Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

The War Against Obamacare

by on Jun. 26, 2012, under Health

Yesterday I asked “Why are Americans against Obamacare?”, and today I learned another reason. Health insurance companies, which said they were for the Affordable Care Act, were actually (and secretly) giving money to groups that were fighting against it.

Rick Unger at Forbes.com writes :

At the very same time the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)—the health insurance industry super lobby—was cutting a deal with the White House leading to its stated support of the proposed Obamacare legislation, they were secretly funneling huge amounts money to the Chamber of Commerce to be spent on advertising designed to convince the public that the legislation should be defeated.

Why would health insurance companies conspire against a law that would bring them 30 million new customers?

The reason is the “MLR” (medical loss ratio) which requires health insurance companies to spend 85% of premiums on claims. The MLR for small group and individual health plans is 80%.  You see, insurance companies don’t want limits put on their profits (or the million dollar salaries they pay their top management).

The MLR rule is in effect already, and health insurance companies are sending rebates to their customers. For 2011, these rebates totaled around $1.1 billion.

Medicare Advantage MLR

Medicare Advantage companies must meet an 85% MLR starting in 2014.  Last year, at a training held by a Medicare Advantage company in Tucson, the company rep boasted that their MLR was 70%. Wow!

The rep was boasting about how his company manages the care of its members – and many of them have chronic illnesses. The company model is successful because their proactive care keeps people stable and out of the hospital. This is a very good thing for their members and for the company profit margin. But is it good for Medicare?

All of this company’s revenue comes from Medicare. The company has a great model. The company makes big profits. But Medicare actually pays them more money for their chronically ill members than for healthy patients – and Medicare is saving no money from this business deal. Starting in 2014, when the 85% MLR requirement kicks in, maybe Medicare will save some money on this deal.

The original premise for Medicare Advantage was that turning Medicare beneficiaries over to insurance companies would save Medicare money. Turns out it was really about making profits (unlimited) for the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act is one step towards saving money for Medicare . Given the dire forecasts for Medicare’s financial future, who could argue against this? And will the billions of dollars in savings be lost if the Supreme Court throws out all of the Affordable Care Act?



  • Your_Uncle_Karl

    I think the insurance companies don’t like the MLR requirement because, according to neoliberal economic theory there should be no limits on the amount of profit you can make off the misery and suffering of your fellows in any business endeavor.

  • Carly_EngageAmerica

    The rules referred to as the “Medicaid mandates”
    have not attracted as much attention as the mandate forcing individuals to buy
    government-approved health insurance. 
    What few people know is that the Medicaid mandates are, if anything,
    even more constitutionally dubious than the individual mandate.

    Our constitution divides power between the federal
    government and the states, just as it divides power among the three branches of
    the federal government. For split sovereignty to work, both the states and the
    feds must be able to make independent decisions within their respective
    spheres.

    The ACA attempts to crack the constitution by directing and
    empowering administrators in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    (HHS) to effectively bankrupt any state that makes Medicaid decisions different
    from those approved by the federal government. First, the ACA imposes costly
    new requirements on states for Medicaid spending, overriding any state choice
    to the contrary. The federal government has promised to pick up some of the
    tab, but given the disastrous federal financial situation, it is unclear how or
    whether this will happen. Whether or not it does, the feds will be unloading
    huge new expenses onto state taxpayers. Second, if a state does not comply with
    federal instructions to the letter, the ACA gives HHS virtually unrestrained
    authority to stop any and all Medicaid funds to that state.

    Medicaid is not some minor state-federal program.  It is the largest item in most states’
    budgets (http://bit.ly/I5eTc9 ).

  • tunkashila

    What’s truly ironic here is that the ACA was upheld under the power-to-tax clause but was sold to the public, even by the president himself, as being anything but a tax increase.  Check out Obama being interviewed about the individual mandate on ABC This Week two years ago:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio

    For those with slow connections, here is the relevant portion to read:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: …But your critics say it is a tax increase.

    OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.  Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
     
    STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

    OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

    Will someone please explain why we should believe anything our leaders or government tell us?

    • Metacomet1

      The only people who will be “Taxed” are those who who do not have   insurance

      The “Tax” word game was Roberts way of voting to allow millions of Americans to have access to health care and keep from becoming the most despised Chief Justice since Roger Taney

      It was also his attempt to save an ideologically crippled SCOTUS from becoming an irrelevant arm of the GOP along with Fox News

        

      • tunkashila

        “Access” to health care, eh?  Forcing someone to buy insurance that still leaves you on the hook for 20%-40% of the tab is only access to indentured servitude, yoking people to a system that will enslave them financially and eventually bankrupt a good portion of them if they get too sick.  Rather like the Wall Street bailout except it’s Kaiser Permanente and United Health getting the checks from the taxpayers instead of Goldman Sachs and B of A.  Forgive me if I don’t jump up and down for joy in my chains.

        Justice Roberts, as I read things, essentially went and found an argument the govt. hadn’t even made to support their case, something utterly unethical and wrong in every other form of jurisprudence.  For example, if a criminal defendant or civil attorney neglects to advance a point of law or logic to support their case, it is not the job of the judge to find ones that do; if they lose their case due to this, that’s their tough luck.  But apparently all one has to do as a lawyer to win a case now before the Supremes is have the initials DOJ on their resume and those rules go right out the window.  Through his actions in this case, Justice Roberts has joined the pantheon of D.C. scum like Colin Powell and Scooter Libby who will do anything to advance the status quo’s agendas, rule of law be damned.

    • Your_Uncle_Karl

      I hope you’re not planning on pinning everything the SC justices say or do on Obama from now on.  Call it a tax increase, call it being forced to buy a product; whatever; doesn’t matter outside of DC and the elections.  You’ve got a choice – pay the tax penalty or buy insurance.  Individual freedom as defined by bourgeois Americans must give way to the collective welfare.  It’s “The (New) American Way”.

      • tunkashila

        I don’t think Obama is to blame for the Supreme Court any more than Ronald McDonald is at fault when you get a bad cheeseburger.

        There is also a third choice, referred to as “civil disobedience”.  That’s the old American way, and I think I like that one the best.  Karl, I have no problem paying for food stamps or medicare and I would support a single-payer health care system wholeheartedly.  The (New) American Way, however, is nothing more than corporate welfare masquerading as public good.

        • Your_Uncle_Karl

          OK, now you’re talking.  I hope to be gone from here by the time we find out who wins and who loses, but I wouldn’t bet against your being correct.  That would be betting against all history and experience.

    • BajaDemocrats

       The “tax” penalty for an individual not having health insurance in 2014, the first year it goes into effect, is a whopping $95 for the entire year. I pay more than that in alcohol taxes, and I’m a very moderate drinker – a couple glasses of wine, occasional glass of scotch. And Metacomet is right on target.

      • tunkashila

        I’m very glad that you’re in an economic strata that can handle more than $100 taxation a year on just your alcoholic beverages, Baja-not everyone is so lucky.  Go peddle your yuppified  “I pay more than that” argument with someone jobless and underwater on their mortgage or the homeless and see how much enthusiasm it generates. 

        For that matter, go see if you can get your healthcare for $95 yearly from your insurance company using the same argument.  If Denise Early is to be believed, the ACA “should” lower your premiums.

        • BajaDemocrats

          You don’t need much of an economic strata to pay $100 / yr. in alcohol taxes – taxes are about 1/4th the cost of an alcoholic beverage.

          I was only using the alcohol tax as an example because it’s a “behavior tax” – a tax levied to try to get you to do or not do something, in this case, not drink to excess. Like the cigarette tax, trying to get people to not smoke. The penalty tax for not having health insurance is a tax to try to persuade you to have insurance.

          And the homeless don’t have to worry about the ACA penalty tax, people with less than $9500 annual income are exempt from the law. Your jobless guy may also fall under that, and/or he could use COBRA to keep the health insurance from his last employer.

          But mainly I was pointing out the $95 ACA penalty tax is peanuts to most people, in comparison to your faux outrage that Obama said it wasn’t a tax increase – not only is it peanuts to those who might have to pay it, it’s peanuts to the government. The CBO estimates it might raise $4 billion a year – that’s enough to keep the government running for maybe 2 hours.

          • tunkashila

            Comparing taxes designed to deter you from using a product with taxes designed to force you to use a product is akin to comparing a gun to handcuffs.  Both are law-enforcement tools to enforce compliance but nobody could possibly confuse the two as only one is lethal.  Similarly, taxes or penalties or whatever descriptive you choose could not before now be imposed unless commerce was occurring.  Now we have taxes to force commerce-it’s utterly illogical.

            You’re right about the homeless, but speaking as someone who’s lost a job with medical benefits before, I can’t believe you seriously recommended COBRA with a straight face.  That organization actually expected me, in the wake of a financially crippling job loss, to begin shelling out 4 times what I had previously paid for health care to maintain my family’s coverage while still maintaining the same levels of rent, utilities, bills, food, gas, etc.  Not having a nest egg, I was forced to roll the dice with our health and we are fortunate enough to still be here today.  It certainly wasn’t due to that farce of a program.

            You can call my outrage faux if you like, but you would be wrong.  Any government powerful enough to coerce its citizens into unwanted commerce is, by definition, tyrannous, and therefore illegitimate from any kind of moral standpoint.  $95 might be peanuts to you and the government, but it can mean the difference between making it or not for many others.  Were our government smart enough to stop being the world’s policeman and allowing the Federal Reserve and Wall Street to continue their scams, that $4 billion might keep the govt running for a week instead of 2 hours. Such a government might even be less inclined to pick its citizens’ pockets, who knows? In the words of some old songwriter, “You may say I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one”. ;)

            • BajaDemocrats

               COBRA is not an “organization”, it is a federal law that requires insurance companies to offer the same coverage to ex-employees at the same cost they charged the employer. If your cost was 4 times what you previously paid, you now know how much your former employer was covering for you as a benefit.

              No nest egg? You have my sympathies, but I believe personal responsibility is appropriate. Nothing is guaranteed in life, and the prudent prepare for the rainy day. But there are lifelines – you sound like you may be eligible for AHCCCS, have you applied? No premiums, and coverage for life’s unexpected twists & turns.

              • tunkashila

                I agree, personal responsibility is appropriate, desirable and necessary.  Personal circumstance, however, sometimes forces one to make choices that drain their finances, and I was in such circumstances at the time.  As I said, I was fortunate and I give thanks for that fortune every day. 

                In terms of AHCCCS, they supported and continue to support our health care needs and we also utilized food stamps until I found a new job.  If you’ve been following the thread, you’ll know that I have no objections to social aid-it’s pulled me through and I am thankful for its help as well.  But I believe the ACA is not social aid so much as corporate welfare, just going to insurance companies instead of Wall Street.  When I see Congress allow an open floor vote on single-payer health care, that’s a law I can get behind; not this one.

  • http://limbodog.livejournal.com/ limbodog

    Some states require non-profit status for insurance companies.  Just sayin’