ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Health Insurance Executives Undermine Insurance Lobbyist’s Pledge To Reform Insurance Market

This afternoon, during an interview with Bloomberg Radio, Karen Ignagni — the President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — criticized lawmakers for vilifying the insurance industry and reiterated insurers’ commitment to reforming the health insurance marketplace. “Our members have worked now for three years to contribute to the debate, to put insurance market reform squarely on the table…We’re for it. We understand how to do it, and we’ve been leading the charge and urging members of Congress to move forward,” Ignagni, the industry’s top lobbyist, stressed:

That’s what people want. They want to be in. They don’t want to be rejected because of preexisting conditions, and they want to make sure they have continuity of care. We’ve committed to that. That’s what our industry is doing. We are one of the first to step up and offer real change that affected our industry. And we’re still committed to that.

While the insurance industry has publicly supported regulations that would guarantee everyone coverage and outlaw pre-exising condition exclusions, Ignagni may be overstating the industry’s commitment to so-called “market reform.” On June 16th, despite Ignagni pledges of commitment, insurance executives from UnitedHealth Group, Assurant, and WellPoint specifically refused to “commit” to ending the controversial practice of rescinding coverage after an applicant files a medical claim.

Watch a compilation of Ignagni’s claim and insurers’ refusal to end rescission:

In its investigation of insurer practices, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations concluded that far from “leading the charge” on reform, Assurant Health, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint have rescinded policies for almost 20,000 individual insurance policyholders” and avoided paying more than $300 million in medical claims” over the last five years. From its review of case files, the Committee identified “a variety of abuses by insurance companies, including”:

- Conducting investigations with an eye toward rescission in every case in which a policyholder submits a claim relating to leukemia, breast cancer, or any of a list of 1,400 serious or costly medical conditions;

- Rescinding policies based on an alleged failure to disclose a health condition entirely unrelated to the policyholder’s current medical problem;

- Rescinding policies based on policyholders’ failure to disclose a medical condition that their doctors never told them about;

- Rescinding policies based on innocent mistakes by policyholders in their applications; and

- Rescinding coverage for all members of a family based on a failure to disclose a medical condition of one family member.

As former health insurance executive Wendell Potter argues, insurers seek to “drive down” costs by refusing to insure “unhealthy people,” a tactic borne out by the fact that 47 million Americans currently lack health insurance. The “insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies,” said Potter, the former head of Corporate Communications at health insurance giant CIGNA.

Politics

Rep. Perriello: Coal Fraudster Impersonated Women’s And Seniors’ Groups As Well

The stack of forged letters opposing clean energy reform on behalf of the coal industry is growing. Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) has revealed that he not only received forgeries purporting to come from black and hispanic groups, but also senior citizen and women’s advocacy organizations as well.

Yesterday, Perriello’s office told reporters that in addition to the five NAACP letters and one Creciendo Juntos letter forged on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), “two other letters were forged to appear as if they had been sent by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a Charlottesville agency, and the American Association of University Women.” Perriello, who cast his vote in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act despite this fraud, discussed the scandal on Rachel Maddow:

Obviously, anything like this, where someone is claiming your letterhead and then claiming your position is just outrageous. They also did JABA, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, which is one of these great service organizations in our community that helps our seniors. And for them to get dragged into something like this really is, I think, a blow to folks in the area. But it’s also just a turn-off again to these sorts of corporate-lobbying tactics.

Watch it:


Neither JABA nor the American Association of University Women did any lobbying on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and both organizations first learned about the fraud today. Since the scandal broke last Friday, ACCCE has placed the blame on its contractors, the Astroturf specialists Hawthorn Group and Bonner & Associates. However, ACCCE has known and kept silent about the fraudulent campaign against the clean energy legislation since June, even as the two other members known to have received fraudulent letters, Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and Chris Carney (D-PA), voted against the bill.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the chair of the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, today sent a letter to ACCCE requesting information about its role in the affair, including the full details of all of the fraudulent letters sent on its behalf:

The deliberate inaction prior to the House vote and the extended silence after the vote — some 40 days after ACCCE knew what had happened — raises serious concerns.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Climate Progress

How the Senate can fix cost containment in the climate bill with ‘price collar plus’

The climate and clean energy bill that narrowly passed the House has three problems related to cost containment (CC) that the Senate should — and I expect will — address:

  1. Fence-sitting Senators (and industries) worry that its CC provisions aren’t hard-nosed and specific enough to protect the public and businesses from carbon prices that get too high too fast, possibly driven by speculators.
  2. Progressives worry that its CC provisions are already too strong and that some proposals floating around to strengthen CC would environmentally weaken an already weak bill.
  3. The major CC provision in the bill — the strategic reserve — is so opaque that it is understood by a handful of people at most and none of them are U.S. Senators.

I’m going to try to take the best of all the current CC proposals and propose an alternative that I think might actually be appealing to all sides, what I’m calling “price collar plus.”

Two weeks ago, the Brookings Institution — which I’d view as center-right on the energy and climate issue now that David Sandalow has left — proposed a traditional price collar in Politico, “Time for a price collar on carbon.”  To their credit, they did suggest this was a way to “rein in offsets” but offered no specifics on how to achieve that important end.

The benefit of a price collar to Brookings:

By preventing the policy from being either unexpectedly lax or unexpectedly stringent, a price collar protects both investors in green technologies and households and preserves strong incentives to abate.

The House climate bill already has a price floor for the auction, which starts at $10 a ton in 2012 and rises 5% plus inflation every year thereafter.  I believe most everyone understands the need for a rising price floor — giving some certainty to businesses about investment decisions they make, say, in biomass cofiring or natural gas fuel switching.  The floor in Waxman-Markey is, by almost every independent analysis, on the low side in the sense that the CBO and EPA and especially the EIA project the price for a CO2 allowance in 2020 will be above the floor — in EIA’s estimation, double the floor price.

The fossil fuel industry, of course, funds economic analyses that project incredibly high allowance prices to scare people into opposing the bill entirely.  If their analyses were anywhere near accurate, the floor in the House bill would be utterly irrelevant.  I’d love a higher floor, but since it has already passed the House, we’re probably stuck with it.

A price collar, of course, requires a ceiling to go with the floor.  Brookings explains:

Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

Fun like macroeconomics:

— The growing scandal around private student lenders.

— Newspaper articles are generally poorly written.

— Way more words than I’ve ever read before about Hair.

— The high-speed rail debate in the U.K.

— Universal health care is working fine in Massachusetts.

Checking out my colleague Kay Steiger‘s iTunes files since she turned out sharing today, I rediscovered Eve 6′s eponymous fin de millenium album. The “Tongue Tied” video features Katie Holmes for a late nineties perfect storm.

Justice

Bill Would Restore Accountability To Companies Who Enable Fraud

specterFor the second time in as many weeks, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) has introduced legislation to overturn a Supreme Court decision that immunized corporations from accountability for their illegal acts.  Specter’s bill would strike down Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, which held that companies who enable other corporations to cook their books are immune from federal law banning securities fraud.

Stoneridge involved an elaborate scheme which a cable company called Charter Communications allegedly set up to trick investors into believing that its cash flow was much higher than it actually was.  As the Supreme Court explained the scheme:

Respondents [Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola] supplied Charter with the digital cable converter (set top) boxes that Charter furnished to its customers. Charter arranged to overpay respondents $20 for each set top box it purchased until the end of the year, with the understanding that respondents would return the overpayment by purchasing advertising from Charter. The transactions, it is alleged, had no economic substance; but, because Charter would then record the advertising purchases as revenue and capitalize its purchase of the set top boxes, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles, the transactions would enable Charter to fool its auditor into approving a financial statement showing it met projected revenue and operating cash flow numbers.Respondents agreed to the arrangement.

So Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, agreed to overcharge Charter for an asset that Charter’s books would value at the inflated price, and also to overpay for advertising with revenues that Charter could account for as sales.  The result was a ledger which inflated Charter’s paper value without actually requiring Charter to earn any more money.

This kind of deception is illegal under federal securities law because it fools investors into investing in a company which is far less sound than its books suggest.  Stoneridge, however, held that companies which assist other companies in defrauding their investors are immune from private suits.  Considering that many companies who engage in Enron-style tricks do so because they are trying to hide their impending collapse, if more solvent companies who enable fraud are not accountable under the law investors are left with no one to seek compensation from when their stock becomes worthless.

Specter’s bill would fix this problem by allowing suits against anyone who provides “substantial assistance” to a company which defrauds its investors.  Hopefully, bills like this one will not only become law, but they will send a clear message to the Supreme Court to stop holding that corporate interests are immune from the law.

Politics

Steele Distances Himself From Town Hall Mobs: ‘We’re Not Encouraging People To Be Angry’

This afternoon, ThinkProgress was on a conference call hosted by RNC Chairman Michael Steele. In response to a question from The Washington Times about protests inside health care town halls, Steele distanced himself and the RNC from the protesters:

STEELE: I had nothing to do with that, I did not encourage that. And we’re not encouraging people to be angry I mean to the point of being nasty and brutish and ugly. That’s not what this is about. There’s no upside for the Republican Party or the people involved to do that. Now some people, you know, that’s how they express their frustration, that’s how they express their frustration. But that’s not something deliberately coordinated by me or any one state party.

In condemning these disruptions, Steele placed himself at odds with a number of other Republican leaders. Recently House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised that House Democrats would have a “very, very hot summer” when they had to face their constituents. Today, in fact, he even sent out a “GOP Leader Alert” that seemingly promoted the mob attacks on his colleagues:

boehner

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) has gone even further, bluntly telling the press that the time for polite town halls is now “over.” The NRCC also sent out a jubilant e-mail recently that praised the disruptions as “recess roasting.”

Steele may be distancing himself now, but in the past, he has embraced astroturfing tactics. In 2006, the Maryland GOP bused in homeless people from outside the state to hand out flyers on behalf of Steele, who was incorrectly identified as a Democrat.

The Washington Independent’s David Weigel, who was also on the call, noted that Steele said the stock market improving is a direct result of Democratic legislation slowing down in Congress.

Update

Earlier today, Sen John McCain (R-AZ) voiced his displeasure with the town hall mobs via Twitter: “Town hall meetings are an American tradition – we should allow everyone to express their views without disruption – even if we disagree!”

Yglesias

The Constitutional Status of the Filibuster

us-capitol-1

Kevin Drum says filibustering is unconstitutional:

In any case, I continue to think the filibuster is unconstitutional. The fact that certain types of legislation (treaties, constitutional amendments, veto overrides, etc.) specifically require supermajority votes is evidence that the framers assumed that ordinary legislation should be passed by majority vote. Assumed it so strongly, in fact, that they never seriously considered the possibility that they had to spell it out.

Until I get the Supreme Court to agree with me, of course, this doesn’t matter. But I still think it’s true.

I think the real point here is that it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court thinks. The Supreme Court can’t rule on questions of Senate procedure. This is what the “political question” doctrine was built for. But the flipside of that is that, as I’ve said before, if Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and 49 other Senators want to change the filibuster rule or deem a health plan eligible for reconciliation or whatever else they like nobody can stop them. The Senate itself is the only adjudicator of its own procedures. The reason majorities hesitate to empower themselves this way is that even though the filibuster is against the transient interests of the current majority it serves the individual interests of each senator by increasing the worth of his vote.

I would say the key piece of evidence for Kevin’s interpretation of this is that the initial draft of the rules allowed for cloture on majority vote. Then during an 1806 revision of the rulebook, the cloture motion was scrapped on the grounds that it was never used and therefore unnecessary. Nobody was contemplating the creation of a supermajority requirement.

Indeed, the whole idea that the cloture rule constitutes a supermajority requirement is quite novel. Consider this account of the “court packing” fight in William Edward Leuchtenburg’s The Supreme Court Reborn:

“The best guessing here,” wrote Raymond Clapper in his column, “is that the new . . . court enlargement bill . . . will get thru,” while the Washington bureau of the Portland Press Herald in rock-ribbed Republican Maine reported: “General opinion is the substitute will pass, and sooner than expected, since votes enough to pass it seem apparent, and the opposition cannot filibuster forever.”

Privately, FDR’s foes conceded that these reckonings were correct. On July 7, the morose Republican Senator Hiram Johnson informed a friend: “They have the votes at present to put it over.” A confidential tally sheet set numbers on that conclusion. In an estimate prepared for the leading lobbyist against the Court plan, Frank Gannett, the Nebraska Senator Edward Burke revealed that if the roll were call right away, FDR would wind up the winner, 52-44.

Of course the court packing plan was ultimately defeated. But it was defeated because the tide turned and opponents had a majority on their side. The filibuster was seen as a potentially useful delaying tactic, but not a means by which the fight could be won.

Climate Progress

Rep. Perriello: Coal Fraudster Impersonated Women’s And Seniors’ Groups As Well

The stack of forged letters opposing clean energy reform on behalf of the coal industry is growing. Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) has revealed that he not only received forgeries purporting to come from black and hispanic groups, but also senior citizen and women’s advocacy organizations as well. Yesterday, Perriello’s office told reporters that in addition to the five NAACP letters and one Creciendo Juntos letter forged on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), “two other letters were forged to appear as if they had been sent by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, a Charlottesville agency, and the American Association of University Women.” Perriello, who cast his vote in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act despite this fraud, discussed the scandal on Rachel Maddow:

Obviously, anything like this, where someone is claiming your letterhead and then claiming your position is just outrageous. They also did JABA, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, which is one of these great service organizations in our community that helps our seniors. And for them to get dragged into something like this really is, I think, a blow to folks in the area. But it’s also just a turn-off again to these sorts of corporate-lobbying tactics.

Watch it:


Neither JABA nor the American Association of University Women did any lobbying on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and both organizations first learned about the fraud today. Since the scandal broke last Friday, ACCCE has placed the blame on its contractors, the Astroturf specialists Hawthorn Group and Bonner & Associates. However, ACCCE has known and kept silent about the fraudulent campaign against the clean energy legislation since June, even as the two other members known to have received fraudulent letters, Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and Chris Carney (D-PA), voted against the bill.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the chair of the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, today sent a letter to ACCCE requesting information about its role in the affair, including the full details of all of the fraudulent letters sent on its behalf:

The deliberate inaction prior to the House vote and the extended silence after the vote — some 40 days after ACCCE knew what had happened — raises serious concerns.

Politics

Grassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing

grassleywebSen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has taken the lead role in negotiating the health care reform bill for the GOP. But earlier today during a radio interview with Iowa City’s KCJJ, Grassley steered the conversation with a caller toward rationing health care services among the elderly, one of the right wing’s favorite fearmongering tactics when it comes to health care reform. And as an example, Grassley cited Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) brain tumor. Grassley said that in countries with government-run health care, Kennedy “would not get the care he gets here because of his age.” Instead, the government would decide to spend health care resources on younger people “who can contribute to the economy”:

GRASSLEY: In countries that have government-run health care, just to give you an example, I’ve been told that the brain tumor that Sen. Kennedy has — because he’s 77 years old — would not be treated the way it’s treated in the United States. In other words, he would not get the care he gets here because of his age. In other words, they’d say ‘well he doesn’t have long to live even if he lived another four to five years.’ They’d say ‘well, we gotta spend money on people who can contribute more to economy.’ It’s a little like people saying when somebody gets to be 85 their life is worth less than when they were 35 and you pull the tubes on them.

Listen:

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have ‘the best health care system in the world,’” wrote the New York Times editorial page in 2007, but “the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.” Among developed countries, the United States has the 10th highest death rate among cancer patients, higher than Spain and Sweden.

But the larger problem Grassley ignores is cost. For Kennedy, access to health care is not an issue. Among most Americans, however, staggering health costs prevent more than half of U.S. patients from gaining access to medical care. Last year, 38 percent of U.S. patients did not receive recommended treatment compared to 11 percent in Canada and 6 percent in the U.K. And even among Americans with insurance, 43 percent of adults with chronic conditions nevertheless had access problems because of cost.

Yglesias

Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Bob Somerby reminds us that before Barack Obama was part of a vast Indonesio-Kenyan birth certificate fraud scheme, Bill Clinton was in the White House and people thought stuff like this:

— As governor, Bill Clinton murdered many rivals. Hillary Clinton was involved.
— As first lady, Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death.
— As governor, Bill Clinton trafficked drugs through Mena, Arkansas.
— Bill Clinton was himself a major coke user. It’s why his nose is so red.
— As a graduate student, Bill Clinton visited Moscow because he was a Soviet agent (or something).
— The Clintons decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms and drug paraphernalia.

Recall that there was an actual Independent Counsel investigation into Vince Foster’s suicide.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up