
They were like yin and yang, oil and water. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and America's Health Insurance Plans CEO Karen Ignagni couldn't agree on much today when they debated health care reform at AHIP's conference in downtown Washington, D.C.
Sebelius challenged to insurers to embrace the Obama administration's health care reform efforts before it's too late. Directly after she finished speaking, Ignagni took to the mics to challenge the administration to abandon its efforts to reform the way health insurance works in America -- before it's too late.
The lines appeared to be drawn.
Sebelius appeared before AHIP to ask the insurance companies for their help anyway.
"You have a choice," she said in the prepared remarks distributed by her office directly before the speech.* "You can choose to continue your opposition to reform."
Or, she said, there's the other option. "You can choose to take the millions of dollars you have stored away for your next round of ads to kill meaningful reform, and use them to start giving Americans some relief from their skyrocketing premiums," Sebelius said. "Instead of spending your energy attacking the parts of the President's proposal you don't like, you can use it to strengthen the parts you do."
[TPM SLIDESHOW: The Protest Option: March For Health Care Reform In DC]
For its part, AHIP has pushed back hard, firing off a million dollars' worth of ads claiming that it's not responsible for the rate hikes. Insurance companies are also among the groups funding a multi-million dollar ad campaign led by the Chamber of Commerce claiming that the bill Obama wants passed will lead to pestilence and ruin for all it touches.
Sebelius agreed to appear at the AHIP conference yesterday, despite the fact that the administration has seemingly left the insurance industry behind in the final push for reform. President Obama is crisscrossing the country this week slamming the insurers that fund AHIP for raising premiums in a way that he says forces average Americans to drop their coverage or go bankrupt paying them. Obama has said it's time for debate on a health care bill to end, and for the Democratic majorities in Congress to stop talking and pass reform now.
A Democratic source told me that in the current climate there was no way Sebelius wasn't going to show at AHIP today. A week ago, she admonished the insurers over the rate hikes in a closed door session. The chance to do it before the cameras was just too much for the White House to resist.
Sebelius didn't come only to criticize the insurers to their faces, though. She told the AHIP crowd that unless health care reform is passed now, the rising costs of care -- and the associated rising premiums -- are "unsustainable."
"Employers will not be able to provide care," she said. "And Americans will continue to dread opening the next premium statement or bill from their insurance company."
After Sebelius had finished, it was Ignagni's turn to do the admonishing. Speaking to reporters at a press conference immediately following Sebelius' remarks, Ignagni ripped the administration for continuing to attack her industry.
Reform proponents have "resorted to the usual game of vilification," she said. "There has been a coordinated attack on the good people in this industry."
Ignagni all but rejected any chance that the two sides can come together in what Democrats insist are the final days of the reform debate. She echoed the concerns leveled by business groups at the Obama reform plans -- rather than lower costs and expand coverage, it will actually increase costs, Ignagni said, leading to fewer people with insurance.
In Ignagni's telling, the economic hardship came first. When people began cutting health insurance out of their budgets over the past year, she said, costs for insurers went up as their pool of premium holders shrank. Without a strong mandate in a reform bill, she said, the problem will get worse.
AHIP has long advocated a tough, well-enforced mandate be included in health care reform. Critics claim that this is due to the fact that the stronger the mandate, the more new customers health insurers can add to their rolls. But Ignagni said today that by imposing only "de minimis penalties" on families who don't buy insurance, Obama's reform plan means that families struck by economic hardship will continue to stop buying insurance, which will in turn raise costs for insurers.
A year ago, insurance companies and Obama were in the same room, talking about how to make health care coverage in America better together. At the time, it seemed that both sides -- who have been natural enemies in the debate over how to get Americans cheaper, better care -- might find some common ground.
Twelve months later, however, when both sides were in another room together, the end result was an expression of how far apart insurance companies and the White House remain.
[FULL TPM COVERAGE OF THE BATTLE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM]
Correction: This post incorrectly attributed Sebelius' remarks to her, rather than to the prepared remarks distributed by her office prior to the speech. We regret the error.
Late Update: Sebelius' remarks differed somewhat from the prepared text her office distributed before the speech. Some have suggested the language in the speech was softened when Sebelius delivered it. Here's the relevant section of Sebelius' speech as delivered, from the official transcript from the event provided by HHS:
So there's a choice on the table. Continue the opposition to reform, and if you do, and reform fails I can give you a pretty good prediction of what happens next. By next March when you're meeting again, premiums will take an even bigger bite out of American's wages. Your market will shrink even further; more American's will lose their employer sponsored insurance, and we will have a situation where the market is unsustainable. Small businesses will be looking at a situation where they will be either forced to cancel their employees' coverage, they won't be able to hire new employees, or they will lose their best employees to go down the street or around the corner to someone who has a better health care deal for themselves or their families.Parents and children with pre-existing will be shut out of the insurance market or terrified about what happens if they leave their current job. And Americans will continue to dread opening the next premium statement or the next bill. And that strategy may work in the short-run. I read about a recent Goldman Sachs investor call where there was advice about continuing to make money even if the customer pool shrinks, because the rate increases will more than cover the lost customers. But that only works for a while. That kind of short-term strategy won't work in the long run. It won't work for the American people and it certainly won't work for our healthcare system.
So, there is another choice. I am hopeful that you will take the assets that you have and the influence, and the bully-pulpit that you have, and use it to start calling for comprehensive reform to pass. Start looking at giving Americans some relief, with market-strategies from those who are facing skyrocketing premiums. Instead of spending energy attacking the parts of the proposal that you don't like, come to the table with strengthening the parts that are there, that you talked about from the beginning are essential to comprehensive reform.
The second choice, really may give off some short-term profits. But we also, working together could create a sustainable health insurance market where Americans would still be able to buy coverage. It's better for the American people. I think it's better for the insurance industry and it's certainly better for our health care system.

Barack ObamaJob Approval |
45.3%Approve | 50.0%Disapprove | -4.7Spread |
CongressionalGeneric Ballot |
41.1%DEM | 45.4%GOP | +4.3SpreadR |
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

rbeats
March 10, 2010 1:43 PM
I am amazed a mass murderer like Karen Ignagni can walk the streets as a free woman, and without constantly looking over her shoulder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to rbeats
I hope to hell, these excerpts are no the toughest words Sebelius had for the industry! Not even sure why they continue to bother to talk to these mobsters.
We put Gotti away for less murder than this syndicate has perpetrated. Since when do we openly negotiate with the Mafia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
March 10, 2010 1:50 PM
The Health insurance industry serves the same, natural function as ticks on a deer. Their stunning arrogance will finally push even the DLC league to revolt. After all, self-preservation is most politicians' ONLY instinct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to KeithL
I hardly think the DLC is going to come around. This fringy faction gets most of their money from the industry. Just look at Evan Bayh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarryMo
March 10, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to KeithL
"ticks on deer".
Thank you very, very much for summing up the role of our esteemed health insurance industry.
I was leaning towards a parasitic worm in one's bloodstream, but yours has a lower "ooooo-eeeee" factor!)
I'll try to credit you, as I plan on using that frequently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 10, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to KeithL
I've seen a wildlife program about engorged ticks on moose in Alaska. Eventually, the moose, depleted and anemic, dies. The ticks can't move on because they're too g.d. fat. This, indeed is a spot-on analogy on allegory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
March 10, 2010 1:58 PM
"The good people of this industry...." what all two of them? If we can find that many.
If this weren't so dang serious it would be hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 10, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Given Up
My initial raised eyebrow, as well.
Some intrepid reporter should have asked, "Ms. Iganagni, could you give us a specific, off-the-top-of-your-head list of whom you consider 'the good people' of this industry, in tems of health care companies and trade organizations like yours? Who, specifically, do you consider 'good people', and what have they done to make you feel this way?"
(If any reporter actually did ask that question, that way, I bet the other reporters present would have emitted a group groan and told him or her to shut up...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
badtartin
March 10, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
That would have been a softball lobbed right to her. There are plenty of 'good people' who like puppies and children and work in the health insurance industry. The problem is the business model and the refusal to try and find a better way, not the many thousands of people who get a paycheck at WellPoint or wherever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
March 10, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to Given Up
Come on, there are at least four solid secretaries in the industry, plus the good people who run the cafeteria.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TrentinaNE
March 10, 2010 2:18 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to TrentinaNE
Citing insurance company "research" is a sure fire way to get you taken seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Derek Stodghill
March 10, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to TrentinaNE
I have no doubt the so-called McAllen problem exists (named after the Texas city profiled by the New Yorker). Doctors and hospitals are over ordering which raises the costs to insurers who pass it on to consumers. Thus the insurance industry makes around 5% or less in profit.
So why can't the free market fix this problem on their own? Why can't insurance companies restrict coverage and tell their consumers they aren't paying for CATScans to diagnose a migraine for instance? Why can't insurance companies do their own rationing like in other countries?
For instance, the UK has a limit of something like 40,000 pounds for 6 months. If a treatment will cost more than that ratio, the NHS will subsidize the treatment instead of paying for all of it.
This would reduce their costs which they could then pass on to the consumer. It would also stop rewarding bad behavior by the specialists and hospitals trying to make more money without making their patients healthier. I suspect the insurance doesn't want to get slapped with the label of "Rationing" but that is something that is inevitable at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 10, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Derek Stodghill
The point is, this amounts to an admission that they are powerless to contribute to the solution of making health care services more affordable. They point fingers at providers as being the main problem, but since they have no solution to the problem there is an obvious question of how much profit they should really be making in a context where underwriting is not allowed. Massachusetts figured this out within five years: they are now looking at reforming health care reimbursement, obviously overdue, but the point is, it can only be done via government action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Derek Stodghill
March 10, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to rb6
Yeah that was my point. They (and the free market in general) can fix the system of reimbursement but they choose not to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 10, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Derek Stodghill
Actually, I don't think they can. They tried, and for various reasons, some provider consolidation and some public backlash, I don't think it's tenable anymore for insurers to be the key to containing health care costs. Universal access is the first step to making that really obvious. (It's also the right thing to do.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 10, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to Derek Stodghill
The free market can't fix the problem because provision of health care is not a normal market. If two hospitals each get a fancy new MRI when there's really a need for only one, what happens? They have to charge more to each patient to recover the cost of the machine. In a normal market an oversupply of something drives down prices. In health care the opposite happens...which is part of the reason "free market solutions" to the problem are doomed to fail. Buying health care is not like buying a car and it never will be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 11, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Just a postscript: this is BECAUSE of third party payment. It's also due to other sick features of our system, like physician ownership of equipment where the physician himself decides whether to use the equipment, but gets to bill others for the use.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 10, 2010 2:27 PM
NO CORPORATE WELFARE.
I will spit on the first person who asks me to give a $1000 a year to a private company so that they can provide a policy with a huge deductible that leaves me worse off than before.
$70 BILLION bailout and the Ins Co's get to take 25% off the top before they even pretend to start helping people.
No enforcement mechanism so we are supposed to TRUST the ins cos. FU BARACK, you turned a lifelong dem into a political agnostic with your backroom deals and fellating of phrma and the hospitals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to madmatt
Oooooh, you tell 'em!
I'm sure the president is devastated to learn how disappointed you are!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 10, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
He represents 30% of the base not showing up in 2012.
Obama will listen now, or he will listen then. His choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to NR
Oooooooh, MadMatt and NR calling out the Prez! I bet he's REALLY scared now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
March 10, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to madmatt
Why buy a policy with a huge deductible? Why not join an HMO, they generally have very low out of pocket costs.
What is your current insurance arrangement and why is it better than what you would get under reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeeJo
March 10, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to madmatt
My, my, my aren't you a little cranky today? I am sure that as a lifelong Democrat you used to getting everything you wanted in one large chunk. It sure is a shame that the current President is behaving so badly by not getting it perfect! Every other Democratic President has always gotten everything all at once.
The races of life are won by those who show up and continue to participate, not by those who stop and blame the other runners for having entered the race. After all if now one else had joined in you could win the race even by standing by and napping whenever you get a little tuckered. Soooooo sad. Why don't you grow up and get back into the race?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 10, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to LeeJo
Fcuk you, why don't YOU give the insurance companies YOUR MONEY in exchange for a policy that does you NO GOOD.
If sebelius says the Ins cos will fail if the bill fails I am sold on KILL THE BILL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 10, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to madmatt
Dude.
You have the wrong URL.
You're looking for w-w-w-.-f-i-r-e-d-o-g-l-a-k-e-.-c-o-m.
Tell the hamster I said hello.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to zonk
LOL! Dumbass firebaggers can't find their way to the right site to vent their spleen about the "corporatist" president.
Since they don't have a clue what a "corporatist" is, I'm not surprised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bushwhacked
March 10, 2010 8:35 PM in reply to madmatt
You better make sure you spit on the right person, else you may use the insurance you value so greatly to replace your teeth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 2:31 PM
Folks, this battle between Ignati & Sebelius was staged. Obama is paying for those anti-HCR ads. They're all in this together.
The insurance companies want this bill because it's a bail out for them! They're just pretending they don't want it and spending millions to defeat it just to fool you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
March 10, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
And 9/11 was an inside job...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 10, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
yeah you would have thought they would have figured this out by now.. ....lol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 10, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's true.
I saw a naked Rahm carrying a stack full of cash and his fully cocked chest-pointing finger into the AHIP conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
March 10, 2010 2:49 PM
Attacking health insurance companies while mandating the public to buy insurance from these crooks with the threat of penalty makes such little sense. The real story of thgis mandate is that you will have no choice since Obama refuses to fight for a public option. How much are they giving you Barack for your 2012 run????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 10, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to Progressive Party
Right! It's all a game. The insurance companies are desperate to get this bill because it's a boondoggle for them. That's why they're fighting so hard against it!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jcfinsf
March 10, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to Progressive Party
I'm with you: Don't understand how, on one hand, folks can vilify the health insurance industry, and then on the other hand, call for handing over $70 billion in tax-payers dollars to them.
Oh yeah, I get the practical here, the politics, the now or never. Perfection as enemy of the good. Fix it later and all the other soundbite malarkey.
I say: Don't make the good the enemy of the obvious.
The bill boasts some very good ideas but it has a couple of jaw-dropping flaws. Issues that can and should be fixed as soon as possible. And until the bill is voted on the floor: as soon as possible means NOW. We still can and should fight for the public option or something pretty darn close (like a state's ability to get one). Then and only then will for-profit insures have to treat their customers as something other than human ATMs for their bloated executive payroll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redshift
March 10, 2010 2:55 PM
So is AHIP's official position that there was nothing wrong with the pace of rising health care costs until last year? I hope that gets a lot of publicity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 10, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Redshift
And that the solution to people not being able to afford health care is to pass a law requiring them to buy it anyway. Fascinating.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
March 10, 2010 2:58 PM
"She echoed the concerns leveled by business groups at the Obama reform plans -- rather than lower costs and expand coverage, it will actually increase costs, Ignagni said, leading to fewer people with insurance."
Sounds like we need a public option to keep costs down then, no? The Obama administration would be wise to make this part of the reconciliation package in response to these threats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
March 10, 2010 3:09 PM
"You have a choice," she said. "You can choose to continue your opposition to reform."
Or, she said, there's the other option. "You can choose to take the millions of dollars you have stored away for your next round of ads to kill meaningful reform,..."
There is a third option which the Obama administration pretends doesn't exist, which is that the government asserts itself and FORCES change on these bastards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 10, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to tommyo
You mean the same way insurance companies FORCE their customers to pay 40% rate hikes every year, or get dropped? I like that idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 10, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to tommyo
When did we become a monarchy that ruled by fiat?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
March 10, 2010 3:25 PM
Karen Ignani's methodical hara kiri of her own soul is externally represented on her increasingly reptilian face.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
March 10, 2010 3:27 PM
If she doesn't want to be vilified, perhaps she should stop being a villain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 10, 2010 3:31 PM
She got a perfectly strong mandate. By my count, an unacceptable strong one. Health insurers have now surpassed Wall Street executives as federal government beggars and free market blowhards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 3:42 PM
Get on the PHONE to your Senators and tell them to sign the Bennet letter in support of the PUBLIC OPTION!
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dndobson
March 10, 2010 3:44 PM
"the stronger the mandate, the more new customers health insurers can add to their rolls."
Didn't she just make the case for Single Payer?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 10, 2010 3:52 PM
Don't forget those Ins Co's get to keep 25% off the top of EVERY DOLLAR they take in....and you want to give them BILLIONS MORE, with no enforcement mechanism. Sucker!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 10, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to madmatt
No.
The premiums to benefits ratio is 85%.
Unless mathematics have changed, they get 15% to use how they wish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ljdramone
March 11, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to zonk
This link says HMOs currently "have MLRs in the 0.70 to 0.80 range." In other words, HMOs are currently spending 70% to 80% of the money they receive on medical care, and using the other 20% to 30% for other things (paying staff, business costs, and profits.) IIRC there was a proposal that didn't make it into the Senate bill to mandate a MLR of 0.90 for insurers (no more than 10% of premiums to go to non-medical costs).
"The premiums to benefits ratio is 85%" may be correct for some specific insurer somewhere, but is not true of the industry as a whole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
March 10, 2010 3:56 PM
AHIP didn't want a medicare for all buy-in. And we didn't even start there.
AHIP didn't want a public option; in any form. And they all got thrown out.
AHIP didn't want the Medicare buy-in at 55. And it got thrown out.
AHIP wanted a strong individual mandate. And it was delivered.
AHIP is fighting for more concessions. And will continue to fight up until the final vote. And they will probably get more.
Eventually, the final Bill will look almost exactly the way they want it too.
And if it does not pass in the end? Their back up plan is to simply raise premiumns to make up the short fall of the failed bailout. Short term thinking? Yeah. But consider the source.
So Sebelius? Going up against AHIP? Seriously?
Might as well have been my stinking cat. And he's dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
March 10, 2010 4:11 PM
Yeah, the Obama administration is so angry at the insurance companies that they're about to force everyone in American to become their customers. That'll show 'em!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
March 10, 2010 4:25 PM
"There has been a coordinated attack on the good people in this industry."
hahahaah!
Did she follow that up with "Why do you hate America?" ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
March 10, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to sherifffruitfly
She is why I hate America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bushwhacked
March 10, 2010 4:31 PM
I see Roy Blunt on CNN defending the absolute sum of nothing that the republicans have provided in helping overcome the healthcare crisis. Blunt should have to be acknowledged as a registered pimp for Ignagni. I guess allowing insurance companies to avoid being sued for incompetence is what you would you call reform. Senator Roy Blunt is what he is...nothing more that an echo of the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
March 10, 2010 4:45 PM
I couldn't help feeling just a bit sorry for the AHIP lady as indeed, more than a bit of hanky panky on billing has gone on from providers, especially hospitals who seem intent on fulfilling edifice complexes while ignoring value for money.
But in the end, AHIP lady, you're stuck with this basic reality -- your medical loss ratio has gone down from around 90 percent 20 years ago to just over 70 percent now. That means profit, bureaucratic waste and mismanagement by a single industry, the insurance industry, have almost tripled as a share of healthcare costs. That makes your industry the biggest single contributor to health care inflation over the past two decades -- more even than the hospitals with their grandiose delusions built out in the form of atrium lobbies and hotel-style wards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 10, 2010 5:09 PM
So many naive people here today. Mostly it's the Obama is God crowd. The Insurance Industry is "fighting" this bill, spending "millions", simply to be "defeated". Guess you don't recognize a shell game when you see one. Obama can claim a great victory for insurance reform and the industry CEOs along with the board members(including Sen Bayh and his bitch wife) will be watching and laughing. The main reason they're fighting HCR is because of the PO. If they defeat the PO then this will be their finest hour. "Millions" you argue, plus all the lobbyists, and the ad dollars, is nothing but CHUMP CHANGE to these people. Don't you get it.
Negotiation 101 - when you give in to a demand, no matter how unimportant, always make it appear, with all the drama, that you just gave away your 1st born. And continue this strategy until the opposition attempts to take something that really is important to your side. That's when the battle begins. But the "important" stuff was never even on the table to begin with! That is when this HCR was lost. It's all posturing now! How blind are you? The PO is the only real threat. If the Congress passes a strong PO the insurance industry loses big time. Once the PO is part of our culture, like Medicare, Soc Sec, no matter who is president, it CAN'T PUT IT BACK IN THE TUBE. The insurance industry will be SCREWED. That's why it is so important to get it NOW. Got it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 10, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to Cornelius
Yeah...
Take it back to hamster land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FDRdog
March 10, 2010 5:10 PM
Sebelius, ergo the administration, is just passing the buck. Insurance companies are not charities. They are businesses and their goal is to make money - as much money as they can. Health care should not be a for-profit endeavor. Health care should be nonprofit and about the only way you can have that is if the government provides it. So admonishing insurance companies over rate hikes is just to distract from the fact that the government is not doing its job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarryMo
March 10, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to FDRdog
Well, she walked into hostile territory with a 24-hour advance notice, so I think this shows the administration's willingness to enter the lion's den and then exit, unscathed, leaving the "lion" (ie, GOP, Health Insurance Industry) looking like idiots and/or thieves.
I don't by the "Hey - Insurance is "just" a few percentage points of the total cost" line of reasoning.
A "few percentage points" of a trillion dollars is, in some quarters, worth killing American citizens over. Hence, policies are cancelled, billings disputed, payments delayed by the "health" insurance thugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FDRdog
March 10, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to LarryMo
Perhaps she deserves points for political theater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LarryMo
March 10, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to FDRdog
Well, she walked into hostile territory with a 24-hour advance notice, so I think this shows the administration's willingness to enter the lion's den and then exit, unscathed, leaving the "lion" (ie, GOP, Health Insurance Industry) looking like idiots and/or thieves.
I don't by the "Hey - Insurance is "just" a few percentage points of the total cost" line of reasoning.
A "few percentage points" of a trillion dollars is, in some quarters, worth killing American citizens over. Hence, policies are cancelled, billings disputed, payments delayed by the "health" insurance thugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 7:03 PM
Anybody notice there was no media coverage of the health care rally today? What a SHOCKER!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeW67
March 10, 2010 7:21 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I think I saw it on ABC overnight news... ;^)
What a paid PR whore for corporate criminality, Karen Ignagni is. Just plain offensive. Her entire corrupt industry should have been given the death penalty decades ago by a single-payer law.
For those who haven't yet see Cigna whistleblower Wendell Potter give the chapter and verse (also largely ignored by Media Inc.), here it is;
http://tinyurl.com/mtm86u
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 10, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to MikeW67
Amen Mike! Of course nobody saw Wendell Potter. The f#cking conglomerates that are "too big to fail" also run the media!
Thanks for the link. Don't give up man!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 10, 2010 8:25 PM
By rights, and to a lesser degree decay, Karen Ig-nonny should be living under a bridge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 11, 2010 12:20 AM
The Secretary has both smarts and guts.
Oh, and it's pretty hard not to vilify… you know, VILLAINS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
March 11, 2010 12:42 AM
"firing off a million dollars' worth of ads claiming that it's not responsible for the rate hikes."
I'm sorry but it is really difficult to believe that nonsense. You can spend over $1 million per DAY on lobbyists, $10 million on each CEO plus whatever the lower echelons are getting, God knows how much on TV ads, plus you drop anyone who makes a sizable claim so you are spending diddly squat on claims. And then you tell us that you have to raise premiums in order to stay in business. I sincerely hope that you don't expect anyone to take you seriously because not even the teabaggers are that stupid.
If you have so much money to spend on accessories besides claims, then you don't need to raise premiums. There was a time that insurance companies returned 95% of their premiums in claims. Those days are long gone so that now it requires laws and regulations to force them to spend more than 70% in claims. If your industry can't do better than that, you need to go out of business and let someone who knows what they're doing take over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeW67
March 12, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to Texas Aggie
And the baggers, are amongst the most misinformed on the planet...
The Tbag protestor is like the guy hemorrhaging in the emergency room, who wants the price first... ;^)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
March 11, 2010 10:28 AM
So everybody here hates the Insurance Industry...why are so many interested in giving them a $70 BILLION lifeline so they can continue to run corporate death panels onthe rest of us. There is nothingin the bill to make them change their ways, and as Sebelius said, if the bill FAILS the insurance companies will kill themselves off in a decade....now thats change I can believe in. KILL THE BILL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kmac
March 11, 2010 10:40 AM
I stick to my opinion that unless we get Public Option we have not accomplished Health Care Reform .... What is available is merely an excuse of a bill to say he kept 1 of his campaign promises .... nothing more!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 11, 2010 11:08 AM
After the events of the last few years why would anyone trust corporate America? Business is not about anything but profits, period. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that they are in the business of helping people or providing a public service.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
it is simply unbelievable to me that so many people in this country still don't realize the outright pernicious factor -- literally -- that the private health insurance racket is to health care in America. Literally thousands of people have died because of private insurers' insidious and greedy practices; thousands of families and individuals have been financially ruined because private insurance companies have denied them treatment prescribed by a doctor or have dropped them altogether so they don't have to ever again pay any health care at all for them.
These evil -- truly evil -- institutions respond to their shareholders and no else -- the more patients they deny treatment to or drop altogether the more profits they make -- period. How so many Americans can still think this virtual health care mafia is an acceptable health care "system" is truly beyond my comprehension.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 11, 2010 12:15 PM
Health care is about health care. Insurance is about covering you in case of ill-health so that you aren't financially ruined & so you get the appropriate care. Health care isn't about profiteering for one vulturous industry that has no intent of caring for people or their health. The two are basically, mutually exclusive. Take away the profit incentive & the buzzards go away to find another carcass to devour & what's left is pure health care for all which we already pay for.
The next problem will be easy to spot, it will be right under where the vultures are circling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sam_bolini
March 11, 2010 12:57 PM
"how far apart insurance companies and the White House remain."
Evan, that's not so far.
The administration supports a bill that gives these criminals 30 million forced new customers. Yes they have to accept all comers but at any rate they care to set and they'll just set them so high that the higher risk folks won't be able to afford it even more.
Sebelius and Ignagni, coordinated or not, are both practicing Kabuki theatre here. The industry want's this bill as much (if not more) than the Administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 2:29 AM
I'm with you: Don't understand how, on one hand, folks can vilify the health insurance industry, and then on the other hand, call for handing over $70 billion in tax-payers dollars to them.
Oh yeah, I get the practical here, the politics, the now or never. Perfection as enemy of the good. Fix it later and all the other soundbite malarkey.
I say: Don't make the good the enemy of the obvious.
The bill boasts some very good ideas but it has a couple of jaw-dropping flaws. Issues that can and should be fixed as soon as possible. And until the bill is voted on the floor: as soon as possible means NOW. We still can and should fight for the public option or something pretty darn close (like a state's ability to get one). Then and only then will for-profit insures have to treat their customers as something other than human ATMs for their bloated executive payroll.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?