Health Insurers Are Backing Republicans With Campaign Donations By 8:1 Margin

[jefferson_dem]

Maybe the industry is playing a bit of three-dimensional chess of their own - pretending to not back the party who engineered passage of their supposedly awesome corporate windfall. :crazy:

Health Insurers Are Backing Republicans With Campaign Donations By 8:1 Margin

Insurers became the target of the White House’s attacks in the closing days of the health reform debate and so perhaps it’s no surprise that they’re “backing Republicans with campaign donations by an 8-to- 1 margin, favoring the party that’s promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul if it wins back Congress.” Bloomberg’s Drew Armstrong has the scoop:

WellPoint, along with Coventry Health Care Inc. and Humana Inc., gave Republican candidates $315,000 from May through July, according to U.S. Federal Election Commission records. That compares with $41,000 given to Democrats by the three companies as the parties near November elections that will determine who controls the U.S. House and Senate next year.

While Republicans aren’t likely to win the large majorities necessary to override a presidential veto and repeal the health law Obama signed in March, they may be able to slow or stall its implementation, said James Morone, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. At the same time, the turn to strongly favor Republicans may anger Democrats who had been receptive to insurers’ concerns, he said.

The Wonk Room explains why insurers are donating to Republicans, the party devoted to repealing the individual health insurance mandate.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/27/insurers-gop/

[JNelson6563]

1. Meaning Health Ins. support those who would overturn HCR

Interesting.

Julie

[dflprincess]

18. No

Just trying to make sure no one who supports real health care reform gets elected.

[xchrom]

2. Maybe chaining the people to the insurance companies

Wasn't such a good idea?

[depakid]

12. Like protecting Wall Street at the expense of Main Street and expecting monies to come flowing in

Had the Dems done either of these two things right- and not associated themselves with such "popular" interest groups- we'd be talking about how many seats we were going to gain come November.

[rocktivity]

3. Well, duh.

:eyes:
rocktivity

[nightrain]

4. so that's where all the citizens' money is going to... bad strategy from Obama and rich Congress

Well I suppose the individual mandate isn't quite enough money for them then? They want more unregulation to screw regular people even more?

And Obama thought that he could rein in the insurance corporations.... What a horrible New Dem approach!

We told you so...

[area51]

6. Yep.

Rest assured, no matter what the nazi party says, they won't be getting rid of the mandate. Why would they want to trash an idea originally floated by their party?

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[nightrain]

7. really good catch!!

[dflprincess]

19. Obama used to say we needed the public option "to keep them honest"

but he was quite happy to sign a faux reform bill without it.

Now we're all suppose to be shocked that the crooks are still crooks.

[ibegurpard]

5. yup basic structure is now in place

now we just need to get the Republicans in charge to get rid of all the pesky regulations.
Don't expect mandates to be going anywhere though.

[chill_wind]

9. You're right.

"Therefore, this donation imbalance shouldn’t be interpreted as an industry endorsement of the GOP’s repeal efforts or its attack on the individual mandate — which could make the industry millions. The industry is turning to the Republican party not so that it could repeal the entire law — that seems highly unlikely — but so that it can push for favorable regulations that don’t cut into industry profits. The want to ensure that Republicans hold their line, like they always have."

[BootinUp]

8. This information must be more widespread than "Thinkprogress" nt.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. That's because they're rewarding...

...the party that passed that shitty bill with the purchase mandate & locks in those obscene medical cost ratios, right?

Kill the Bill!!

[golfguru]

11. Vote the republicans out

who are in the pocket of corporations.

[sueh]

13. No surprise there.

[Jakes Progress]

14. So that wheelin' back room dealin' stuff didn't work out

so well for the WH.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Unfettered avarice cannot be bargained with. There is no compromising, full loaf every time.

Idiot. He was warned his "friends" would stab him in the back as payment for his services.

[Jakes Progress]

21. Does seem to be a slow learner.

[chill_wind]

27. Seems not. Who could have guessed. n/t

[great white snark]

30. Any proof of that allegation?

I always wondered why the insurance companies spent hundreds of millions to lobby against a giveaway to them.

[Hansel]

35. Only that it was repeated enough times to make it "truthy"...

as Stephen Cobert would say.

It is appropriate to invoke Occam Razor here. The insurance companies are donating to Republicans at an 8:1 ratio because they don't like what the Democrats did and believe they can get a better deal from Republicans. But that would get in the way of common sense and a perfectly good conspiracy theory.

[great white snark]

39. I see, thank you.

So nice to find a rational post on this issue, you have restored my faith in DU!

:hi:

[bornskeptic]

16. For anybody who isn't mathematically challenged it's easy to see

why the insurance companies hate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Private insurance currently covers something over 160 million Americans. Healthcare reform is projected to increase the number of people with coverage by about 32 million, half of whom going to Medicaid, and the other half to private insurance. So private insurers will be covering about 10% more individuals.This is what constitutes the supposed jackpot for health insurers, according to anti-HCR DUers. The five largest health insurers combined to garner $12.2 billion in profits. So a 10% increase would be something under $1.5 billion annually.

Let's just ignore the possible costs to insurance companies of mandated minimum loss ratios, and other new regulations, and the veto power which state and federal regulators will hold overpremium increases for policies sold on the exchanges. Medicare has been subsidizing private companies billions of dollars annually for providing Medicare Advantage plans. Prior topassage of the healthcare reform, the government estimated the cost of those subsidies as $100 over the next ten years. I believe in 2009, I believe the subsidies came to something like $5 billion. PPAFA eliminated all those subsidies, and in so doing extended the period for which Medicare is fully funded by over a decade, and simultaneosly increased benefits. The addition of 16 million new customers won't be anywhere near making up for the loss of those subsidies.

[jefferson_dem]

22. Excellent post.

Chuck full of facts and reason. :thumbsup:

[JNelson6563]

23. Me thinks it's too much info for the swarm

:toast:

[phleshdef]

25. Nice. A complete shattering of the myth that HCR was an insurance company giveaway.

[depakid]

26. That was one of the more laughable pieces of sophistry I've seen yet

Nice try though.

[bornskeptic]

41. Sorry if it was too complicated for you.

You really get a thrill out of hurling content-free insults, don't you?

[depakid]

44. You have an unsustainable system that puts a huge drain on the economy, bankrupts millions

and causes immense amounts of waste (both on the provider & patient side) as well as the payer side. Arguing about how much record (and exorbitant) profits may or may not be affected is wholly beside the issue- and doesn't address the major problems that need to be solved.

Protecting these profits- giving them priority over patients and American businesses needs (even if one accepts that they may end up very modestly reduced) was the Democrats' key mistake. These represent a parasitic suck of dollars out of an already inefficient system and they aren't being used to "produce health" -indeed, quite the contrary, they're often times being used to deny care (or make it unaffordable).

Furthermore, the incentives in the plan- as well as the profit motives now move more and more people (and businesses) into high deductible, high copay junk insurance that in the most common cases, result in a 70% actuarial value- which again, doesn't benefit patients or businesses (though it does guarantee at least some level of payment to hospitals and certain other providers).

That's why it's sophistry. It's an argument that's not aimed at the fundamental issue of efficiency, affordability and access to health care- but instead seeks to persuade through a claim that private insurers may be taking a hit- so it must be a good outcome on the whole.

[Hansel]

36. Now you are just talking too much sense.

Good post.

[cornermouse]

40. And you know what about the medical billing and payment systems.

n/t

[ProSense]

17. Obviously, this means they love it.

All the repeal stuff and supporting Republicans is just for show.

[BklnDem75]

32. No worries

Once the Pukes find a way to repeal HCR, most will blame Obama for that too. It's the circle jerk of life.

[Mimosa]

20. The MSM never reports on donations and the seedy underbelly of politics. n/t

[chill_wind]

24. kicking.

[Safetykitten]

28. Of course, our paramours have been rode hard and put away wet. Next.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. And this debunks the corporate windfall how exactly????

Are you just assuming that b/c the insurance industry CONTINUES to support republicans, this means that HCR wasn't a corporate windfall?!?!

Is that the democrats passed HCR?? in the hopes that an industry that has supported republicans for the last 50 years would suddenly decide to start donating to democrats???

There is some wild and wacky logic at play here.

[jefferson_dem]

31. The industry is funding / rewarding opponents of health care reform to the tune of 8:1...

relative to supporters of health care reform. Many of those same opponents of health care reform also support repealing reform. Why would the industry support those who want to roll back their supposed windfall ... unless it wasn't a windfall after all?

Perhaps you are claiming that they are donating dollars against their better interest. Is that your (il)logic?

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Orrrrrr, it is them following their usual contribution pattern.

The insurance industry has ALWAYS supported republicans heavily... probably higher than 8:1 if you do your research.

The fact that they are still supporting republicans doesn't prove or disprove any factor of HCR.

HCR IS a huge windfall to the insurance industry and absolutely useless in terms of REFORM. All it forces them to do is change their accounting practices slightly.

You seem to be suggesting that the democrats were throwing them a bone for the purpose of thinking that it would create a huge shift in their donating habits... which is just silly... or maybe that is why they did it and it just seems to be failing.

BTW, since you obviously missed it, I am claiming they are donating dollars where they have ALWAYS donated dollars. In short, 1 bone thrown to them from the democrats didn't change their donating habits significantly.

[Hansel]

38. It doesn't made sense for them to throw support to the politicians who

are running against the ones who gave them such a "windfall". They have no particular loyalty to Republicans. Only to money. If it weren't for the Democrats they wouldn't be getting this supposed "windfall" you claimed they got with HCR. So why would they support replacing them with Republicans if that is true?

It's like "yes, we got the biggest windfall evah from them thar Dems, but we always giv'n to Republicans and dang it we just can't help ourselves."

Your argument makes no sense. Either they didn't get such a great windfall or they are just the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

Business donates money to those who are going to give them the best deal. Since the Republicans are running on repealing HCR it appears as though they think that is the best deal.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. It makes PERFECT sense, if you stop and THINK.

First, the concept that "business donates money to those who are going to give them the best deal" is a load of crap. Individuals and businesses have been donating against their best interests for years and years and years, because often they don't take time to fully UNDERSTAND the issue and are stuck in old thinking. Small businesses traditionally support Republicans, but Democratic policies are usually friendlier to small businesses.. why? Most small business owners don't really understand the issues at play... so the idea that a giant bone thrown to the insurance industry by the democrats would suddenly convert YEARS of pattern behavior is not only laughable, but contrary to the way things actually work and have worked for many many MANY years.

Second, the decision makers in these companies are made up EXTREMELY RICH people who will PERSONALLY benefit from republicans keeping the bush tax cuts.. probably by hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the end of the day, HCR means very little for them personally.. their salary and bonuses will remain the same and the companies profits will continue to rise out of control for many years to come.

The contuation and/or repeal of HCR will have little impact on a member of the board of directors of a high executive in any one of these companies, the company will still make BILLIONS.

But, we can even look at this company wide... Democrats are generally FOR taking out restrictions on corporate loopholes, tax dodging and other in a ton of tricks that large corporations can pull to HIDE INCOME and ESCAPE TAX LIABILITY.

So let's put all the above aside for a second and forget tradition and people geting their companies to do things for their own personal selfish reasons... okay?

Let's just examine the BIG PICTURE.

Democrats are FOR repealing corporate tax loopholes and tons and TONS of tricks that large corporations can use to dodge MILLIONS in taxes. Repulbicans love themselves some business tax loopholes and actually want to enact MORE corporate tax loophopes, under the insane premise that giving more money to the corporations will result in job growth.

Most likely the tax loopholes and savings being offered by the republicans OUTWEIGH the huge windfall gifted to them by the democrats!

Democrats offered them X million in new business with basically no real restrictions, which will = X - Y in higher profits. Y= the cost of managing these new accounts. The republicans are offering them X million in tax cuts, which no new costs associated with it.

[Hansel]

37. Or it wasn't a corporate windfall.

If insurance executives are limited on profits they can make and are forced to return excess premiums to clients while also being now forced to cover sick people, perhaps that might cut into the epic windfall that is bandied about on DU.

There's not going to be a windfall.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. There is no limit on the profits.

All insurance companies have to do is shift job titles and account differently to make their current profit structure fit within the 85% window without actually having to lose .01 in profit.

[Vincevega]

33. All that give away

to the insurance companies and we get this. AS they say, No good deed goes unpunished. Let it be a lesson to the Administration next time they try to compromise their core positions