SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Insurers Get PR Victory; Republicans Get Talking Point

PLANK JUNE 12, 2012

Insurers Get PR Victory; Republicans Get Talking Point

So predictable. And so wrong.

Both Aetna and Humana have announced that they will follow the example of UnitedHealth, keeping in place some of the Affordable Care Act's provisions even if the Supreme Court strikes down the law. Sure enough, Republicans are calling this proof that the insurance marketplace works and that Obamacare is unnecessary.

Via Joanne Kenen and Jonathan Allen of Politico:

“Today’s announcement is a reminder that sensible health care reform does not require the massive government takeover in Washington Democrats’ law, which is hurting our economy by driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. Steel added that the private insurers’ action “reinforces our commitment” to repeal any portion of the law that the court leaves standing.

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) offered a similar view. “There is plenty of room for solutions in the private market, and a primary objection to the ACA remains the heavy-handed, bureaucratic approach, which necessarily compels millions of employers and beneficiaries to leave private insurance in favor of a public option,’” she said in an email.

Just to review, the provisions those insurers have agreed to preserve represent only a small piece of health care reform. It's great that young adults will get to stay on their parents' policies: As a new study from the Commonwealth Fund revealed, as many as 6.6 million young Americans have gotten insurance coverage because of that provision. And it's great that these insurers are willing to end lifetime limits on benefits. The people who would hit those limits are people with the most serious, long-term medical conditions—in other words, the ones who in most cases are most in need of financial protection.

But the insurers and their Washington representatives have been very clear about one provision they will not be preserving on their own: Coverage for children with pre-existing conditions. 

The insurers also won't be putting in place the much larger reforms to come in 2014: Federal subsidies, so that people buying insurance on their own get assistance as long as they are making less than four times the poverty line; guaranteed coverage, at uniform rates, for adults regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical risk; expanded eligibility for Medicaid, so that anybody making less than 133 percent of the poverty line can get coverage directly from the government; minimum benefit standards, so that nobody discovers their policy doesn't cover basic treatments; and many others.

They aren't doing any of these things because, as a practical matter, they can't. All of them require fundamental, structural changes to the insurance market, along with government subsidies (with the cuts and revenue to finance them). Only comprehensive health care reform, like the kind the Affordable Care Act delivers, can do that. 

By the way, whether other insurers will follow suit remains unclear. From Politico's Jason Millman:

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association stopped short Monday of making a full commitment to joining the other major insurers. BCBSA said it will "encourage its 38 local [BCBS] Companies to offer the broadest set of protections possible at an affordable price. Plans will be responsive to their members and the communities they serve." Meanwhile, WellPoint said it's waiting on a Supreme Court ruling before making anything official. "We remain focused, first and foremost, on meeting the needs of our customers, and we will announce our specific plans in this regard shortly after the court issues its ruling," spokeswoman Kristin Binns said. Cigna earlier in the day declined to comment on post-SCOTUS plans. 

Oh, and a reminder to the staff of Rep. Emerson or whoever is writing her talking points: The law has no public option. I wish that it did.

follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 5 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

5 comments

If my insurance policy has no lifetime limit on benefits, I have leukemia, I need a bone marrow transplant, and my insurer will not pay for a bone marrow transplant because it's not covered, will the insurer be required to pay for the transplant anyway? If my insurance policy has no lifetime limit on benefits, I have leukemia, I lose my job because I become too sick to work, I cannot afford to keep my insurance policy, and I need a bone marrow transplant, will my former insurer be required to pay for the transplant? These and similar questions are meant to reveal both the disengenuousness of the insurers and the weakness of ACA, by which I mean that, for many if not most Americans, a chronic disease is incompatible with private insurance. We as a nation acknowledged that fact long ago when we decided to provide public insurance for those suffering the most common chronic disease. And what chronic disease is that?

- rayward

June 12, 2012 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again -- the Private Insurers have had decades to decide to implement these policies, and did not. They only implemented these policies BECAUSE the ACA forces them to. Saying this is a "success of market forces" is putting the cart before the horse -- it's the horse of the ACA dragging these companies reluctantly into providing services they should have been providing all along, not the other way around. So no, this isn't proof the ACA isn't needed. Instead, this is yet further proof how helpful the ACA will eventually be.

- AllanL5

June 12, 2012 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilariously ridiculous. It's as if big banks announced they would stop screwing with people's checking accounts by rearranging payments to create overdrafts. And then got in front of the media and stressed that what they were doing was an act of charity in no way influenced by the fact that Dodd-Frank moved it from highly suspect to illegal. This is where the moral suffusions of the right would come in handy. If campaign advisors and other people giving press conferences noted that all of these insurance companies only do what's right when we make it illegal to do what's wrong, they would sharpen the stick of the legislation they've passed--the better to beat Romney over the head with.

- chaitless

June 12, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, Republicans think letting kids stay on their parents' policies until age 26 actually represents a big "solution"? It's a nice perk, but this is not going to solve the health care problem in the U.S. By the time the so-called free market gets around to dealing with the big issues, we'll all be dead and buried. And maybe that's exactly the GOP's strategy.

- ekeizer

June 12, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Private industries would retain a few modest measures they adopted only because a law required them to, and this is proof that the government doesn't need to intervene in the market?

- frippo

June 12, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close