Kathleen Sibelius and Anthem Blue Cross
Now here is something I cannot in a million years imagine a Republican administration doing. Anthem Blue Cross of California just announced that it’s jacking up its premiums by as much as 39% — despite a year of enormous profits — and Kathleen Sibelius hit the roof:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today sent a letter to Anthem Blue Cross and called on the company to publicly justify its decision to raise premiums for its California customers by as much as 39 percent. In her letter, Sebelius notes that the parent company of Anthem Blue Cross, WellPoint Incorporated earned $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009.“As we continue the health insurance reform debate in Washington, this announcement reminds us that too many Americans can be left with unaffordable insurance each time the rates or rules change in the private market,” Sebelius added. “It’s clear that we need health insurance reform that will give American families the secure, affordable coverage they need.”
You can read the entire letter here.
Share This
And that is exactly what will continue if the status quo of healthcare in it's current incarnation continues. The need for HCR has been a no-brainer for a long time now. This is a good illustration of why.
Before Obama was elected, I predicted that the only way we would get relief was when over half the people either lost or could no longer afford insurance.
Well, better late than never. I noted Anthem's little stunt quote some time ago. (I also revisited the fun and games Blue Cross has had in Michigan. It originally sought almost a sixty per cent increase in individual health insurance policy premiums recently.)
What's interesting here isn't so much the boldness of Anthem's decision — I've already said that the insurers might act to cut their own throats, PR-wise, and be effective advocates of reform themselves in so doing. What probably matters more here is the timing of this and the extent to which Anthem (and other insurers) are considering these rate increases — and what that means about what they perceive of likely Dem reform efforts or lack thereof (or insurer support), and what it says about the Dems.
“I predicted that the only way we would get relief was when over half the people either lost or could no longer afford insurance”
You were right then and you're still right now. There never has been a lack of desire for reform. That has been eclipsed by bungling and many other misdeeds by the Dems in Washington, which with health care have often threatened to make things better, not worse. That doesn't remove the desire for reform.
Myself, I don't think reform on a large, sweeping scale will occur until there's a full-on crisis…. and by that, I mean that the system breaks down altogether.
We aren't anywhere near that point yet.
For those inclined to read the actual earnings report: http://ir.wellpoint.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&…
But the key point is over 80% of that Q4 record income came from a one-time event – the $2.2B sale of a subsidiary.
No that they are not otherwise profitable.
“until there's a full-on crisis”
Yes, a real crisis, not any “crisis” as we hear incessantly as an excuse to rush madly to support political and economic misconduct.
This move by Anthem is far from the only similar event, and isn't a crisis, just another python's squeeze. (It may be exploitive — that is the real question here.)
Yikes. That's my carrier…
Well, better late than never. I noted Anthem's little stunt quote some time ago.
DLS, this snotty, self-congratulatory thing of yours about telling me “Better late than never” on almost every post I write is getting really, really old. Prove that you “noted Anthem's little stunt quote some time ago” or stuff it.
You're Welcome –
What the Tea Party Doesn't Get
The following example is from California, which will make news — recall what I said elsewhere about health care being affected this year by not only Congress and ObamaCo but if the insurers cut their own throats insofar as public relations are concerned. It's already news on the far lefty “progressive” radio talk shows. It's actually no surprise to me, as just before I left Michigan, Blue Cross sought to raise individual policies last year by almost sixty per cent, originally. (They ended up raising my premium from $320 to $400 monthly. That's a bargain compared to a colleague's here, whose California individual policy is over $900 a month.) Note that Michigan's Blue Cross is non-profit. ($20M to execs last year in news)
This isn't a surprise. In all fairness, though, Elrod, given the criticism above from me, it's a valid complaint, and I'm surprised there wasn't a separate thread with this as the subject header on this site already. (Again — this is in California, and it probably can make more news this coming week.)
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_143…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/…
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/busines…
Example site — Michigan story
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/13/blue-cro…
Kathy said: Now here is something I cannot in a million years imagine a Republican administration doing.
Anything to get a dig at Repubs, I suppose, but consider this:
Gee, and I wonder what they spent that $22,715,439 lobbying for, or just who's campaigns they are
donating to, err holding hostage.From what I can find out about this company, they represent everything that is wrong with the health insurance racket. From the earlier linked Wiki (emphasis added):
I wonder if the good senator from Montana has anything to say about this.
Me either, telling a private company what they can or cannot charge for their services is not something I see a Republican administration doing. “Hey McDonalds, you have to reduce the price of your Big Mac!” “Hey Evian, you can't change more than 50 cents for your bottled water!”, “Hey Dr, Williams, you cant charge that much to perform heart surgery, despite you being in private practice, you have to set your rates lower!”
No, I can't see a republican administration doing that Kathy.
Oh those pesky facts, spoiling yet another progressive rant.
With all due respect, Leonidas — you seem to be doing what an awful lot of folks are lately: trying to apply the term “socialism” as a slur to things that do not at all fit the definition.
I think the term you're looking for here is fascism.
Not at all, look up the socialist theories of say Oskar Lange, which involved price controls.
Here is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model
“No, I can't see a republican administration doing that Kathy, price fixing seems more of the socialism leaning types.”
In addition to what Polimom has said, I have to add:
Kathleen Sebelius — doing her pale Dem imitation of Evita Peron?
“another progressive rant”
Next thing you know, there will be calls for a “tea party” like in Boston directed against the insurers.
That's PC elite-approved populism, isn't it?
Oh come on! All Sibelius has done is write a letter asking them to publicly justify why they need such a big rate hike considering the parent company's profits. There's no government mandate saying they can't do it, no price control has become law. In this case, socialism and fascism to describe this is almost beyond hyperbole.
This is one of those rare occurrences where I agree with DLS that insurance companies doing this are slitting their own throats, PR-wise.
Actually, I'm not suggesting that Sebelius' action demonstrates fascism. I was merely correcting Leonidas on the use of socialism (I'm tired of hearing that term thrown around everywhere).
If, however, someone wants to argue that the government is interfering in Anthem's ability to price its own products, then the term for that would indeed be fascism.
Myself, I think a letter of inquiry asking them to justify their hike is not demonstrably fascist.
OTOH, what's the purpose of the query? And what if the government (via Sibelius) doesn't think Anthem's reasons are good enough? Any subsequent action would, of course, lead to a much different conversation.
And for the record: I also think this is a really stupid PR move.
It seems to me that the ones doing the price fixing is the company. The reason why they are suing the state of Maine is so they can guarantee themselves a 3.0% profit (see the link I posted above). Its a bit ironic when corporations begin to actually start advocating socialistic policies.
I'll say it again, this company represents everything wrong with the health insurance racket:
So lets see, we have huge bonuses to the CEO, massive lobbying efforts, rate increases nearly every year, and claim denials. Yeah, that sounds like an upstanding company who truly cares about the people its supposed to help. Seems to me the state is simply asking the company to do a reality check.
Jchem, is this supposed to surprise or shock me? That Max Baucus is bought by the insurance industry? He's the one who stripped everything progressive out of the hcr bill. He's a conservative Democrat.
“insurance companies doing this are slitting their own throats, PR-wise”
The thing I was led to think about in turn about this was the timing. Why would Anthem do it this early? (Yes, to get more money as soon as possible, but why this soon?) It's almost as if Anthem is supremely confident it will get away with this and won't suffer any federal consequences. Does Anthem (and later, other insurers) know some “insider information” we don't about the people in Washington?
Moreover, when saying “federal” I've also been led to wonder aloud, never mind Baucus, or even Boxer or Feinstein in the Senate, or Miller, Stark, etc., in the House. What about the Governor and what about Sacramento? Not to beat the all-but-extinguished corpse again constitutional federalism unnecessarily, but — what's stopping the state insurance regulator and others in Sacramento? Also, while I've only been half-hearted in referring to the federalization of Blue Cross (nation-wide), which raises constutional problems, they also exist if states overreach, but why haven't we heard yet about having the state government outdo Massachusetts's scheme and actually take over Blue Cross (Anthem) or otherwise provide its real “public option”? There's no reason to wait and rely on the feds.
Actually, Leonidas, price fixing is exactly what the insurance industry does. That's why progressive Democrats wanted to eliminate the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust law. Republicans and conservative Democrats didn't like that at all, and exemption remained in the bill.
Oh I agree with you regarding him. I hate to feel indifferent about it, but you know how much worse this is going to be given the SCOTUS ruling? Whatever they are donating now is chump change to what they'll be giving him and others the next time around.
The $2.2B sale of a subsidiary”
Come on Shad, you are ruining the lynching. What about the whole year? And why do they need any profits, so greedy. Wellpoint shareholders over $250K, please drop something in the kitty.
Leonidas wrote:
The more important debate being not whether a Democratic or Republican Administration would impose price controls on the health industry, but rather, what should the nature of health care in the USA entail?
Eschewing major political parties and their purported stances, is it possible to discuss the idea of health care as an ideological and sociological factor in determining the present and future of our country? For example, should health care, itself, have a for- or not-for-profit goal? Are either of these answers in line with long-held doctoral beliefs (such as the Hippocratic Oath), or should these beliefs, themselves, be modified to suit modern purposes?
“For example, should health care, itself, have a for- or not-for-profit goal?”
That, which is just one example issue, is far from trivial. In fact, it hasn't been neglected; the Conyers bill for Medicare for All (the de facto federal legislative and systemic model) specifically converts private medicine from for-profit to non-profit. (An additional, albeit also ugly and unconstitutional, sign beyond this of how the bill's author feels and believes politically is that the bill would compensate private owners for their physical assets or infrastructure, but specifically not for lost present and future profits.)
Healthcare Reform is a Democrat issue by which the Republicans have not participated. You cannot blame the Republicans for opposing reform they do not believe in.
The HC legislation failed because of dissent within the Democrat party, not because of the Republican party. There were enough Democrats to pass the bill. The Democrats are simply not united. It’s no wonder with so many legislative ambitions that span all time and space and of course…ahem….the entire rainbow spectrum…visible and invisible….relevant and irrelevant…sexual and …oh gawd I want to puke….
Father_Time wrote:
I'll grant you that the Democrats are not completely united in the Senate. To put the weight of passing or defeating a bill entirely on one party, however, is a bit of a misnomer: any number of the current Republican representatives can vote in support of a Democratic agenda, just as any Democrat can vote against. They are, after all, supposedly there to represent their constituents.
DLS wrote:
Personally, I do not mind seeing physicians and others in the medical field be able to sustain a living from their profession. However, I do not agree with the idea that stockholders or dividends should enter into the equation, which is the crux of the for- or not-for-profit debate. The two goals, sustainable wages and exclusion of stockholders, are not mutually exclusive.
And incorrectly so, as I pointed out with my answering post, perhaps you missed the link I posted above regarding the socialist theory of Oskar Lange. Socialism is the appropriate term, although I wouldn't object if you wanted to specify market socialism to distinguish it from other branches of socialist theory.
Depends, what sort of salary controls are you proposing to impose on dotors, nurses, technicians and others in the medical field?
Leonidas, linking to the Lange Model doesn't mean this example fits it. Even market socialism requires some government (aka public) ownership of businesses / goods.
Will you also acknowledge the fact that 39 House Democrats voted with the GOP and only one House Republican voted with the Democrats?
Thanks for the grant, Shard, but it's not a “misnomer”.
It is no secret that Republicans are philosophically opposed to healthcare reform as defined by the Democrats. Republicans are united and Democrats are not. Clearly a united minority is stronger than a disunited majority. To many issues Shard. Democrats are pandering to to many people that want to many changes to soon. It won’t happen. Though they blather and TMV blog posters “bloviate”, (as described by one TMV poster), no real change has occurred even though Democrats have a clear and commanding majority and can do nothing with it!
Embarrassing laughable, but indicative of an inexperienced and thus ineffective president. IMO, all will be lost because this president cannot unite his own party on any single issue. If indeed the Democrats can be singularly united on any issue.
Leonidas wrote:
Of course. I'll also acknowledge that the reality of the current two-party system which exists in most levels of government affects my life fairly substantially. They aren't, however, the end-all-be-all of the system. They are, for better or worse, only the most vocal and entrenched of all segments involved.
Father_Time wrote:
Of course. After all, a disunited majority is simply a coalition of minority beliefs. However, in the case of the Federal government, the minority has been given a handicap.
One can posture and postulate all that they like in regards to one individual responsible for the entire mess within our country, however such things are completely misguided. “All will be lost,” as you say, not because the President was not able to be a proper dictator to the party which he currently heads, but rather because those that elected the representatives into power acquiesced to such “losing.”
This isn't a country of two parties. Nor is it a country of celebrities and sheep. Unfortunately, its citizenry tends to forget that.
Looks to me like the majority is hadicapped by their own diversity. lol
[One can posture and postulate all that they like in regards to one individual responsible for the entire mess within our country, however such things are completely misguided. "All will be lost," as you say, not because the President was not able to be a proper dictator to the party which he currently heads, but rather because those that elected the representatives into power acquiesced to such "losing."]–
Well, that is one way to rationalize away the president’s inability to lead more diversity than one’s plate can carry. Herding cats I think is the metaphor. Cats just cannot be herded. They are not team players. Too self centered.
[This isn't a country of two parties. Nor is it a country of celebrities and sheep. Unfortunately, its citizenry tends to forget that]–
Yes it is a country of two parties. One that’s united and one that is not. As far as “sheep and celebrities” well, choose your own rhetoric I suppose.
Father_Time wrote:
I'm not interested in rationalizing anything done in the Federal government. I'm interested in getting to the root cause and either changing it or supporting it, regardless of what labels someone wants to wear or put on someone else. If you are so inclined as to frame matters as “Democratic vs Republican,” you are more than welcome to. I won't be partaking.
If we are still on the subject of Democratic and Republican, I'll disagree with you – as will a growing portion of the independent voters disenfranchised with either of those groups.
Yeah ok.
“DLS: ugly and unconstitutional [...] the [Conyers] bill would compensate private owners for their physical assets or infrastructure, but specifically not for lost present and future profits.
I do not agree with the idea that stockholders or dividends should enter into the equation, which is the crux of the for- or not-for-profit debate.”
The bill would specifically not compensate the providers and owners for lost profits from conversion from for-profit to non-profit medicine.
This actually has nothing to do with whether or not non-profit is better than for-profit medicine, or if there is “market failure” or any kind, etc.; the reason it's ugly and unconstitutional is that converting anything to non-profit causes the loss of profits, and this is part of what is taken from the owners and providers, obviously, and so must be provided to them as part of compensation. Otherwise, it is expropropriation, or plain outright low-life theft. That this was specifically identified as a consequence of conversion and specifically identified for non-compensation is not only unconstitutional, but unquestionably ugly.
It's like any other similar event. The longest term is the same as the longest term for public bonds, or other long term projection periods we have. 20-30 years of (growing) profits are obviously due the owners if there is conversion. (The Conyers mentality is so poor that there's not even the pretence or half-hearted intention expressed to negotiate with a heavy hand, limiting growth to the rate of inflation or population growth, with adjustment for aging in society. The Conyers mentality is so low and ugly, there is no intention to compensate at all. It's pure taking–theft, due no doubt to a desire to act in a punitive, revanchist anti-profit and anti-market fashion.)