Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,081 posts)
Sat May 11, 2013, 06:47 AM May 2013

Health Secretary Goes Begging to Insurance Companies


via truthdig:


Health Secretary Goes Begging to Insurance Companies
Posted on May 10, 2013


This is incredibly sad, outrageous or corrupt, depending on where you sit, but it is being reported that Kathleen Sebelius has been asking health insurers to help fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

As secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, it’s Sebelius’ job to midwife the new health care law into being, but the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the former Kansas governor will need five to 10 times more money than Congress allocated to get the job done. Lawmakers have so far refused to spend more on Obamacare’s implementation, the states aren’t helping much and HHS has already diverted funds from elsewhere in its budget.

Conflicts of interest abound. How is the secretary supposed to regulate insurers if she depends on them for funding? Even if the money isn’t going to HHS, but the nonprofits helping to launch Obamacare, is she allowed to ask in the first place? According to The Washington Post, there are strict circumstances under which Cabinet secretaries can, as private citizens, fundraise for causes they champion. However it’s difficult to imagine such solicitations, if true (the Post report is based on an anonymous source), don’t cross some ethical boundary. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/health_secretary_goes_begging_to_insurance_companies_20130510/



22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Health Secretary Goes Begging to Insurance Companies (Original Post) marmar May 2013 OP
This is going to be a massive political disaster for Democrats unless-- eridani May 2013 #1
I agree. Not only does this have the potential to be a political disaster for dems cali May 2013 #2
Leave out the word 'potential' -- it WILL be both. nt Demo_Chris May 2013 #18
The funding required for the ACA is miniscule compared with what would be required for single payer. bornskeptic May 2013 #6
The funding required for single payer is miniscule compared to what we spend on our military. Occulus May 2013 #13
Not true, of course. bornskeptic May 2013 #14
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear... but your complaints suggest nothing different to me. Occulus May 2013 #15
You can claim that it would reduce overall healthcare costs, but the government bornskeptic May 2013 #17
Profits make up less then 1%??? DiverDave May 2013 #21
That's bullshit. California alone is spending a billion dollars just to help people navigate ACA eridani May 2013 #19
or move to add Medicare to an "open enrollment" for all. stlsaxman May 2013 #10
For $900 a month? bornskeptic May 2013 #11
i wasn't aware that recipients pay $900/month... stlsaxman May 2013 #22
I disagree. It's going to be a disaster if we aren't very vocal supporters. There was a legit okaawhatever May 2013 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #3
In Taiwan the conservatives were smart enough to do just that eridani May 2013 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #7
The insurance companies do NOT want single payer, or even a public option n/t eridani May 2013 #8
No one could have predicted that a Republican House would block spending on Obamacare Fumesucker May 2013 #5
This is ProSense May 2013 #9
Thanks Pro! This is the first I've heard of things being "a disaster" flamingdem May 2013 #12
"Pushing to increase awareness" is costing one hell of a lot of money-- eridani May 2013 #20

eridani

(51,907 posts)
1. This is going to be a massive political disaster for Democrats unless--
Sat May 11, 2013, 06:56 AM
May 2013

--we can pivot to single payer with the cost controls of global budgeting.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
2. I agree. Not only does this have the potential to be a political disaster for dems
Sat May 11, 2013, 06:59 AM
May 2013

it has the potential to be a disaster for the public.

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
6. The funding required for the ACA is miniscule compared with what would be required for single payer.
Sat May 11, 2013, 07:44 AM
May 2013

Why would you think that Congress would be more willing to provide money for single payer?

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
13. The funding required for single payer is miniscule compared to what we spend on our military.
Sat May 11, 2013, 01:04 PM
May 2013
Orders of magnitude cheaper.

The solution sort of suggests itself, doesn't it?

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
14. Not true, of course.
Sat May 11, 2013, 01:33 PM
May 2013

The Defense Department Budget is about $700 billion, while our healthcare spending is around $2.8 trillion, and for that amount millions of Americans don't have access to the healthcare they need. The government already spends about $1 trillion of the $2.8 trillion, so it would have to come up with almost $2 trillion more to cover the rest of us. That could be from some combination of taxes, borrowing, and premiums, but the providers would still have to be paid.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
15. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear... but your complaints suggest nothing different to me.
Sat May 11, 2013, 01:40 PM
May 2013

This solution eliminates the insurance companies and all their annual profits, seizing them if necessary, and assuming they are put out of business, excepting electives, which would be all they would be legally allowed to provide. I didn't make that clear.

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
17. You can claim that it would reduce overall healthcare costs, but the government
Sat May 11, 2013, 03:28 PM
May 2013

still would need to come up with the money to pay the bills. If you eliminate the insurance companies, the government will have to hire undreds of thousands of people to process claims. Actually, insurance company profits make up less than 1% of US healthcare costs. If you want to save big money, you have to look at providers, including drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, and home healthcare providers. Then maybe we could do something about the exorbitant cost of medical school education, which require doctors to charge excessive fees to have any hope of erasing their educational debt. There are plenty of arguments that can be made for single payer, but it's not a magic elixir that will cure all the ills of our bizarrely contorted healthcare system. To get back to the original point, the Republican Congress wouldn't provide funding for single payer either.

DiverDave

(4,886 posts)
21. Profits make up less then 1%???
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:58 PM
May 2013

math challenged much?

Dependency upon for-profit insurers contributes to the U.S. having the most expensive health care system in the world, consuming nearly 20% of the nation's GDP

http://healthcareprovider.info/forprofit/

eridani

(51,907 posts)
19. That's bullshit. California alone is spending a billion dollars just to help people navigate ACA
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:33 PM
May 2013

Not one single dime of that is being spent on actual health care. Single payer funding assumes that all premiums now going to insurance companies would be diverted to health care expenditures. We pay twice per capita what other industrialized countries pay for worse outcomes. As Kucinich once said "We are already paying for universal health care. We just aren't getting it."

stlsaxman

(9,236 posts)
10. or move to add Medicare to an "open enrollment" for all.
Sat May 11, 2013, 09:12 AM
May 2013

given a choice- i'd buy-in to Medicare in a heartbeat.

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
11. For $900 a month?
Sat May 11, 2013, 12:15 PM
May 2013

That's about what Medicare costs per enrollee. Of course, if you wanted to have a limit on out of pocket costs, you'd have to pay about $200 more each month for a Medigap plan. Surely you don't think that "buying in to Medicare" means geting in for the 13% of total cost which most seniors have to pay.

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
16. I disagree. It's going to be a disaster if we aren't very vocal supporters. There was a legit
Sat May 11, 2013, 02:46 PM
May 2013

person on huffpo last night saying his company was offered lower health plan premiums by two insurers. He used that to negotiate with his current carrier and was saved 58k. The problem is the message. Congress is killing this the same way they're killing the economy and we can't let it happen. If the average American knew how much they'd be saving, they'd get motivated. Not only that, if we lay down on this can you imagine what else the health industry will come up with?

Response to marmar (Original post)

eridani

(51,907 posts)
4. In Taiwan the conservatives were smart enough to do just that
Sat May 11, 2013, 07:18 AM
May 2013

The center left opposition proposed a single payer plan that got very popular, so the conservatives stole a march on them and implemented it first.

I doubt very much that the Repukes here have that much common sense.

Response to eridani (Reply #4)

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
5. No one could have predicted that a Republican House would block spending on Obamacare
Sat May 11, 2013, 07:33 AM
May 2013

I think about half the political stories on DU make me want to say "No one could have predicted" in an ironic way because so many of them are as predictable as gravity if you have been paying attention to politics for a while.

I like a term I first read on Krugman's blog: Hoocoodanode?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoocoodanode

Slang for "Who Could Have Known?" Made mockingly, toward a situation where short term choices present an outcome that is clearly obvious - yet the claimants say the outcome could never be anticipated. There is an implicit assumption that person(s) at fault, refuse to accept responsibility for their choices. The original question (used by them) is an attempt to deflect criticism. This word is popularized on economic blogs and forums.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
9. This is
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:59 AM
May 2013
This is incredibly sad, outrageous or corrupt, depending on where you sit, but it is being reported that Kathleen Sebelius has been asking health insurers to help fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.


..."incredibly" misleading. This entire story is being pushed by Republicans who are pissed that the law's implementation is on track.

<...>

“To solicit funds from health-care executives to help pay for the implementation of the President’s $2.6 trillion health spending law is absurd,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement. “I will be seeking more information from the Administration about these actions to help better understand whether there are conflicts of interest and if it violated federal law.”

<...>

HHS spokesman Jason Young added that a special section in the Public Health Service Act allows the secretary to support and encourage others to support nonprofit groups working to provide health information and conduct other public-health activities.

<...>

Many of Sebelius’s calls have gone to current supporters of Enroll America, the most prominent nonprofit group working on the health care law’s implementation, an HHS official said. Its president, Anne Filipic, joined the group in January after serving as the White House’s deputy director for public engagement.

“We all have a lot of work to do between now and the Marketplace opening in October,” Filipic said in a statement. “That’s why it’s so important that the public, private and non-profit sectors are coming together to educate consumers about the opportunities that will be available to them later this year. Secretary Sebelius recognizes how important the work Enroll America is doing and we’re thrilled to be working with her.”

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/

http://www.enrollamerica.org/

There is nothing "corrupt" about pushing to increase awareness of and working to fully implement the law. Why would anyone object to making people more about the new health care law?



flamingdem

(39,313 posts)
12. Thanks Pro! This is the first I've heard of things being "a disaster"
Sat May 11, 2013, 12:19 PM
May 2013

I thought that was Republican propaganda..

eridani

(51,907 posts)
20. "Pushing to increase awareness" is costing one hell of a lot of money--
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:38 PM
May 2013

--that could better be spent on real health care instead. One billion dollars in the state of California alone. In MA, health care bankruptcies are still 50% of all bankruptcies. Why would anyone think that's a good thing?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Health Secretary Goes Beg...