America's Health Insurance plans logo
In trying to scare senators to vote against the Baucus bill, a bill that doesn't contain a public option, a report commissioned by and released by the health care insurance industry the day before the vote may have made the best case yet for the public option.
The report threatened that if the Baucus bill became law, it would result in an increase of premiums for an average family of four by $4000 a year. But nothing would prevent that $4000 increase more than a public option. And nothing would keep costs down and put an end to insurance company abuses more than a public option.
Why those involved in the report couldn't see that this simply re-enforces the need for a public option adds another layer to the waste, mismanagement and incompetence in the health insurance industry
And that wasn't lost on members of congress. As Rep. Anthony Weiner of NY said, the best way to stop insurance companies from raising premiums and keep them from other abuses is the public option.
Regarding the other assertions in the report, much of it has been debunked by Jon Gruber an economist at MIT. Gruber did his own analysis and came to the conclusion that provisions in the Baucus bill would actually lower premiums, the opposite conclusion of the report, because the AHIP report didn't take into account government subsidies to help low income families buy insurance. Price Waterhouse Cooper the firm that did the study admitted that was true in a prepared statement.
Also, their statement actually admits that their conclusion that premiums would go up is based directly on there not being a public option.
This is what the statement said:
"Insurance market reforms and consumer protections would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement."
No one can argue that the most effective coverage requirement would be a public option.So in trying to scare people away from the public option they have actually made the case for it.
In response to the criticism that their estimates of an increase of $4000 a year in premiums was based solely on selective analysis, ignoring aspects of the bill that would lower premiums, PriceWaterhouse Cooper said this:
"The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis. We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.”
In other words they cherry picked what parts of the bill they wanted to analyze in order to come to a conclusion they thought was beneficial to the health insurance industry.
The last thing you need to know both about the health insurance industry and their report is that Price Waterhouse Cooper did a similar study for the tobacco industry in the 1990's. Their conclusion? High taxes on tobacco products would devastate the economy.
The real conclusion to be drawn from the health insurance industry report is, as so many insured people already know, the industry cant be trusted. And neither can those defending them.
Comments