A health insurance agent and TPM reader sends along this set of health care reform talking points the agent says AHIP is distributing to local insurance offices across the country. Our agent got the talking points from the password-protected agent-only website of a major insurer.
"I was surprised to see AHIP is against any kind of public option at any time," the source told TPMDC when asked why he was forwarding the information our way.
The AHIP talking points offer several arguments against what the documents call a "government-run plan." Chief among them is that passing a public plan amounts to "turning back the clock on quality, care coordination and disease management." The AHIP memo also says that under a public plan "patients' choices and access to health care will suffer."
AHIP agrees with President Obama that "now is the time for comprehensive health care reform that makes coverage more affordable, improves quality, covers all Americans and puts the health care system back on a sustainable path," according to the talking points.
But the insurance industry lobbying group says the only way to achieve those goals without "unintended consequences" for patients is through "far-reaching administrative reforms" proposed by AHIP that would "slash paperwork, reduce medical errors and ensure doctors and hospitals can focus on patient care."
The group dismisses a public plan, stating government-run insurance "would dismantle employer-based coverage, thereby violating the shared commitment to ensure that those who like their current coverage can keep it."
To back up its prediction of "consequences" that come with a government plan, AHIP slams Medicare, saying the 45 year-old public insurance plan "has had virtually zero innovation since its inception."
"Many Medicare beneficiaries today have trouble locating a primary care physician that well accept new Medicare patients," the talking points state. "Enrollees in the government-run health plan would experience similar difficulties."
The lobbying group expresses support for another controversial aspect of the current health care debate, however. AHIP calls for "an enforceable personal coverage requirement that brings everyone into the system." Of course, the system AHIP refers to is the private health insurance system.
An AHIP representative did not respond to multiple requests for comment this afternoon.
Read the AHIP document here.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

mans_best_friend
October 13, 2009 5:55 PM
SSDD.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
October 13, 2009 6:02 PM
Shorter AHIP: Give us more customers, and less competition, or we're raising everyone's rates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 13, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to commie atheist
Real AHIP: What you wrote, but change the "or" to "and"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
scobie
October 13, 2009 6:11 PM
What's scary is that, with shadowy lobbyists, there's no opportunity for a "Have you no shame?" moment. I also wish we had more whistleblowers like this; I re-watched "Sicko" the other night, and I would have thought that, with the recent debate, we'd get a lot more behind-the-scenes people coming forward. Because these companies DO NOT have our best interests in mind; we're just walking dollar signs to them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
October 13, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to scobie
And if the job market wasn't shit, you'd probably be right. A secure job at an evil corporation is probably a better option to some would-be whistleblowers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
October 13, 2009 9:22 PM in reply to scobie
Perhaps a techy amongst us can set up a "have you no shame" bulletin board.
If these lobbyist became pariahs, so that their own relatives, children, etc... were ashamed of them, it might help.
I know, I know, they don't really care. But I've been around these kinds of people before (several friends were slimy salesman and womenizers), they don't really care, but what they really, really, really, really do care about is their reputations.
I saw it with a womanizer friend/acquaintance: he had no compunctions about what he was doing, but he was knocked dead on his feet at the thought of that becoming common knowledge, for, amongst other things, he'd have less marks to target if they all knew who and what he was.
Same things for these people. The should be put in stocks in the village square but short of that, create a "hall of shame" that they richly deserve for putting money ahead of the thousands of people who die every day because they don't have access to health insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 13, 2009 7:17 PM
Those talking points sound remarkably like the tone of those banner ads BCBS of NC is running across the top of this site with my and my employer's premium dollars. (You'll never know what it cost me to write that sentence without any profanity whatsoever.)
BCBS/NC: "We're totally for reform, because we have your best interest at heart. Except for all the reformy parts."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
October 13, 2009 7:40 PM
Just got a letter from BCBS today. As of 10-9, all MRI's, CT's, etc must be pre-approved by them. One more example of private insurance not getting between the patient and doctor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
October 13, 2009 9:52 PM
And their explanation for why they haven't already done that is...?
They could implement those sorts of reforms in a matter of months if they chose to. And since I don't disagree that such reforms would save money (which, under our current system, would mean they would make money), the only explanation seems to be that they make more money by denying care, and loading doctors and hospitals with paperwork and keeping them from focusing on patient care is a way to facilitate denying payment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheraP
October 13, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to Redshift
"slash paperwork" .... Best way to do that is eliminate the insurance middleman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
October 13, 2009 9:55 PM
I heard the AHIP rep on NPR this evening, saying (and this is nearly a direct quote) that the important thing is to get everyone covered, and worry about the cost later.
It's obvious that's what's best for them, but they're usually not so blatant about it. What's best for us, of course, is quite a different matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
October 14, 2009 6:28 AM
"They could implement those sorts of reforms in a matter of months if they chose to"
This is the question which should be asked directly by the white house. After all, this is a free enterprise system, so why haven't these free agents taken on these reforms on their own, all in the name of customer satisfaction, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sagae
October 14, 2009 9:38 AM
I can't see why Democrats don't challenge the attacks on Medicare more forcefully. What would private insurance for a 70 year old cost if there was no Medicare? What would life expectancy in the US be without Medicare? As far as availability of doctors to people with Medicare, they're probably talking about rural areas. Those areas would certainly get more doctors if more people were insured. Doctors who turn down Medicare patients are probably much more wary that people with no insurance won't pay the bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeMarchand
October 14, 2009 10:12 AM
Sagae: Unfortunately docs turning down patients on Medicare is not just a rural phenomenon, it's happening more in Urban areas as well. (I work in Long Term Care btw) The big problem is that Congress doesn't adjust the Medicare reimbursment rates very often, and Docs and Nursing homes wind up treating at cost or at a loss, depending on the patient. I'm all for Medicare/Medicaid but Congress needs to adjust the rates more than once a decade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?