« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Health Insurers Have Second Thoughts About Riding The Tiger

Big Business and Big Government: What Could Go Wrong?

The Wall Street Journal notes that even as Obamacare posed great threats to the independence and profitability of health insurers, they were willing to play along with an effort they thought inevitable as long as they could get the government to force more people to buy their product and dodge the poison pill of the public option:

A year ago, the industry’s main trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, decided to try to get out in front of the overhaul effort. Insurers agreed to renounce some of their most controversial practices — such as denying coverage to applicants with pre-existing health conditions — hoping to gain millions of new customers through mandated coverage.

It’s a time-tested strategy by Big Business in making deals with Big Government: hope you can cut a deal that puts the real hardships on consumers and small competitors, and avoid the worst for yourself. But of course, once you have traded your freedom for crumbs from the government table, you lose control over the process. And the Journal notes that insurers are starting to have some second thoughts about the deal:

Big insurers are still hoping to influence some language in the legislation before Congress sends it to the president. But one thing is clear: The initiative is poised to change their industry more than any other sector of the U.S. health-care system, with huge potential to disrupt profitability.

Cuts in government spending for Medicare Advantage, the privately run health plans for the elderly, are a major source of funding for the overhaul. And an excise tax on most insurers is set to cost the industry $70 billion over 10 years.

“We will be taking a fundamental look at our business, our business model and how we invest our capital,” Ron Williams, Aetna Inc.’s chief executive, said this week.

Maybe they should have thought of that sooner.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    “…hope you can cut a deal that puts the real hardships on consumers…”

    When will the execs making these stupid decisions realize that the “consumers” they’re selling down the river are their customers, their shareholders, their employees, their relatives, and even themselves?

    It used to be trut that what was good for business was good for America, not so much any more. Businesses constantly undermine liberty in pursuit of government rents or protection.

    THAT is what I personally have against BIG business. When a business is too big to fail it is in fact too big for competition and seeks to hobble competitors via regulation. We need to limit the size of business to prevent this type of anti-competitive nonsense.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      First off, what was good for big businesses NEVER was good for America. Ever.

      Second, you’re making the same mistake in reverse that the big businesses are making. You’re trying to ride on Big Government to go to war with Big Business, in your desire to ‘limit the size of business’, and hoping Big Government won’t turn on you next.

      • Achance

        http://www.redstate.com/achance/2009/02/20/gleichschaltung-a-german-word-we-should-understand/

        Business has run to sell him the rope with which he will hang them!

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          But Obama’s trying. He’s sure trying.

      • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

        a 4 hour drive I started after my post so now I can finally respond.

        Yes, once there was a time when what was good for business was good for America. Back when America’s industrialists were Americans who saw the strength and future of their companies inextricably tied to the strength and future of America.
        I’ve worked for several multi-nationals who no longer consider themselves American companies but global companies and their executives have little remaining loyalty to the country that has made them so successful.

        The Congress can legitimately use the Commerce Clause to prevent the oligopolies we have in several industries, like cellular phone service, to ensure maximum competition and also to prevent the pathetic rent seeking engaged in today by so many anti-competitive corporations like GE, Duke Energy, et al.

        I don’t know at what point a company abandons competition and seeks to hobble competitors via regulation but my guess is that when a company exceeds a billion in revenue it seeks to shape legislation in its favor and against the free market. I don’t know the answer but when a company begins to aid and abet the unconstitutional erosion of our liberties then there is a problem in need of a solution.

    • creditman

      An old movie, “Hitler’s SS: Portrait of Evil” shows Hitler making pacts with big industry and unions in Germany. At that point, they were all screwed.

      He promised the unions everything that they wanted and industry that unions wouldn’t bother them any more. The same is happening here. The only thing different I see, is we won’t be going to war against a benevolent western civilization.

      We must always remember that no business or industry is too big to fail. It is clear to me that congress realized that it had gone out on the hook to the banks to back up the mortgages and loans made to people that obviously couldn’t pay them back. Instead of taking the hit and bad press, they took it out of our pockets. Once it was found to be that easy, they came back for more. If the banks had failed, what would have happened? The assets would be sold, and we would come to reality.

      I have no problem with the tea baggers wanting them all out. The good with the bad. The good haven’t been good enough and the bad is self explanitory

      • Vegas_Rick

        your description of Tea Party participants is offensive. Please stop using that phrase.

        • Scope

          that creditman used a very offensive expression describing the participants of tea parties, and I believe it is something sexual, please don’t tell me I don’t want to know. We have been called so much worse, such as Nazi’s, I stopped being offended. Ridicule is part of the Progressives game plan. I’m not saying that creditman is a progressive.

          • Vegas_Rick

            a thick skin is a political necessity. But we shouldn’t have to put up with progressive drivel here at home.

          • GovernmentWatchList

            and I agree with you there.

          • rec0n

            severely restricting big businesses access to government favortism. They feed on us together. Sever the ties. DeMint suggested term limits, which imo is necessary for any number of reasons, but it shouldn’t stop there.

            Not an easy battle. One that needs messaging from people willing to stand for something (i.e. the opposite of McConnells example in Plain Speaking).

            Socialistic creep has been slowly strangling this country for decades, NOT the free market or capitalistic ethic. It’s past time we had someone behind the microphone willing to say it, and then fight all the way back.

  • mbecker908

    and this is why almost no businesses are fighting card check.

    First of all, the idea that denying coverage for a preexisting condition is bad business practice is simply hogwash. On the other hand, the idea that insurers cannot or will not use “community ratings” is a real problem. If I have an individual policy and have a heart attack, my policy will be “rated” and my premiums will go through the roof unless I am a member of a large group. I will effectively become uninsurable even though I’ve held and regularly paid premiums on an existing policy.

    Secondly, it also ignores the fact that business, at least in the insurance industry, is severely hobbled and consumers are screwed because of STATE regulation that effectively prohibits insurance from being sold across state lines.

    • bk

      and I can wait and buy coverage after I have an accident.

  • techsan

    Time and time again recently, if you get $1 of government money, and if you didn’t ante up enough to the right campaign, you get your salary fixed by some government appointee. Do these guys not think they’re next?

  • snowday

    Like making a deal with the mafia for short term gain, but long term misery.

  • bk

    AARP makes its money from gap insurance. If the AARP gets more money from UnitedHealth, that’s a good thing from the AARP’s viewpoint.

    AMA was obviously going to be on board in the end. They just needed a few concessions like pushing some extra costs on things like tanning beds or whatever instead of normal medical ops. They had commercials prepared in advance by front groups that went on the air as soon as they got bought off.

    So the same way Senators were getting bought off, these other groups were getting bought off. It’s the average people like you and me who get screwed.

  • student

    Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” nicely depicted the fate of the “businessmen” who, fearing to compete in the free market, try to survive by aligning to the thieve’s world of politicians – a world where success is doled out based on influence rather than performance. Business conducted through successful competition in the free market to provide goods and services valued by consumers is a nobel endeavor. Businessmen who try to succeed through alliances with corrupt politicians buying and exchanging favors should be scorned and shunned as the slime they inevitably become.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    It’s not that I don’t have compassion on the plight of individuals with pre-existing conditions, but why would/should an insurance company cover them? Insurance is based on hedges. I pay in advance, hoping I never have to file a claim. But if I need to file, I’ve paid into that option.

    Insurance companies won’t even have an opportunity to budget for this, as the current Senate bill immediately covers children with pre-existing conditions. I’m not an accountant, but I would think this alone will create serious financial strain on insurance companies, leading of course to *no one* being able to collect on a claim if the insurer goes under.

    Yes, people are “one illness away” from losing their homes. But many people are living paycheck to paycheck, anyway – some by poor choices and others through no fault of their own. One fire, a lost job, or other unwelcome and unanticipated incident can do the same thing. Are all these things going to become a fundamental right as well?

    In effect, I’m one signed health care bill away from losing my home as I won’t be able to afford what will undoubtedly be a dramatic increase in my health care premiums.

    • creditman

      “Yes, people are ?one illness away? from losing their homes. But many people are living paycheck to paycheck, anyway – some by poor choices and others through no fault of their own. One fire, a lost job, or other unwelcome and unanticipated incident can do the same thing. Are all these things going to become a fundamental right as well?”

      For years the credit industry has warned against living this way. If we use credit as an income, we have no reserve. There are no guarantees in life. The problem with socalism is that eventually the money runs out. They you are slaves to the system until death.

      • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

        My parents taught me well. They used cash for everything except their house. For the longest time my dad wouldn’t even use a debit card. I have about 6 months saved up in a rainy-day fund, and would like to build this up even more. My only current debt is a reasonable mortgage payment every month. Freedom from debt is liberating.

      • Scope

        the credit industry has not been warning against living paycheck to paycheck for a very long time. They encourage people to have as many credit cards as they are offered. One late payment, and your interest rates on those cards can go over 20%. Now I understand that some are increasing iterest rates even for those that pay their entire balance every month, and on time. No sir, the credit card companies have been guilty of predatory lending as much as the mortgage and loan companies.

        • longwalker

          I have two credit cards. I pay off my entire balances each month and on time. The interest rate that the credit card companies are “charging” me means nothing. The interest rate could be 100% a month and I would not care. I don’t like the term “predatory lending” because, in too many cases, it reflects an opinion not supported by evidence. I believe the problem is not so much the lenders as the borrowers. The borrower knows his or her financial situation and should be able to resist the temptation of borrowing beyond their means.

          • Michael Dugas

            Noway! Not resposible behavior as an answer…..you….you….conservative!

    • VizBiz

      If you were paying attention over Christmas, you read this report. It’s becoming clear that home ownership is on the path to becoming a right. Look for a whole host of new entitlements to be deemed as rights in 2010 from the Left

      • bk

        amazing

  • RedBeard

    Free enterprise is not government-finagled enterprise.

    • Scope

      I refuse to buy any product with the GE symbol on it, or if I know it was made by GE. They have the most to gain by the new Green crap.

  • izoneguy

    I had coverage for my family and myself through my business.
    We had younger employees and back then (1994) they did not cost that much. After I sold the business I was diagnosed with Rheumatoid arthritis. I could not get insurance to save my life…..
    One insurance agent suggested I call the Risk Pool. They now cover my medication – Enbrel – it costs $1200 per month. My premiums are $500 per month and that is on a $5000 deductible. If I did not have this medication I would probably have been in a wheelchair by now.
    It really works and I am deathly afraid of the changes that may come.
    All people like me that have conditions that must be controlled for the rest of our lives are probably in deep doo-doo????

    • Menlo

      The Senate bill sets up a new nationwide risk pool until the government policies kick in. I think you may be eligible for subsidies depending on your income. Then again, some analysts have predicted the system would be broke three years before it was set to end.

      Personally, I would be willing to join a risk pool just to avoid the individual application process. Banning that in and of itself would be a drastic improvement and real health reform. Health insurers have no need for and should not have a right to a five-to-ten year lookback, and I refuse to complete a form that asks for one.

  • bart

    Once again, the left has people spitting on the shopkeepers for paying protection money to the mobsters. Sure, the big companies are stupid. But the real story is the power of the State to coerce. Its not a failure of capitalism but the success of statism.

    • Vegas_Rick
  • RedBeard

    GE’s Immelt is many things, but stupid isn’t one of them. He gleefully joined hands with Obama for one reason, and that was the profit that the unholy alliance of statism would provide. In his case, the state didn’t coerce so much as it offered him a tantalizing piece of the ill-gotten gains if he would play ball.

    • bk

      They are both doing what it takes to use Obama and the Greenies to become billionaires.

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    I remember, not so long ago, some other big businesses (banks and certain auto makers) kissing up to Uncle Sam for bailout money. They sold their souls and are now paying the price.

    I guess the insurance industry wasn’t paying attention. Too late now, suckers!

  • WarEagle01

    at least in the Senate bill. There’s specific language that prevents the IRS from taking any criminal action against those who don’t get insurance. It’s essentially a “voluntary mandate.” Even if they could enforce it, the penalty is a mere pittance compared with an insurance premium. And since insurance companies can’t modify premiums or deny insurance due to preexisting conditions, there is absolutely no reason to buy insurance ahead of time. Just wait until you get really sick. So I don’t see how the insurance companies ever thought they were going to benefit from this monstrosity. It’s just stupidity.

  • jakee308

    should have a long spoon.

    Serves them right.

    They were more than willing (like big Pharma) to screw the public out of more money, that we can ill afford, to fatten their portfolio. Now that they understand that Obama doesn’t play by the old rules and is a Leftist (at best) ideologue and that THEY are the ones about to get taken to the cleaners, NOW they want fairness in the process.

    Suck it up Biznitches!

  • Scope

    the ones to benefit from the Senate bill are the big health insurance companies. The day after the Senate voted for cloture, and the bill was widely expected to pass, the big insurers gained 4% on the stock market. It had gained 14% just since Dec. 4. No wonder the big health insurers have been very quiet. I hope the Communists are successful in getting the Senate bill shelved, but, when the Republicans gain the majorities, they had better do a much better job of addressing the problem with market based solutions, rather than hoping it will all just go away again.

    Read this comment elsewhere today-

    “We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.”

    • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

      ?with a clause requiring them to cover pre-existing conditions? I’m not challenging anyone, and am open to this being explained to me — but I’m with WarEagle. I don’t see how the insurance companies can survive. You’re correct, Scope. Health insurance stocks stocks soared on the news. But why?

      I haven’t read the entire Senate bill, but will things end up being like these companies that offer loans with their “No credit? No problem!” guarantee. Sure, we’ll give you a loan (or offer you health care insurance), but it’s going to cost you $150,000. In their socialist world, will the liberals require that insurance companies charge everyone the exact same amount? Is there a limit on what insurers can charge?

      • Menlo

        The taxpayers will foot the bill for premium increases.

        • rec0n

          that there would be heavier penalties leveled on the consumer for failing to carry insurance, as well. That didn’t happen – to the best of my knowledge they’re now left w/having to provide coverage re: of pre-existing conditions, but the individual can float in or out pretty much at will. So they’re still looking at being forced out.

          Suhprise, suhprise, suhprise, Gomer.

          • Menlo

            It doesn’t matter how expensive it becomes to insure people. The subsidies will be provided. Think of it as a “bailout” of the health insurance industry.

            I don’t really think that is going to be as heavy a burden on the companies as some seem to believe. They are a big oligopoly and not in that fragile a financial state. I would also point out that the insurance companies’ definition of “preexisting conditions” is too irrational to make such an assumption.

            The likely effect in the worst case scenario is that insurance companies will become de facto government agencies.

      • bk

        As long as they make money in the short term, they don’t care about much else. Someone else can worry about it when they go out of business later.