Health insurance companies urge staff to fight reforms

Wow..that's only kinda sorta unethical...I figured they'd threaten to fire anyone who didn't tow the comany line absolutely.

So glad to be working in the not-for-profit side of health care, where we really do support universal coverage, a public option, and health care for all with needed cost containment and evidence-based medicine as part of the deal. Thumbs down to the PR dolts in our for-profit competitor companies. Insulting.

The health insurance industry has become a major foe of the White House and congressional Democrats,

*******************************************
No the health insurance industry has become a foe to the average American citizen.

So the GOP talking point is that "millions will loose coverage." And the Democrats talking point is that "anyone who has coverage will be able to keep it" (I'm quoting Obama as nearly correctly as I can recall.) Let's get real people. We are introducing massive change to 1/6th of the US economy, in an area that touches almost everyone personally. Neither the GOP's nor the Democrat's talking points can be true, and the politicians are talking past each other. There will be some people better off, and some people worse off. I'm hoping I'm in the "better off" category. But probably won't be.

It seems to me that universal health care is a win-win proposition. It provides an umbrella of protection for those who cannot afford or qualify for health insurance. This helps us all. Every time you learn from the news about our latest jobless statistics, consider this: A newly jobless person who was insured through an employee health plan is about to become a newly uninsured person. It's for our mutual good that we live in a healthier society. To provide universal coverage is the moral thing to do.

Also, a government option would be cheaper than what insurance companies offer, or you could opt for your present plan. That's what "option" means. It would be cheaper because it would eliminate the 30% of insurance costs that go to advertising, marketing and administrative salaries. It would compete on price. Good old fashioned open-market.

I grew up in Rochester, Minnesota home of the Mayo Clinic. When I visit there after living elsewhere for 30 years, I see exactly where the transfer of wealth in the failing health insurance ponzi scheme has gone. The town is rich beyond belief and the people there have no appreciation of that fact.
A thousand miles from "Med City" 35% of my child's classmates go uninsured and the republicans stick their heads in the sand and their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you"!

I agree with shadowmagician that universal health care is a win-win proposition. I am for much of the content of the house bill. But I think the public option is an awful idea for several reasons. First, the share of revenue paid out in claims by insurance companies is, on average, 85%. There just isn't a big pot of savings to be had from reducing profit, marketing and advertising expenses. Second, the government isn't going to actually "run" the public option. They will outsource it to contracters, probably the insurance companies themselves (the large insurance companies all operate third-party administrators who can do the work). If you live in this town, you know that contractors NEVER loose money on government work...in fact, they are the most consistently profitable folks around. Third, it won't take long for the insurance companies AND THE EMPLOYERS WHO FOOT MOST OF THE BILL to figure out how to dump all the high-cost, high-risk insured into the public plan. This is a bonanza for the insurance cmpanies. Their profits will go through the roof, and the government will be stuck with a health-care tab even they can't afford. Cynical? Yes. But I'll bet a dollar that I'm proved right within 10 years. That's why I think the public option is a horrible idea.

The big insurance co.s are only worried about one thing which is that they will have to compete fairly instead of makeing billions of dollars off Americans with sky high cost most people can barely aford to pay.They dont care who lives or dies or who has coverage or who dosent.Its just that allmighty dollar they worship that matters.I wonder just how many people died today because they either had no affordable insurance or not enough money to see a doctor and pay for the care they needed.Its sad because America is suppose to be such a great country but we let our own people die.Its not the America i grew up being taught to believe in.

united healthcare would only pay for 9 biopsy samples to find out that i had lymphoma when my oncologist recommended 15 samples. somehow united healthcare says that i am financially responsible for the additional six biopsy samples that my oncologist recommended even though i pay for health insurance. thanks united healthcare.

Wow..that's only kinda sorta unethical...I figured they'd threaten to fire anyone who didn't tow the company line absolutely.

Posted by: EricS2 | November 12, 2009 4:14 PM
=============================================
No, then they'd have to fire some, who would clean up in Court.

The Stockholm Syndrome is a pre-existing condition in workers, wink wink not that we'd ever take advantage

its amazing that liberal idiots like the author of this article try to pose this off as journalism and not left wing spin. Let me ask you this, Do you not hear the beverage and soda industry clamoring for no tax on their products to pay for healthcare? How is that different? No one's been fired for NOT taking their stance. I've seen some of these so called "co-erced" emails and all of them state the same thing that insurers have been saying all along. They want reforms, just the right type of reforms. Reforms that actually bend the cost curve which has little to nothing to do with any of the bills floating around.

and i love idiots that take the doctor's side. The doctor is the one running to the bank (or their second or third homes) since many of them own the labs where they're sending your biopsy's to. Sure they don't care how much they do, they're making enormous profits off of it. Do people even realize that doctors in the US on average make 7-10x what doctors in universal healthcare countries make? Insurers profits are 3-6% so sure go ahead FORCE them to be all non-profit, force them to cover everything your doctor says you need. But then when no one can pay for it don't come crying to me. I love the talking point of 44,000 die every year without healthcare. Well that's sad but 100,000 die every year by medical malpractice. Somehow the democrats missed that talking point.

Profit before life. Truly it is blood money that these insurance companies earn and every employee has that blood on their hands too.

Profit before life. Truly it is blood money that these insurance companies earn and every employee has that blood on their hands too.

Posted by: motodude | November 13, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

that has to be the most idiotic response EVER. how about employees for companies in massachussetts where coverage is guaranteed issue and there's no pre-exisitng conditions? Dumb. Just dumb.

UnitedHealth is right to oppose this ill thought out, potentially disastrous piece of legislation.

But they must do more than just oppose. Health insurance companies must explain what changes to the health insurance system they do support.

that's right...all the real benefited ones are struggling to survive... they have made enough money out of the ill population..it's time for a reform. http://typobounty.com/Funny/Obama_2.htm

Posted by: Steve-2 | November 12, 2009 7:06 PM "First, the share of revenue paid out in claims by insurance companies is, on average, 85%."

How about the amount paid in executive compenstion. In 2005 United Health paid their CEO, William W. McGuire an estimated $60 Million in compensation (the hig estimate puts the figure at $125 Million). They also pay employees bonuses for finding new and clever ways to cheat their customers through rescision of coverage or denial of claims. So even though the "profit" margin that the company "reports" may be 85% there is far more profit hidden in the form of executive (over)compensation, and bonuses paid to the real death panels (i.e. claims adjusters working for incentives based on denial of claims).

This article begs the questions:

Why wouldn't a company, any company, ask its employees to fight against what it believes would be detrimental to the company and the livelihood of its employees?

Does the Washington Post fight against court orders to reveal sources when it prints stories that reveal government secrets? Of course it does because this would be detrimental to the paper and its employees...or so it believes...while many others believe it should reveal the sources.

The point is NOT that insurance companies are "evil" or "not evil", the point is that any institution has the obligation to do, legally, what it believes is best for employees, investors, its clients (policy holders) and the company itself.

To B1rd - the 85% number I quoted is the average amount that insurance companies pay out in actual medical claims. That means that everything else - administration, profits, inflated executive salaries, etc., amount to 15% of revenue. When you consider that administration accounts for most of this 15%, and that administration will have to be performed by the government or government contractors in a public option, then you are left with the fact that the public option can (theoretically) only save about 5% of insurance company revenue. Not insignificant, but a lot less than the 30% often quoted by proponants of the public option.

It's amazing that we still have such an opposition to fixing the healthcare system in America. The Republicans have tactfully forced every bill put forth by the Democrats receive 95-100% favorable vote to pass. When they made the decision to say no to everything, it removed 39 votes from consideration. Therefore, every bill must have every Democrat on board. This causes a chain effect, namely one or two hold outs suddenly receive all the power.
In addition, senators take advantage of the situation by making sure they get what they want in a bill. Otherwise, they threaten to join the opposition. Bills also decline in quality.
In the end, it's the American people who get the shaft and must burden the consequences of childish behavior. Lastly, in case they forgot, people continue to die from lack of health care coverage.

pathtec little people at the top of their little empires, time to take them down I say.

It's not surprising that health insurance corporations and most of their employees would fight any meaningful health care reform with every asset at their disposal...unless that reform is sure to increase their bottom line, which some proposals would do to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

It's also not news that in an environment in which the American people wish to have ALL people provided with meaningful health care, those insurance companies provide absolutely no service which is beneficial to anyone. What they do provide in a universal health care scenario is a mechanism to collect the health care tax (which they refer to oddly as 'premiums'), but for their service as private tax collection agencies, they rake 30% off the top as their fee.

They also happen to have no real interest in keeping payments to health care providers to a minimum, as long as they have the ability to increase 'premium' rates a year in advance of the increase in agreed upon payments. Oh, they do occasionally issue PR statements about what a great job they're doing to keep provider charges to a minimum, but they don't actually make real efforts in that direction because it's not in their best interest. In fact, as long as their revenues continue to rise (as long as the customer base continues to pay higher 'premiums') it is definitely in their best interest to have costs increase while they simply continue to take the same percentage cut in profit. Their premium vs. care payment strategy can really be summarized as an offer you can't refuse: "you can pay this higher premium, or you'll either die before your time or lose everything you've worked for your whole life". Most people are going to take an offer they can't refuse if they have any ability to do so.

The only true reform of the system eliminates the health insurance gangsters entirely, but does it gradually in order to avoid dumping hundreds of thousands of insurance company workers onto the unemployment rolls (even though their corporate insurance jobs serve no health care purpose) and in order to avoid sudden huge stockholder losses. The 'public option', if it were designed to be viable (which not even the House bill, as currently written, would do), could accomplish that.

This author must take a look at the Constitution. The first amendment allows for the right to petition the government. After reading this drivel, I am thinking about ending my Post subscription.

Companies are constituents with a legal right to convey to its employees and the government the impact legislation will have on its ability to operate.

I question your reporting that employees were coerced or threaten to respond or not respond. Unions, trial attorneys, doctors, drug makers, nurses, pharmacists, associations, and the list goes on are reaching out to inform employees/members about important legislation being considered. And, provide an avenue, if they choose, for individuals to send a note to their elected officials on matters important to them.

Hmmmm.... so commenters actually believe that if UnitedHealth's profit falls, we as policy holders won't pay more to make it up? Who will? Shareholders? Or will the nanny gov start telling private companies how much profit they and their shareholders are allowed to make. If that's the case, let's start with oil companies not health insurance companies.

The top corporate insurance executive salary of $24,300,112, amounts to $12,150 per hour for EVERY hour on the job over the course of a year, assuming that this person works 40 hours per week and 50 weeks a year (which he assuredly does not). These people and the corporations they head up deliver zero health care services to anyone. They actually do the opposite; they deny coverage to the very people who fund their kingly existences. These are stats any thinking person ought to be outraged about. This is what the private, corporate health care insurance system in America comes down to; corporate profits, NOT "insuring" people. We cannot and should not allow this to continue. Even if the bill before Congress is flawed, we need to break the stranglehold that the corporations have had on us for decades.

Well, this says it all. I wouldn't trust these people to take care of my cat. Absolute scum bags.

It says in the leading that if you are pro public option you may loose your job and that you must do overtime for free ! and work on spreading this scum .
This defines how these people think. They want your money no matter what. When you need the service they will deny it.

The whole question of taxpayer funding for abortions has long ignored the fact that MANY taxpayers WANT their taxes to be used to fund abortions for poor women that need them.

The simple solution is to have a voluntary added tax that is earmarked for abortion funding. We have this voluntary tax program in New Mexico--when the individual fills out their form there is about a half-page of options they can check where they can fill in the amount they want to donate--to the NM state parks, for example-- and they can fill in however much they want. I would certainly be happy to add $10, or more if I felt I could afford it.

If you like this idea, please call your representatives and senators, and call more than once! and tell them you want a voluntary added tax option that will dedicate our taxpayer dollars for abortion funding. Maybe you can call it the abortion tax option.

It is outrageous that we are prevented from doing this by the damnable actions of the anti-abortionists.

Do I have to be a member of the GOP to oppose this Bullsh%$t being shoved down my throat. I don't want to but will if necessary!

Obviously..They are just thinking about themselves..
Ive read some excellent articles about this Health care issue at the Lipman Times:

http://tinyurl.com/yjp56c8