If Michael Moore has any credibility left, in Sicko he showed where Nixon firmly punted healthcare into the for-profit sector.
I don’t know if they lie. They don’t need to. The buyers of the product are the businesses who have to spend a huge chunk of change on healthcare coverage for their employees. The model is simply to over a product that costs the employers least. Most employees won’t need to use it and will be happy in the false belief they will have good coverage if ever needed. Cheap poor quality sells well.
Is it unconstitutional?
Even if it were, call me a coward, but I wouldn’t want to be the individually identifiable judge killing bipartisan health care reform laws.
I’m pretty sure it would hold up, for the reason you state. But I don’t think it will pass and I’m certain it wouldn’t be signed.
Liz Warren has been pushing an anti-corporate consolidation agenda for health care and pharma for years, and Josh Hawley jumped on it because he’s looking for an issue where he can shore up some credibility and pantomime being open to “bipartisanism”. The odds that this gets any real traction in the Senate, much less the House (whose members will start spinning up their campaigns and begging for money the day after they get sworn in) is sufficiently close to zero as to not bother even trying to calculate a probability. No “progress” has been made other than a brief moment in the headlines.
Stranger
IANAL but to my understanding there is a requirement to establish effective monopoly. Vertical integration of an industry likely does not make a monoploy.
Won’t get to that point. Or anywhere close. Nor is it even close to the core problems.
Maybe. I still believe that this is seismic. What right-wing pundits Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh experienced when they blithely assumed that their fans would see this story as another chance to bash the “left”—namely, huge numbers of fans telling them off as being out-of-touch rich guys—shocked politicians on both sides.
It’s become a cliché to say that ‘people forget in a few days; the news cycle moves on’. I’m not so sure that this is true in this particular case.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said (today, I believe, in a CBS interview):
If public feeling continues running high it seems likely that we’ll be posting news of actual Congressional action on this topic.
I’d been thinking something along these lines but you put it better than I could have. The fact is that the huge captive market for health coverage is mandatory employer health plans. Of course they want the cheapest plans the law will allow and the employers aren’t the ones who suffer from it being crappy; it’s offered to employees on a take it or find your own basis, and it’s usually the only option the employees can afford.
Yeah, there’s the old rule, things change slowly, until they change suddenly. Like the collapse of the USSR. It was a rock, until suddenly it wasn’t. It’s hard to tell which way it will go, until suddenly we’re there.
Good analogy. Many knew there were problems, but few could have predicted how abruptly something that huge could change.
Not that this part of our economy can really change abruptly, short of political revolution, of course. But it’s possible that Congress COULD do something even though they normally do nothing. If they believe their own power and prosperity are at stake: they might.
I was taking a history course at university when that all happened. Every class, the prof would come in with, “So what the hell happened now?” Quite the experience.
The world doesn’t change that radically all that often.
But it doesn’t require government to act. What if a few large corporations decided to ditch UHC, because of pressure from their employees? Its value would plummet, and they’d likely end up out of business.
“A few” large corporations wouldn’t be nearly enough. In any given year, UHC gains some very large customers, and loses some very large customers. They’ve undoubtedly weathered years in which the losses in their customer base were greater than their new business “wins.”
If there were a mass exodus of their customers in “large group” coverage, yeah, UHC would be in financial difficulty, though what you would wind up with would mostly be their current market share being divvied up among the other four big names (Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and the various Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies).
You’d likely also wind up with Aetna, Cigna, or Humana buying UHC, thus further enlarging one of those three.
Yeah, it could make UHC, as an entity, disappear, but wouldn’t do squat to change the fundamental structure of the U.S. health insurance industry.
You may have suggested a more likely means of change than Congressional action–the voice of the marketplace, as it were. Certainly a lot of news coverage has centered on how much worse United is when it comes to denials (and how that makes it the most profitable company).
An organized boycott of big companies that use United could make a real difference, if it were widespread.
Yes, so (as suggested above) effectiveness would probably require consumers as a whole to punish companies that use United. Employee protests would be just a part of the overall boycott.
I don’t dismiss this so quickly. Right now businesses are competing for employees. A widespread realization that UHC is an inferior product and new talent choosing the job with a better plan may be enough for companies to look at switching to another next year.
Most candidates are concerned about compensation in the form of base pay and time off. In my experience, it’s a rare candidate who weighs the benefit plan offered by their potential employer before making a decision to come onboard. I have a few who ask, but not many.
That said, I have no doubt some employers will reconsider their accounts with UHC. My company doesn’t use UHC, but we do use some of their subsidiaries including Optum Financial and we’ve been quite happy with them.
And it isn’t as if there are actually large differences between different insurance/health provider companies; even though United HealthCare is leading the pack in claim rejections, Anthem, Cigna, CareSource, et cetera are following suit in a race to the bottom. Hurting one company just throws more customers to another, and in the corporate space most of these companies are competing on cost to the employers and premiums to employees, hence why UHC has experienced such growth. I guarantee none of the CEOs of these companies is going to take the ‘right’ lesson from the murder of Brian Thompson, and even if they did, they’d find themselves undercut by the competition, notwithstanding that insurance is just one aspect of out-of-control medical costs.
This is a systemic problem, and it requires an external regulatory solution. Expectting these companies to do the ethical thing is like telling a jackal to be quiet.
Stranger
As a consumer whose company switched last year from UHC to BCBS and whose spouse has need to use services, including out of network… strong disagree. We experienced a very sizable difference between the companies. BCBS has not been perfect but overall has been fine. UHC was awful.