Insurance companies and collusion? Naaw.
November 10, 2010 8:56 AM Subscribe
Is the insurance industry conducting an organized campaign through word of mouth to use the recent healthcare bill changes to maximize profits by manipulating public perception?
Last week, on election day, I overheard a conversation between two people sitting behind me on the el regarding healthcare costs. Both had recently heard the same stories from their employers; due to President Obama's meddling their portion of health insurance costs were about to go up 20% to 35%. This is Chicago where he is a home town hero, both strangers speaking, one African American, one unknown ethnicity. Both were angry that the president's meddling was costing them money. Both had gotten a memo within the past week or two from their employer.
What struck me was the verbiage they used was the exact same spiel I had gotten the week before from my company's insurance rep. We are at the time of year when we are perhaps renegotiating with different health insurance providers and he stopped by to meet with me and "give me a head's up" on what the recent changes were actually going to cost the average worker.
It just seemed oddly timed before the election. And the insurance broker had something he was reading from an internal memo that portrayed the healthcare bill as amateurish, and stupidly voted into law without foresight of how it would affect the average joe.
Personally, I take anything said by a corporation as being only to gain profit and dismissed it when the rep brought it up. I thought at the time though that if I had been a more willing audience he would have really talked up the company line that government should allow insurance companies to do business and the market always sets the best price when consumers can choose. But he is a broker and each of the three different companies he had for me to look over were basically the same deal.
My question is: could there have been an organized campaign by insurance companies in the weeks leading up to the election to leave voters with the impression that although Democrats mean well they enact legislation that hurts consumers more than help?
Last week, on election day, I overheard a conversation between two people sitting behind me on the el regarding healthcare costs. Both had recently heard the same stories from their employers; due to President Obama's meddling their portion of health insurance costs were about to go up 20% to 35%. This is Chicago where he is a home town hero, both strangers speaking, one African American, one unknown ethnicity. Both were angry that the president's meddling was costing them money. Both had gotten a memo within the past week or two from their employer.
What struck me was the verbiage they used was the exact same spiel I had gotten the week before from my company's insurance rep. We are at the time of year when we are perhaps renegotiating with different health insurance providers and he stopped by to meet with me and "give me a head's up" on what the recent changes were actually going to cost the average worker.
It just seemed oddly timed before the election. And the insurance broker had something he was reading from an internal memo that portrayed the healthcare bill as amateurish, and stupidly voted into law without foresight of how it would affect the average joe.
Personally, I take anything said by a corporation as being only to gain profit and dismissed it when the rep brought it up. I thought at the time though that if I had been a more willing audience he would have really talked up the company line that government should allow insurance companies to do business and the market always sets the best price when consumers can choose. But he is a broker and each of the three different companies he had for me to look over were basically the same deal.
My question is: could there have been an organized campaign by insurance companies in the weeks leading up to the election to leave voters with the impression that although Democrats mean well they enact legislation that hurts consumers more than help?
Best answer: I didn't bother to read the entire pamphlet, but an accounting firm handed out something at a recent chamber of commerce function I attended that probably had all the same talking points. What I scanned seemed mainly aimed at employers, and devoted a lot of space to giving a factual run-down of what items go into effect when, but from an employer's POV yeah, it's going to raise costs.
Right or wrong, disagree or agree, heck yeah it was timed. I don't think it was particularly underground, nor is it even entirely about the election. Every year around this time, accounting firms circulate information about how legislation is going to affect taxes and expenses, good, bad or indifferent.
From my understanding, the insurance industry lobbied hard on the healthcare bill and in some respects will gain from it. Most employers are not exactly in love with their healthcare insurance provider.
posted by randomkeystrike at 9:13 AM on November 10, 2010
Right or wrong, disagree or agree, heck yeah it was timed. I don't think it was particularly underground, nor is it even entirely about the election. Every year around this time, accounting firms circulate information about how legislation is going to affect taxes and expenses, good, bad or indifferent.
From my understanding, the insurance industry lobbied hard on the healthcare bill and in some respects will gain from it. Most employers are not exactly in love with their healthcare insurance provider.
posted by randomkeystrike at 9:13 AM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: Yes. My HCP was talking about cuts (even before Obama took office) thanks to the dismal state of the economy. But once Obamacare passed, THAT became the reason that cuts had to be made.
posted by coolguymichael at 9:27 AM on November 10, 2010
posted by coolguymichael at 9:27 AM on November 10, 2010
Response by poster: From what I understand everything really works out in their favor. People in their twenties that used to forgo health insurance either by not being employed in a way that makes it feasible or not seeing it as useful from a cost/benefit analysis point of view are now covered on their parents' policies. That is a cash cow because the payouts are fortunately rare.
So win/win for big insurance. But cry poor.
posted by readery at 9:33 AM on November 10, 2010
So win/win for big insurance. But cry poor.
posted by readery at 9:33 AM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: I would think that there is a campaign going on, but that it is probably funded by pro-business groups and healthcare providers not the insurers.
posted by JPD at 9:46 AM on November 10, 2010
posted by JPD at 9:46 AM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: At my employer, we use a payroll service that also handles our health insurance and other benefits. Every year we have an open enrollment where we select our coverage -- and get to grumble about how our insurance rates went up again.
This open enrollment normally occurs in June, but this year, the payroll service rescheduled it to take place in October -- right before the elections.
posted by zombiedance at 9:50 AM on November 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
This open enrollment normally occurs in June, but this year, the payroll service rescheduled it to take place in October -- right before the elections.
posted by zombiedance at 9:50 AM on November 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Of course they are stealing, everything going along fine, then this law happens, find a way to steal more. What else would they do?
Creeps
posted by Freedomboy at 9:57 AM on November 10, 2010
Creeps
posted by Freedomboy at 9:57 AM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: My employer sent out a memo that made it seem like they were doing us a HUGE FAVOR by raising our rates "by only a little bit" this year, because of the huge burden inflicted upon them by "Obamacare" and used some rather interesting phraseology to make it seem as though they were also doing us a favor by providing us with the legally-mandated child coverage.
I really don't get why big businesses and insurance companies are up in arms about this. Their lobbyists got almost everything they wanted out of the bill.
On the flipside, they also finally joined the 21st century, and are now offering same-sex partner benefits. I guess I can't complain too much.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to allow this to happen while sprinting away from their greatest legislative achievement in a generation.
posted by schmod at 10:05 AM on November 10, 2010
I really don't get why big businesses and insurance companies are up in arms about this. Their lobbyists got almost everything they wanted out of the bill.
On the flipside, they also finally joined the 21st century, and are now offering same-sex partner benefits. I guess I can't complain too much.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to allow this to happen while sprinting away from their greatest legislative achievement in a generation.
posted by schmod at 10:05 AM on November 10, 2010
I think a lot of this is that the cost of health insurance is going to continue to increase, for reasons that include: profit for insurance companies, rising cost of medical care, and the health care bill (since you will no longer be able to buy cheapass useless insurance). So, when someone complains to the insurance company about the increase in costs, they blame it on the health care bill, even though that's only part of the issue, because no one wants to think about rising health care costs, and calling attention to their profits would be stupid.
Basically: I don't know if it's calculated or concerted - I don't think it has to be! It's a pretty obvious tack to take.
posted by mskyle at 10:22 AM on November 10, 2010
Basically: I don't know if it's calculated or concerted - I don't think it has to be! It's a pretty obvious tack to take.
posted by mskyle at 10:22 AM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: From what I understand everything really works out in their favor. People in their twenties that used to forgo health insurance either by not being employed in a way that makes it feasible or not seeing it as useful from a cost/benefit analysis point of view are now covered on their parents' policies. That is a cash cow because the payouts are fortunately rare.
This is true and one reason that the health insurance industry was majorly in favor of the flavor of health reform that the Dems passed (individual mandate to buy insurance + subsidies for those who can't afford it + requirement that insurance companies sell everyone, not just the healthy). However, it's worth noting that this piece of the legislation doesn't actually kick in until 2014, so insurers aren't seeing some huge rush of health young people into their plans that would hypothetically spread the risk more.
The more-immediate provisions of the health care bill that went into effect in September of 2010 (e.g., banning lifetime limits on benefits, forbidding pre-existing condition exclusions for kids) could have the effect of raising health care costs in the near-term. However I don't think this is considered a major driver of health care cost inflation by, well, anybody credible with expertise in the field. Medical cost trends actually slowed in 2008 and 2009, due to the crappy economy; people have fewer babies, fewer hip replacements, cut back on medications or switch to generics, and so forth when the economy tanks. That's one reason why health insurance premiums for employer-based coverage only increased by 3% - 5% between 2009 and 2010, which is pretty much historical-low territory.
If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on insurance brokers rather than insurance companies spreading misinformation---brokers are probably going to get really, really screwed come 2014, because individuals and small employers won't need their help in navigating a broken insurance market, as theoretically the health insurance exchanges will cut out the middleman. Then again, it could just be people getting pissed off about a 5% increase when pay is pretty flat and prices elsewhere aren't rising, and choosing to blame it on the tangentially-related-thing (health care reform) that sucked up a lot of media attention last year. Who knows.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:18 PM on November 10, 2010
This is true and one reason that the health insurance industry was majorly in favor of the flavor of health reform that the Dems passed (individual mandate to buy insurance + subsidies for those who can't afford it + requirement that insurance companies sell everyone, not just the healthy). However, it's worth noting that this piece of the legislation doesn't actually kick in until 2014, so insurers aren't seeing some huge rush of health young people into their plans that would hypothetically spread the risk more.
The more-immediate provisions of the health care bill that went into effect in September of 2010 (e.g., banning lifetime limits on benefits, forbidding pre-existing condition exclusions for kids) could have the effect of raising health care costs in the near-term. However I don't think this is considered a major driver of health care cost inflation by, well, anybody credible with expertise in the field. Medical cost trends actually slowed in 2008 and 2009, due to the crappy economy; people have fewer babies, fewer hip replacements, cut back on medications or switch to generics, and so forth when the economy tanks. That's one reason why health insurance premiums for employer-based coverage only increased by 3% - 5% between 2009 and 2010, which is pretty much historical-low territory.
If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on insurance brokers rather than insurance companies spreading misinformation---brokers are probably going to get really, really screwed come 2014, because individuals and small employers won't need their help in navigating a broken insurance market, as theoretically the health insurance exchanges will cut out the middleman. Then again, it could just be people getting pissed off about a 5% increase when pay is pretty flat and prices elsewhere aren't rising, and choosing to blame it on the tangentially-related-thing (health care reform) that sucked up a lot of media attention last year. Who knows.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:18 PM on November 10, 2010
Best answer: Agree with everyone here. Something nobody mentioned during the "debate" last summer about healthcare is that costs were rising something like 17% a year for the least few years.
What also has the effect of seeming like a conspiracy is that the opposition to Obama is very good at maintaining their messaging and phrasing. The word Obamacare, for example. Death panels. So it gets to where any mention of healthcare reform is going to contain a lot of the same themes and code words.
posted by gjc at 3:49 PM on November 10, 2010
What also has the effect of seeming like a conspiracy is that the opposition to Obama is very good at maintaining their messaging and phrasing. The word Obamacare, for example. Death panels. So it gets to where any mention of healthcare reform is going to contain a lot of the same themes and code words.
posted by gjc at 3:49 PM on November 10, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Miko at 9:00 AM on November 10, 2010 [6 favorites]