Good news that is actually Bad news (re: health insurance)

[cthulu2016]

Here's a feel-good "good news" that is actually very bad news.

If Obamacare is struck down in a sweeping way there would be a shock to the system during an election year as a lot of people with pre-existing conditions, kids under 26, etc. would find themselves stripped of health insurance. This would 1) generate political support for Obama in the election, and 2) might lead republicans to panic and vote to keep the "good parts" of Obamacare, which would be very bad for health insurers. (Regulation without mandate.)

What's a health insurer to do? Easy. Unilaterally keep the "good parts" of Obama care on a voluntary basis to defuse demand that those "good parts" be required by law. And then unilaterally phase out any of that stuff you don't like when the political coast is clear.

Corporations are incapable of "good works," not because they are evil, but because they are amoral. Good and evil do not enter into it. UnitedHealth is taking this action because it believes this action will result in higher profits in the big picture. (That's the same reason large corporations sponsor charities and such. To maximize profits.)

Expect more insurers to follow suit. And then expect this: "They said it would be terrible if Obamacare was canceled, but look... it's fine." And then the hammer will drop in 2013.

UnitedHealth to keep reforms, whatever court decides

(Reuters) - UnitedHealth Group Inc, the largest U.S. health insurer by market value, said it would maintain the health coverage protections included in President Barack Obama's healthcare law regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the legislation.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this month whether to strike down all or portions of the law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement that was passed in 2010.

The provisions UnitedHealth will maintain include continuing to provide coverage for dependents up to age 26 under their parents' plan.

The company will also continue to offer certain preventive healthcare services without requiring a co-payment, which include annual check-ups, screening for high-blood pressure and diabetes, and immunizations.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-unitedhealthgroup-reform-idUSBRE85A03Y20120611

[Bonhomme Richard]

1. I thought the same thing. It is a chess move. n/t

[get the red out]

2. People aren't smart enough

They would think it was caused by the President.

[ctaylors6]

3. Members of GOP have already

said they'll make sure to continue provisions like keeping kids on parents' policies, no pre-existing conditions exclusions for kids, and high-risk pools for uninsured. Some GOP members had advocated for those types of provisions a few years ago, so I don't think it'd be a stretch now.

If it's struck down in part, I think they'll probably try to repeal in House and then introduce new bills with popular provisions like I listed above.

I think your point about the insurance companies is very valid, especially considering the most sweeping parts (eg no exclusion for pre-existing conditions for ANYONE, and the mandate) have not yet come into effect. The parts that are already in effect are piecemeal enough that they could keep some to many of them as goodwill gesture.

But I think you're right that people shouldn't kid themselves that the ins cos will keep everything they've implemented so far. Some are just kind of minor from a PR standpoint, and it wouldn't be a huge news story if they reversed themselves. And they also tend to find ways to get around anyway. For example, in about 15-20 states, insurance companies won't write kid only policies anymore. So when a family applies for insurance coverage, the ins co denies the parents and then won't write separate policies for kids and everyone ends up in expense high risk state pool, uninsured, or in federal high risk (if haven't had insurance for 6 months).

[cthulu2016]

7. The covering kids up to 26 may

be quite profitable. I don't know the numbers.

It gets down to the same pre-existing conditions question. If only parents of very sick 20-something kids opted to include them it might be bad, but most kids 21-26 have no health problems and are ideal customers.

If you can get parents to pay more for peace of mind to insure a group that never goes to the doctor that's ideal.

[Marr]

4. You make a lot of sense.

There were some clear benefits to having the court strike down Obama's health insurance reform, but this tack does indeed seem to be a means of countering those.

On the other hand, once that hammer comes down, it comes down. We'll be in the same position we were in a couple of years ago, people will still be demanding access to healthcare, and the private industry route will have been deemed unconstitutional. So it seems like this might make sense for them in the short term, but not in the long term. Overall, they're much better off if they're simply allowed to keep their lips attached to the Treasury.

It's sad that, in considering how the court will decide here, we're left to think not about constitutional questions, but whether or not the corporate justices will put party interests ahead of corporate interests.

[CTyankee]

5. we are essentially screwed as long as we resist single payer universal health care like the rest

of the civilized world. A for profit health care system can NEVER work. You simply can't make a profit in health care without screwing over people with pre-existing conditions and people who reach a limit on what the company will pay. And our society will continue to be burdened by the costs of this wasteful system. We continue to allow the RW in this country to talk about "socialized medicine" as if it is something horrible, leading to totalitarian control of the populace, death panels, and bad (if not backward) medical practices.

I still remember John McCain crooning "My friends, you don't want government health care..." to a crowd of supporters back in the 08 campaign and knowing goddam well that's exactly what he's got...

[Indykatie]

6. Remember Though That Most Large Companies Delayed Making the Changes Until 2013 and 2014

They used a loop hole under the "grandfather" provisions to do this. Some companies like the one I work for voluntarily moved forward and implemented the improvements in 2011. We will not undo the changes regardless of the SC outcome. The folks that irritate me are the one who are benefiting from having their 23+ year old children back on their Employer plans yet continue to rail about "Obamacare". That and the unlimited preventive care are very popular with employees as one would expect.