why shouldn’t they celebrate? Their strategy of public opposition and private lobbying and negotiation has delivered to their bank accounts nearly a trillion dollars every ten years. With millions of new customers and little to no regulatory oversight on Insurance’s ability to raise rates, limit services or deny/cancel coverage, business is about to boom.

The insurance industry is too smart to stake everything on one outcome. Thanks to their strategy, if insurance reform passes, they win. If it does not pass, they win.

The rest of us lose.

[deminks]

17. Kinda like the too big 'banks'. They made crappy loans, then bet against them.

Either way, they win, people lose.

[TomCADem]

18. If So, Then Why Fund The Harry and Louise Ads In 1993 If They Win Either Way?

Why spend millions trying to kill reform if the insurance companies win either way? In 1993, Bill Clinton tried to pass an insurance reform program that is similar to the current one, since it relied on an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Yet, insurance companies attacked reform even though Clinton's plan fell far short of single payer, and arguably mandating coverage would result in a windfall to insurers.