The Empire Strikes Back

| Mon Oct. 12, 2009 6:50 AM PDT

AHIP, the insurance industry trade group, has apparently decided to hop off the healthcare reform bandwagon.  After months of claiming that they were on board, they released a report on Monday claiming that current proposals would raise insurance costs for middle class families by about $4,000 more than otherwise projected over the next decade.  It's a pretty standard lobbyist group effort: the report was written by an "independent" outfit (PricewaterhouseCooper, the same guys who wrote similar reports for the tobacco industry in the 90s), it makes several convenient assumptions, and in the end it comes up with a dramatic and surprisingly precise measure of financial doom for Joe Sixpack and his family.

So what's the deal?  Is AHIP really trying to kill healthcare reform?  Or is this just a shot across the bow?  There's no way to know for sure, but Jon Cohn offers up this thought in a postscript to a detailed look at the report:

A friend e-mails, asking if AHIP's motives are really as clear as they seem. As proof, the friend points to the passage in Ignani's cover letter calling for more system-wide cost control. AHIP didn't get a sweetheart side deal like the hospitals and drug industry did. And those sweetheart deals will almost surely mean less cost control. Maybe part of AHIP's agenda is simply to get more serious cost control, so they don't become scapegoats for high insurance premiums.

I have my doubts that AHIP is really all that dedicated to cost controls.  What's more, they did get a sweetheart deal of their own: in return for agreeing to various regulations on preexisting conditions, out-of-pocket caps, and so forth, they got a promise to include an individual mandate in the bill.  That mandate means more people will buy insurance and it's worth billion of dollars to the industry.

However, the Baucus bill has weakened that mandate.  So the problem may be not that they didn't get a sweetheart deal, but that they're afraid the deal is being watered down too much.  There's even a decent case to be made that they're right (i.e., that the individual mandate really ought to be stronger than it is in Baucus's markup).  I wouldn't be surprised if this report has been on the shelf for a while, with AHIP plugging in the final numbers and releasing it now as a way of warning congressional negotiators that full-scale war is coming unless their bribes are restored to the full level they thought they were getting in the first place.  If that's the plan, though, it might be backfiring.  Here's Carrie Budoff Brown at Politico:

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.)....Senate Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called it "a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple."

"This report is untrue, disingenuous and bought and paid for by the same health insurance companies that have been gouging too many consumers for too long as they stand in the way of reform yet again," Mulhauser said in an emailed statement. "Now that health care reform grows ever closer, these health insurers are breaking out the same, tired playbook of deception to prevent millions of Americans from getting the affordable, accessible care they need."

Stay tuned.  AHIP seems to have pissed off quite a few people with this piece of gamesmanship.  We'll know shortly which side will pay a price for this.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

PriceWaterhouseCoopers also

PriceWaterhouseCoopers also counts the votes from the Academy Awards.... Just sayin.

I'm with AHIP on this one,

I'm with AHIP on this one, albeit for non-profit-related reasons. A mandate offends me. Everyone knows that this particular push for health care reform is focused on extending coverage to the proportion of the population that currently doesn't have it, and not on the skyrocketing costs of health care in this country. Or if they don't, it ought to be obvious from the proposals that have made their way through committee. Doing so will require more money, not less, which means a higher tax, somewhere. A "mandate" is nothing but a disguised tax -- it forces young and healthy people to buy insurance they don't actually need. I'm not all that young anymore, but I'm lucky enough and/or healthy enough to be free of major medical conditions, so given a choice I would (and do) opt for a high-deductible plan that costs on the order of $14/month, but would prevent me from going bankrupt if anything serious were to happen. This is the sort of plan that makes sense for the vast majority of 20somethings and even 30somethings. Forcing them -- forcing me -- to purchase anything more than that is a waste of our (my) money, at least from a personal perspective. It's a tax, and nothing less.

Yeah, it's a tax... so?

Forcing them -- forcing me -- to purchase anything more than that is a waste of our (my) money, at least from a personal perspective. It's a tax, and nothing less.

Yeah, that's right, it's a tax. Sorry. Universal health care has to be paid for somehow, and this is your share. Other portions are going to be paid for in various taxes on high payout plans, taxes against insurance companies themselves, and in other ways, but... the whole system won't work if healthy people opt out en masse. You're correct in that we need to work harder to wring costs out of the system, but that's really a separate issue. You still have to play for this to work. The good news is that although you won't always be so healthy, the system will be there for you when you get old and infirm.

Also, in an unrelated issue: I hope people understand that PWC isn't the villain here. They were undoubtedly contracted to write an analysis as follows: assume scenario X for health care: what would that cost? Where "X" is deliberately contrived to be as unfavorable as possible. No doubt PWC (or just about anyone else) could come up with more favorable scenarios, but that wasn't what they were asked to evaluate.

I disagree -- I don't think

I disagree -- I don't think the "system" will be there for me when I get "old and infirm". Because at the current level of expenditures, expanding healthcare to all those who are currently uninsured is not feasible without utterly destroying the economy. All the talk about "death panels" has been overheated and laden with distortion, but the fact remains that in order to afford a national health care system, we will have to ration health care. There are sensible ways to do that, especially given how badly overused the health care system is in this country, but is anyone taking bets on whether we'll be going down any sensible path? Both sides are poised to prevent that. I could pay for my future infirmity with my winnings...

Twisted Logic

It would be easy to fix the problem presented by the report. Of course the fix would be at the expense of the insurance companies. I suppose they want us to give up reform entirely. . . . though, I'm not sure why since the Baucus bill will likely be a bonanza for them. But then, there is the problem that we might water down their payoff by limiting the people who are forced to buy in.
I say, let's take them at their word and really fix the plan. If we go for single payer, no one will pay more, the economy will be improved and the only ones who will lose out are the funders of that report. I mean, why force them to be hypocritical? If they are going to complain, let's give them something to complain about. . . and save the rest of us while we're at it.

Single Payer

I have never had health coverage. the last time I was in a doctor's office, it was for eye glasses.

No broken bones - allergies or flu shots for me.

But as I am getting older, I see the treatment of aging Americans by insurers, and I shudder.

I don't think healthcare should be a for profit business. My brother in law had $1200 a month coverage -- and when he had a heart attack - he left the hospital with a bill for over $10,000 !! -- my sister was apoplectic.

When I see all the Mexicans in our emergency rooms [I took my daughter when she was going into labor - and it was an education] - I wonder -- why are we spending all this money on foreign nationals.... and WE AMERICANS get zip.....

I'm with Lou Dobbs on this one..... no more anchor babies... no more health care for foreign nationals.... and round em up.... and head em out!

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.