Dirty Tricks of the Private Healthcare Industry

[jimbob]

That people should be more concerned with the dirty tricks politicians use to gain power, including using rhetoric to pound the heads of "those who oppress us"?

What exactly do you mean?

Politicains present their side, and sometimes mislead. They use rhetoric. (Hey, they sometimes even lie, even in the house of commons, where this is not supposed to be mentioned). This is well known, and is supposed to be exposed as part of the political discourse.

Health insurance is supposed to provide cover in case of illness. The insurers are supposed to pay up for valid claims. They are not supposed to take one's money and not pay up because of a technicality. It isn't surprising that they do so, but that doesn't make it right. It is perfectly reasonable to be outraged at unjust practices, even if they are technically legal.

 

[Rolfe]

That people should be more concerned with the dirty tricks politicians use to gain power, including using rhetoric to pound the heads of "those who oppress us"?

You know what the first thing said by most homoeopaths (and indeed other SCAM supporters) when confronted about the lack of efficacy and dirty tricks of the altmed industry is?

It's "why don't you complain about the number of people killed by Big Pharma and leave us alone."

Frankly, Beerina, the fact that politicians lie and use dirty tricks is about as fresh news as "sun rises in the east". It's not that shocking any more.

The dirty tricks of the health insurance companies are indeed shocking. You yourself demand that Americans should sacrifice every luxury, live the most basic and austere lifestyle, in order to purchase health insurance. When you are so keen for people to do this, should you not be equally keen to ensure that their money is being prudently used? Should you not be concerned that when people do this, they should be able to rely on the company to pay up if they they need medical treatment, rather than spending even more money looking for loopholes and technicalities to deny treatment?

Does the idea that someone could do what you advocate, give every spare penny they have to a health insurance company, and then find themselves denied care because of a technicality or a misunderstanding not horrify you?

But no. Instead of addressing the issue, you come out with a "tu quoque" that even a homoeopath would be ashamed of.

You'd have been better ignoring this thread entirely, like you do with all the others where your bitter and unfeeling philosophy has been pwned.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

AHIP (the health insurance trade group) has supported broad reform this time around. Heck, they've even aired advertisements supporting it -- including supporting the idea of getting rid of pre-existing exclusion clauses and the like. They've opposed a government run option.

The AMA is also, at best, skeptical of a government run option as well, though they are willing to consider some form of it:


Ditto the AHA:



The most fervent anti-reform ads have been led by Rick Scott, who is a former CEO of Columbia/HCA, a hospital company.

The thread topic was about dirty tricks, not about whether the medical community was for or against the NHS (or a public option).

In this country, the groups making the most false claims to promote killing the public option are those that stand to lose the huge profits they currently make.

As for Rick Scott, he's a multimillionaire CEO, not a health care worker.

Fraud controversy

Maggie Mahar at the Century Foundation's Health Beat blog has written about Scott in her book, Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Healthcare Costs So Much. She reports that Scott previously started a for-profit hospital chain in 1987 that later became the $23 billion Columbia/HCA. He was ousted from this post in 1997 after:

the FBI swooped down on HCA hospitals in five states. Within weeks, three executives were indicted on charges of Medicare fraud, and the board had ousted Scott.

The investigation revealed that the hospital chain had been bilking Medicare while simultaneously handing over kickbacks and perks to physicians who steered patients to its hospitals. ... The company did not fight the charges. In 2000, HCA (which by then had expunged “Columbia” from its name) pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 felonies. Over the next two years, it would pay a total of $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines.[2]

In 1997, Scott was forced out as head of the Columbia/HCA healthcare company as the result of a fraud investigation conducted against the company in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, and paid the government a record $1.7 billion in fines. Scott argues that he was never charged with any crime and that other health-care companies also received fines for overbilling.

Scott was also once a partner in the Texas Rangers sports team with George W. Bush and he now runs an investment firm and owns a chain of walk-in urgent-care clinics in Florida called Solantic.

Scott believes that free market principles are the solution to the U.S. health care problems.[3][4]

That appears to need a thread of its own.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The thread topic was about dirty tricks, not about whether the medical community was for or against the NHS (or a public option).

You were the one who brought up who is supporting and not supporting the current health care reforms, not me.

And who is supporting or not supporting the current reform proposals is certainly relevant to who would be using "dirty tricks" to oppose them.

In this country, the groups making the most false claims to promote killing the public option are those that stand to lose the huge profits they currently make.

Which in many cases includes hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

As for Rick Scott, he's a multimillionaire CEO, not a health care worker.

I didn't say he is a health care worker. I said he owned hospitals. In other words, he's not part of the insurance industry either. He's part of a group that would include a lot of people in the AHA, which includes for-profit hospitals (HCA is a member of the AHA, in fact).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You were the one who brought up who is supporting and not supporting the current health care reforms, not me.

And who is supporting or not supporting the current reform proposals is certainly relevant to who would be using "dirty tricks" to oppose them.



Which in many cases includes hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc.



I didn't say he is a health care worker. I said he owned hospitals. In other words, he's not part of the insurance industry either. He's part of a group that would include a lot of people in the AHA, which includes for-profit hospitals (HCA is a member of the AHA, in fact).

There's cross talk going on here. Because of that you didn't understand the context of my post, just as Rolfe didn't either:

I have seen the man interviewed more than once.

I never said anything about this not applying to the US. It most certainly does. Probably more so than in Britain. My complaint is only that volatile's thread title implies the entire private health care industry is involved. In the US that is not the case.

In the US, it is mainly the insurance industry, the right wing Republican leadership, and the Libertarians who are using lies to distort the actual health care reforms being proposed. It's my understanding the AMA, the AHA (hospital association) and the largest nursing union have all endorsed the proposed changes, at least in general.

As for the insurers denying care as a means of maximizing profits, that scandal has been exposed by whistle blowers repeatedly for years. The Bush administration ignored it. The current changed in health care are intended to fix the problem. The insurers are pouring millions into fighting the proposed changes.

According to volatile, everyone knows he was referring to the PHI in the UK. I'm objecting to the fact the thread title implies I and my colleagues are in on the dirty tricks. It is insulting and a false charge.

It's not your fault. I don't expect people to follow individual discussions.

But just to clarify this, I began posting in this thread with an objection to the title:

First, how about clarifying your title. Perhaps you can get a mod to edit it for you. It isn't the health care industry, it's the third party payer system or health care INSURANCE industry. As a health care provider, it is insulting to treat the two as one.

Then a discussion continued between volatile and me regarding who he was attributing dirty tricks to. He clarified that he was referring to the private care industry in the UK.

I then simply noted who was using the dirty tricks in this country. The public option is not backed by million dollar ad campaigns which is the source of the dirty tricks as well as the insurance companies maximizing profits by using the scam of dropping people's coverage when they had expensive health problems.


So if you have examples of the AMA or the AHA using dirty tricks to support either side of the debate, let's hear them.


-

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It's not your fault. I don't expect people to follow individual discussions.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change my point: you list the insurance industry along with "Republican leadership" and "the Libertarians" as using lies to "distort" the current health reform proposals, and the AMA and AHA as having "all endorsed the proposed changes." My point is that the position of AHIP, the AMA, and the AHA are not that far off each other, as such, your characterization of the situation is incorrect. Call it a factual correction if you want to -- one related to the overall topic.

First, how about clarifying your title. Perhaps you can get a mod to edit it for you. It isn't the health care industry, it's the third party payer system or health care INSURANCE industry. As a health care provider, it is insulting to treat the two as one.

As for your original "in context" post though: here is a quote from Wendell Potter, directly from the OP:

And the special interests will be attacking this or that. The AMA will be upset about something. The pharmaceutical industry will be upset about something. The insurance industry will not like this or that. It's, you know, a lot of money is made in this country off sick people. And then you'll start seeing a lot more of the behind-the-scenes attacks on this legislation, in an attempt to kill it. The status quo is what would work best for these industries.

Clearly he is not just talking about the insurance industry.

So if you have examples of the AMA or the AHA using dirty tricks to support either side of the debate, let's hear them.

I never claimed either organization uses "dirty tricks." Plus, I'm sure this all depends on what your definition of a "dirty trick" is.

Here is one editorial from the Huffington Post critical of the AMA and its response to health reform, both now and in the past. It notes the role it played in defeating the Clinton attempt at health care reform (it's funny you don't hear much about that, and it's portrayed as if the health insurance industry single-handedly derailed the whole thing).

This is all ignoring other major groups involved play such as PHRMA, who launched a multi-million dollar campaign against health reform last year. Here is another editorial (very biased, from Commondreams) about PHRMA's "dirty tricks."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change my point: you list the insurance industry along with "Republican leadership" and "the Libertarians" as using lies to "distort" the current health reform proposals, and the AMA and AHA as having "all endorsed the proposed changes." My point is that the position of AHIP, the AMA, and the AHA are not that far off each other, as such, your characterization of the situation is incorrect. Call it a factual correction if you want to -- one related to the overall topic.



I never claimed either organization uses "dirty tricks." Plus, I'm sure this all depends on what your definition of a "dirty trick" is.

Here is one editorial from the Huffington Post critical of the AMA and its response to health reform, both now and in the past. It notes the role it played in defeating the Clinton attempt at health care reform (it's funny you don't hear much about that, and it's portrayed as if the health insurance industry single-handedly derailed the whole thing).

This is all ignoring other major groups involved play such as PHRMA, who launched a multi-million dollar campaign against health reform last year. Here is another editorial (very biased, from Commondreams) about PHRMA's "dirty tricks."

Again, you are blurring the line between opposing reform and lying about reform in the campaign opposing it to protect one's profits.


There are a couple Dems that are involved so you are correct that it isn't just Republicans. Seems tied to insurance company campaign donations in at least some of the cases.

However, the Republicans made it public they just wanted the plan to fail so Obama would look bad. The ad campaigns they've been funding are full of lies.

And your link to big pharma touting "the benefits of free market health care" reflects a lie the Libertarians push as well.

I don't consider drug companies to be health care providers and the AMA has reversed its official opposition, IIRC.


I'll look for some specific examples of dishonest ads later on tonight. I have to go for the moment.

 

[kellyb]

Again, you are blurring the line between opposing reform and lying about reform in the campaign opposing it to protect one's profits.


There are a couple Dems that are involved so you are correct that it isn't just Republicans. Seems tied to insurance company campaign donations in at least some of the cases.

However, the Republicans made it public they just wanted the plan to fail so Obama would look bad. The ad campaigns they've been funding are full of lies.

And your link to big pharma touting "the benefits of free market health care" reflects a lie the Libertarians push as well.

I don't consider drug companies to be health care providers and the AMA has reversed its official opposition, IIRC.


I'll look for some specific examples of dishonest ads later on tonight. I have to go for the moment.

The AMA supports the reform, but most physicians appear to take issue with it.

http://www.sermo.com/ui/blog/comments/physicians_respond_to_ama_endorsement_of_hc_bill.html

...not sure if this is a biased sample or what.

Reading their comments, I'm sort of blocking out the ones whining about socialism, the free market, blablabla...but even the ones who support single-payer are outraged that the plan doesn't address the malpractice/defensive medicine issue, pharma prices, and several other important economic issues inflating the cost of healthcare in the US.
(I'm going to ignore the insurance industry fatcats for the time being and operate on the assumption that the "public option" will, in fact, be curative in that regard over the ensuing years. )

 

[paximperium]

The AMA supports the reform, but most physicians appear to take issue with it.

http://www.sermo.com/ui/blog/comments/physicians_respond_to_ama_endorsement_of_hc_bill.html

...not sure if this is a biased sample or what.

Reading their comments, I'm sort of blocking out the ones whining about socialism, the free market, blablabla...but even the ones who support single-payer are outraged that the plan doesn't address the malpractice/defensive medicine issue, pharma prices, and several other important economic issues inflating the cost of healthcare in the US.
(I'm going to ignore the insurance industry fatcats for the time being and operate on the assumption that the "public option" will, in fact, be curative in that regard over the ensuing years. )

After seeing medicare and medicaid in action for the last few years, there is significant fear among physicians as to how a reformed system would look like. I would assume that Primary care physicians would be more for the reforms than some of the specialties since they have more to lose in the process.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Again, you are blurring the line between opposing reform and lying about reform in the campaign opposing it to protect one's profits.

I'm not sure why you put "to protect one's profits" only after "lying." All the opposition is to protect the specific interests -- usually economic -- of that interest group. The AMA is absolutely protecting doctor's profits. The pharm. companies are protecting their profits. Hospitals are trying to protect their reimbursement rates (and for the for-profit hospitals, that also means profit). Few, if any, of the special interests involved are altruistic, though they will all claim to be.

So it sounds to me like you have no problem with any group trying to kill health care reform as long as they don't "lie" to the public. If we could apply that to all political issues, we probably wouldn't have politics.

There are a couple Dems that are involved so you are correct that it isn't just Republicans. Seems tied to insurance company campaign donations in at least some of the cases.

Again, the tunnel-vision on insurance companies, while ignoring the numerous other powerful players in the debate.

However, the Republicans made it public they just wanted the plan to fail so Obama would look bad. The ad campaigns they've been funding are full of lies.

I agree.

And your link to big pharma touting "the benefits of free market health care" reflects a lie the Libertarians push as well.

Yup... but they are not Libertarians, they are another interest group.

I don't consider drug companies to be health care providers and the AMA has reversed its official opposition, IIRC.

The AMA didn't "reverse" it's position so much as they accepted a bill that fits the criteria it laid out several weeks ago of what it would accept. They found a bill that benefited them, and of course, backed it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ironically, it seems many people are failing to separate out the care givers from the "health care industry".

The Health Care Industry vs. Health Reform

'm the former insurance industry insider now speaking out about how big for-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and how the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health care reform legislation members of Congress are now writing.

Very informative discussion by whistle blower, Wendell Potter.

Also by Wendell Potter: The Ultimate Irony: Health Care Industry Adopts Big Tobacco's PR Tactics

At first look, one might not think that the health insurance industry has much in common with the tobacco industry. After all, one sells a product that kills people and the other sells a product nominally aimed at putting people back together. But when it comes to deceitful public relations techniques, the health insurance industry has been learning well from Big Tobacco, which employed a panoply of shady but highly successful public relations tactics to fend off changes to its business for generations.

Tobacco industry public relations strategies (for reference)

Changing the focus
Use of "personal responsibility" and "choice" rhetoric
Broadening the issue
Reframing the debate
Countermeasures against public health
Creating the illusion of support
Efforts to alter public beliefs about tobacco
Generating controversy
tobacco industry harassment and intimidation
Media manipulation
Undermining science
Economic arguments
Deflecting blame
Creating confusion on ballots
Influencing decisionmakers

Perhaps it is the fact that the powerful people here who stand to lose their gravy trains can't help themselves. There seems to be no moral imperative to be honest, just to win.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure why you put "to protect one's profits" only after "lying." All the opposition is to protect the specific interests -- usually economic -- of that interest group. The AMA is absolutely protecting doctor's profits. The pharm. companies are protecting their profits. Hospitals are trying to protect their reimbursement rates (and for the for-profit hospitals, that also means profit). Few, if any, of the special interests involved are altruistic, though they will all claim to be.

That's not true. There are thousands of health care providers who have no reason to be dishonest about the debate. Not every health care provider is motivated by big profits as you imply.

In fact, there are many physicians and other providers dedicated togiving care to the poor and some of those providers have been testifying in Congress that their 'systems' are fragile due to the increasing weight of the uninsured showing up in their emergency departments.

There are many public hospitals and dedicated providers. Every care giver is not in the group you want to lump us all in to.

So it sounds to me like you have no problem with any group trying to kill health care reform as long as they don't "lie" to the public. If we could apply that to all political issues, we probably wouldn't have politics.

If the debate was honest, reform would not be killed.

Again, the tunnel-vision on insurance companies, while ignoring the numerous other powerful players in the debate.

It was unintentional. I certainly didn't intend to exclude large pharmaceutical companies.



What motive do you attribute to the California Nurses Association which came out supporting a single payer plan?

 

[Rolfe]

So it sounds to me like you have no problem with any group trying to kill health care reform as long as they don't "lie" to the public.

Just look again at what you wrote. How can you possibly prevent or even object to any vested interest group arguing for their own interests, so long as they do it truthfully?

Rolfe.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Just look again at what you wrote. How can you possibly prevent or even object to any vested interest group arguing for their own interests, so long as they do it truthfully?

People complain about special interest groups all the time for pushing their own agendas in Washington. This is the first time I have heard anyone say, "Well, they're all fine, if only they were more honest!" The point is, they are all trying to protect their profits and interests often at the expense of whatever national interest is at stake. Obviously, honest is better than dishonest but... it is politics.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

That's not true. There are thousands of health care providers who have no reason to be dishonest about the debate. Not every health care provider is motivated by big profits as you imply.

I didn't imply that all health care providers are motivated by big profits. But many are. I'm sure many of them are also motivated to help patients. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

There are many public hospitals and dedicated providers. Every care giver is not in the group you want to lump us all in to.

There are also non-profit health insurance companies.

It was unintentional. I certainly didn't intend to exclude large pharmaceutical companies.

You seem to be latching on to the "evil" sounding groups while ignoring others. For example, here are the top lobbying groups so far this year:

PHRMA is #7 (not even including the individual pharma companies on the list), so fair enough. But the AMA and AHA all crack the top 25. Prominently missing? Health insurance.

Now here is the first quarter of 2009 lobbying:
PhRMA at nearly 7 million in lobbying. The AMA at 4.3 million, the AHA at 4.2 million and AHIP at... 2 million. In 1Q 2009, doctors and hospitals spent twice what the insurance industry did on lobbying.

 

[Rolfe]

People complain about special interest groups all the time for pushing their own agendas in Washington. This is the first time I have heard anyone say, "Well, they're all fine, if only they were more honest!" The point is, they are all trying to protect their profits and interests often at the expense of whatever national interest is at stake. Obviously, honest is better than dishonest but... it is politics.

So you think citizens should be prevented from advancing their interests to the legislature, even if they don't misrepresent anything and are entirely truthful?

Really?

Remember, the "special interest groups" are also citizens, and part of the nation, and should be able to have their interests represented. Otherwise, you get into the situation where some Big Brother decides what is and what isn't in "the national interest", and all lobbying that doesn't toe this communist-style line is outlawed.

Do you really fancy that outcome?

Rolfe.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

PHRMA is #7 (not even including the individual pharma companies on the list), so fair enough. But the AMA and AHA all crack the top 25. Prominently missing? Health insurance.

Um, not to argue or anything but you do realize that Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association is listed as number 14 right? You should look at the company holdings before you try to shoot me down on this one, because under your logic I can argue that Oil Providers aren't lobbying either. (Even though the two largest corporations do.)

I mean insurance is the number two industry that engages in lobbying. You might want to flip around the site and get a better breakdown of the numbers.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Um, not to argue or anything but you do realize that Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association is listed as number 14 right? You should look at the company holdings before you try to shoot me down on this one, because under your logic I can argue that Oil Providers aren't lobbying either. (Even though the two largest corporations do.)

I did admittedly miss BC/BS on there. Great, so thus far they are about 500k above AHA and 600k above the AMA. And if you didn't notice, I noted that there were individual pharmaceutical companies on the list in addition to the PHRMA group, so yes, I'm aware there are individual companies lobbying. And that applies across the board.

I mean insurance is the number two industry that engages in lobbying. You might want to flip around the site and get a better breakdown of the numbers.

I did. Perhaps you should as well. Insurance covers the entire insurance industry, not just health insurance. In fact, the single biggest spender is USAA, which is in auto and property insurance (as well as banking and a few other things).

If you look at the "Health" sector which seems to group them in a way that makes a bit more sense, you get Pharmaceuticals at 82 million, Hospitals and Nursing Homes at 36 million, Health Professionals at 25.7 million, and Health Services/HMOs at 24.6 million. As a sector, they still come out behind.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

So you think citizens should be prevented from advancing their interests to the legislature, even if they don't misrepresent anything and are entirely truthful?

Really?

Remember, the "special interest groups" are also citizens, and part of the nation, and should be able to have their interests represented. Otherwise, you get into the situation where some Big Brother decides what is and what isn't in "the national interest", and all lobbying that doesn't toe this communist-style line is outlawed.

You're preaching to the wrong person. I never claimed I had a problem with special interest groups. If she or you have no problem with special interest groups derailing healthcare reform "honestly" then great. I'm just a bit skeptical, given that "special interest groups" are a frequent general boogeyman in American politics (in fact, as I quoted above, the person in the OP lamented about how various special interests would kill health reform).

I also said that I found it odd that skeptigirl inserted "to protect their profits" only in reference to the groups that are allegedly "lying" about things (which is supposedly only the health insurance industry), as if implying that the other special interest groups are not trying to protect their profits. If lying is really the only issue then fine, but don't couch it as if the health insurance industry are the only ones trying to "protect their profits."

 

[Rolfe]

I would imagine that most if not all corporate lobbyists are trying to protect their profits. They're entirely entitled to do this, so long as they do it honestly!

Rolfe.