Health Reform Anger Shifts to Insurers

Our Readers Who Comment today are single-mindedly angry with the health insurance industry as they contemplate what has become obvious: that the insurers, after months of claiming to be part of the solution, are without question the major opposition to health-care reform.

As Ceci Connolly writes, "two of the most powerful institutions involved in the debate -- the White House and the nation's insurance companies -- have abandoned any real hope of forging a compromise. What was a tenuous truce has turned quickly into an all-out battle, with both sides ratcheting up the hostilities." This after the Senate Finance Committee finally reported a bill that is expected to be the basis for further congressional discussion.

Those who commented on Connolly's article are almost unanimous in their attacks on health insurers. A few provide horror stories; some call for either a single-payer or a public option, but the overriding theme is that the insurers are evil. One has to wonder if the insurance industry report on Monday that said the legislation would make a typical family premium in 2019 cost $4,000 more than projected has united those in favor of change.

We'll start with catlady1, who wrote "Now it is even more crystal clear why we must have a PUBLIC OPTION. The pig that screams the loudest is the one you have to take care of first! Not by placating, but by gutting them. The health insurance companies make trillions off of people's suffering, all the while denying benefits. Put them even higher up the hit list than banks and credit card companies!"

rjciardo said, "This is EXACTLY why we need a public option in health care reform: its primary purpose would be to keep the insurance industry "honest" at least financially by providing insurance at costs that are tied to the real costs of the care provided. Something the (private) insurance industry has absolutely no interest or stake in."

ChooseBestCandidate wrote, "insurance companies are among our very largest and most profitable companies - old dogs at doing business. my guess is if they take on this administration as foe this just might be the first time govt. loses a fight with the private sector. still my guess is the insurance companies with their well-connected way of doing business will outsmart obamacare."

dryrunfarm1 said, "...There are a thousand reasons why giving government any role in private health care is a bad idea. I'll keep those for someone who isn't pushing for it for themselves. The main reason I'm against it? Pathetic, weak, contemptible, cowardly bugs SHOULD die."

Losercuda wrote, "...I would MUCH rather deal with the health insurance companies and, frankly, I trust them more than the government to provide good, quality health coverage to Americans. Sure, we pay more for health care than any nation on earth and, sure, our health care system is rated #77 on the planet for quaility and effectiveness. But they all seem so friendly on their commercials and everyone seems so happy. Why would we possibly change?"

TooManyPeople suggested that "The Obama administration should have hammered home a phrase that was never used, "Not-for-profit healthcare insurance." THAT phrase would have turned the tide in favor of a national plan."

And fmjk said, "Obama's problem is that he has wasted too much time on just about every issue courting the opposition. The opposition does not wish to be courted or to achieve compromise -- it wishes to be in power where it will not court the other side. What the White House needs to do is simply chart its own course. What does the President think is best? Say so and then do it. Lead. Then people can vote Obama in or out next time based upon whether they agree with his leadership. Otherwise, they are just going to blame the stalemate on him."

laboo wrote, "This was always a "tenuous truce" to begin with, and in retrospect, it's probably good to break it now. The insurers have always been the real enemy from day 1, and now our hands are untied to deal with them accordingly... We can finish the reform by a move to a national health system down the road when the opportunity permots. But we need a public option NOW."

millerdave said, "...No insurance company can provide low premiums and extensive services without hedging risk. In this instance, the hedge of risk comes from insuring the young and healthy, as well as the "mature" and sick. Any formula that does not require all citizens to be paying into the insurance pools of coverage will condemn the companies offering insurance to quick bankruptcy..."

ahashburn asked, "All of the posters that are for the Public Option ---- How much will the premiums be? What is the deductible? Are there co-pays? Must you get approval before having any certain procedures? If you can't answer those questions, then you are pushing for something you really know nothing about. Is that smart?"

gsms69 wrote, "As Thomas Jefferson said, "A govt that can give you everything you want, can take it all away." And some of us think that is fine now, until they discover they are going to be adversely affected when they thought and were promised that they would not be affected, because they made too much. As the CBO guy said today to the Senators, the higher costs will be passed on to consumers. That statement went right over the Senators head."

nihao1 said, "I know the insurance companies like the status quo, because my rates go up significantly every year, and my benefits go down. And all this with the worst health outcome of all industrialized nations, at a far higher cost. That's seriously broken. I can't trust the insurance companies to do anything that benefits me, or, apparently, the average American. Push for a better plan, Single Payer."

maus92 wrote, "The health insurance lobby shot down the last major health reform proposal 20 years ago and guess what happened? Skyrocketing cost and profits. I wonder what will happen if they snuff reform once again?"

dparks2 said, "There was never a good-faith effort by health insurers to reform the system. They love it exactly the way it is, but for the sake of PR, they are unable to say they like the status quo. Instead, they ran a sham campaign pretending they supported health care reform. Then, at the last moment, they tried to scuttle the effort..."

GenuineRisk wrote:
My husband... only has a lung capacity of 70%. At yesterday's doctor visit, we were told there is a new treatment that has had great success with his issues but we were warned it was expensive and would be an uphill fight as the doctor had yet to get an insurance company to approve treatment without a fight... Something is WRONG with this sytem when patients can't get treatment!..."

We'll close with dandrbelf, who wrote, "For anyone who falls prey to the hysteria that the health insurance industry is trying at the eleventh hour to whip up, remember this: all that advertising is being paid for by your premiums."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver |  October 14, 2009; 7:23 AM ET
Previous: Readers Don't Buy Health Insurers' Claim | Next: A Social Security Bribe?

Posted by: purdueduck | October 15, 2009 12:51 PM

Posted by: captainal | October 15, 2009 10:43 AM

Posted by: AntonioSosa | October 14, 2009 2:02 PM

Posted by: akeegan2 | October 14, 2009 1:48 PM

Posted by: FLvet | October 14, 2009 12:12 PM

Posted by: drzimmern1 | October 14, 2009 11:37 AM

Posted by: mikesnyder1 | October 14, 2009 9:35 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.