Insurers nervous over prospect of Romney victory
WASHINGTON (AP) — You'd think health insurance CEOs would be chilling the bubbly with Republican Mitt Romney's improved election prospects, but instead they're in a quandary.
Although the industry hates parts of President Barack Obama's health care law, major outfits such as UnitedHealth Group and BlueCross Blue Shield also stand to rake in billions of dollars from new customers who'll get health insurance under the law. The companies already have invested tens of millions to carry it out.
Were Romney elected, insurers would be in for months of uncertainty as his administration gets used to Washington and tries to make good on his promise repeal Obama's law. Simultaneously, federal and state bureaucrats and the health care industry would face a rush of legal deadlines for putting into place the major pieces of what Republicans deride as "Obamacare."
Would they follow the law on the books or the one in the works? What would federal courts tell them to do?
The answers probably would hinge on an always unwieldy Congress.
Things could get grim for the industry if Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act's subsidies and mandates, but leave standing its requirement that insurers cover people with health problems. If that's the outcome, the industry fears people literally could get health insurance on the way to the emergency room, and that would drive up premiums.
"There are a lot of dollars and a lot of staff time that's been put into place to make this thing operational," G. William Hoagland, until recently a Cigna vice president, said of the health care law.
Insurers "are not going to be out there saying, 'Repeal, repeal, repeal,'" said Hoagland, who oversaw public policy at the health insurance company. "They will probably try to find the particular provisions that cause them heartburn, but not throw the baby out with the bath water."
The Romney campaign isn't laying out specifics on how the candidate would carry out his repeal promise, other than to say the push would begin on his first day in office. Romney has hinted that he wants to help people with medical conditions, doesn't say what parts of the health care law he'd keep.
Likewise, America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group, isn't talking about what its members are telling the Romney campaign, though informal discussions are under way through intermediaries. Insurers like Romney's plan to privatize Medicare, and some point out that it looks a lot like Obama's approach to covering the uninsured.
Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant and blogger, says the tension is becoming unbearable.
"I spend a lot of time in executive offices and board rooms, and they are good Republicans who would like to see Romney win," said Laszewski. "But they are scared to death about what he's going to do."
There is no consensus among Republicans in Congress on how to replace Obama's law, much less anything like a bipartisan middle ground on health care, a necessity if the House retains its GOP majority and the Senate remains in Democratic hands.
In contrast, Obama's law is starting to look more and more like a tangible business opportunity. In a little over a year, some 30 million uninsured people will start getting coverage through a mix of subsidized private insurance for middle-class households and expanded Medicaid for low-income people. Many of the new Medicaid recipients would get signed up in commercial managed care companies.
A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimated the new markets would be worth $50 billion to $60 billion in premiums in 2014, and as much as $230 billion annually within seven years.
Under the law, insurance companies would have to accept all applicants, including the sick. But the companies also would have a steady stream of younger, healthier customers required to buy their products, with the aid of new government subsidies. That finally could bring stability to the individual and small-business insurance markets.
At a time when employer coverage has been eroding, government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obama's law are becoming the growth engines for the industry's bottom line. The trend seems too big to derail, says Morningstar analyst Matthew Coffina, who tracks the health insurance industry.
"I think it's limited what they'll be able to accomplish in terms of repeal," said Coffina. "We have to remember that Romney implemented very similar legislation" as governor of Massachusetts.
If Romney wins he's more likely to reduce the scope and scale of the law, Coffina added. Possibilities include delaying all or parts of the new coverage, particularly a Medicaid expansion that GOP governors don't like.
The industry has three items in particular it wants stripped out: cuts to Medicare Advantage private insurance plans; a requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care or rebate the difference to their customers; and new taxes on insurance companies. But CEOs don't share the visceral objection that many Republicans have to a bigger government role in health care.
Industry executives "are Republicans in the sense that they're worried about the bottom line and they want to retain private sector involvement," said Hoagland, the former Cigna vice president. "But some of their bottom line is now driven by Medicare and Medicaid. So it's not like they're red or blue. It's more like purple."
Although the industry hates parts of President Barack Obama's health care law, major outfits such as UnitedHealth Group and BlueCross Blue Shield also stand to rake in billions of dollars from new customers who'll get health insurance under the law. The companies already have invested tens of millions to carry it out.
Were Romney elected, insurers would be in for months of uncertainty as his administration gets used to Washington and tries to make good on his promise repeal Obama's law. Simultaneously, federal and state bureaucrats and the health care industry would face a rush of legal deadlines for putting into place the major pieces of what Republicans deride as "Obamacare."
Would they follow the law on the books or the one in the works? What would federal courts tell them to do?
The answers probably would hinge on an always unwieldy Congress.
Things could get grim for the industry if Republicans succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act's subsidies and mandates, but leave standing its requirement that insurers cover people with health problems. If that's the outcome, the industry fears people literally could get health insurance on the way to the emergency room, and that would drive up premiums.
"There are a lot of dollars and a lot of staff time that's been put into place to make this thing operational," G. William Hoagland, until recently a Cigna vice president, said of the health care law.
Insurers "are not going to be out there saying, 'Repeal, repeal, repeal,'" said Hoagland, who oversaw public policy at the health insurance company. "They will probably try to find the particular provisions that cause them heartburn, but not throw the baby out with the bath water."
The Romney campaign isn't laying out specifics on how the candidate would carry out his repeal promise, other than to say the push would begin on his first day in office. Romney has hinted that he wants to help people with medical conditions, doesn't say what parts of the health care law he'd keep.
Likewise, America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group, isn't talking about what its members are telling the Romney campaign, though informal discussions are under way through intermediaries. Insurers like Romney's plan to privatize Medicare, and some point out that it looks a lot like Obama's approach to covering the uninsured.
Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant and blogger, says the tension is becoming unbearable.
"I spend a lot of time in executive offices and board rooms, and they are good Republicans who would like to see Romney win," said Laszewski. "But they are scared to death about what he's going to do."
There is no consensus among Republicans in Congress on how to replace Obama's law, much less anything like a bipartisan middle ground on health care, a necessity if the House retains its GOP majority and the Senate remains in Democratic hands.
In contrast, Obama's law is starting to look more and more like a tangible business opportunity. In a little over a year, some 30 million uninsured people will start getting coverage through a mix of subsidized private insurance for middle-class households and expanded Medicaid for low-income people. Many of the new Medicaid recipients would get signed up in commercial managed care companies.
A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimated the new markets would be worth $50 billion to $60 billion in premiums in 2014, and as much as $230 billion annually within seven years.
Under the law, insurance companies would have to accept all applicants, including the sick. But the companies also would have a steady stream of younger, healthier customers required to buy their products, with the aid of new government subsidies. That finally could bring stability to the individual and small-business insurance markets.
At a time when employer coverage has been eroding, government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obama's law are becoming the growth engines for the industry's bottom line. The trend seems too big to derail, says Morningstar analyst Matthew Coffina, who tracks the health insurance industry.
"I think it's limited what they'll be able to accomplish in terms of repeal," said Coffina. "We have to remember that Romney implemented very similar legislation" as governor of Massachusetts.
If Romney wins he's more likely to reduce the scope and scale of the law, Coffina added. Possibilities include delaying all or parts of the new coverage, particularly a Medicaid expansion that GOP governors don't like.
The industry has three items in particular it wants stripped out: cuts to Medicare Advantage private insurance plans; a requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of premiums on medical care or rebate the difference to their customers; and new taxes on insurance companies. But CEOs don't share the visceral objection that many Republicans have to a bigger government role in health care.
Industry executives "are Republicans in the sense that they're worried about the bottom line and they want to retain private sector involvement," said Hoagland, the former Cigna vice president. "But some of their bottom line is now driven by Medicare and Medicaid. So it's not like they're red or blue. It's more like purple."
All of the above is exactly why Obama had no business meddling in the health care reform business in the first place! I came from Britain and I can tell you from experience his plan is not the rosy picture he has painted. It will be a very expensive plan when all laid out with poor healthcare to boot!
If you're concerned about Romney's stance on an issue, just wait two hours, it's bound to change.
People either intentionally voted for a socialist or were stupidly caught up in the hope and change wave without thinking. The man was not qualified no executive experience, had never owned or run a company, managed a company or a department. Had never made a payroll. Had no military or Foreign Service experience, and much of his limited legislative experience was âabsentâ SO why did anyone think he could lead a nation as ours? He never lead the congress he allowed Reed and Pelosi to run rough shod, he dismissed concerned and blamed others. So again one is a committed socialist or a partisan fool to give him another four years. from Yahoo.
This supposed "prospect of Romney victory" doesn't exist. That man has absolutely no chance at becoming President of the United States...ever.  He may be able to sell (with cliche sales pitches) his BS to a good number of people, but the vast majority of the people of this country aren't that gullible.
The Anointed One will win. Â He even has children scripted in ad campaigns like they do in the Arab countries - using children to accomplish their desires. Â Never seen before in America by an American President.
Â
The guy does love his fear campaign. Â And the drop-outs are scared. Â They'll vote for him. Â those that can't speak English will vote for him; and even the dead in King County will vote for him.
 @sentryone Getting your last-ditch, hate and ignorance-filled efforts in for the utter failure that is Romney's campaign I see...
This nation cannot afford a Romney Administration - in more ways than one. Romney would be a disaster for America, no doubt about it. Take a look at this:
Â
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors
 @ytboarder Looking more and more like a Romney win, better get used to it.
 @CrankyPanky  @ytboarder No, it isn't. The only people who believe that media-generated garbage are people who support Romney. No one is really all that concerned that Romney is going to be elected President because he has absolutely no chance whatsoever of being elected -- and the behavior of him, his campaign minions, and supporters like yourself is a clear indication of that.
i really don't care who wins, i just don't want an old man who hasn't taken a biology class (instead opting for sunday school where rape is passed off as immaculate conception) telling me what to do with myself.
Of course they are nervous, they know exactly where they stand with Obama. Â Romney wants to get rid of the healthcare law but has nothing to replace it with. Â Sounds like a bad plan to me but I only worked in healthcare and government for 15 years, what could I know.
Gary Johnson for president!
Â
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrU6hTWyj6s&list=PLVeQe6N5LjemcLaoEDUXYuET6cDdhRy5N&index=5&feature=plpp_video
Cronies. See: rent-seeking.
There it is dems! The insurance industry believes Obama to be a bigger corporatist then Willard Romney and you know what? I agree with them. Never have I seen a better corporatist with more entitlements for the rich then Obama. The US's first ever 1 billion dollar campaign to re-elect a president is telling me the insurance industry isn't the only industry that feels this way.
Â
We need to find a left wing in this country (Quick) if there is one anywhere to control these 2 right wing corporate welfare, and entitlements for the rich parties that will roll for anything if the campaign contribution is big enough.
Â
The people of this country are the victims of the largest ongoing theft and transfer of wealth up to the rich in the history of the world and the people still argue over which thieving party is better. I guarantee you these thieves will keep stealing from you until well after you look worse then Greece, Spain and Italy.
Â
Wall Street has $250 Trillion in derivatives bet AGAINST this economy so guess where were heading real soon? Not toward anything like a recovery, thats for sure because wall street always wins in the states.
Â
Obama had a one in a million chance with his majority to restore everything stolen from americans over the last 30 years and instead chose to allow us to be ripped worse then ever. That chance is gone now and no body reading this will likely ever see anther opportunity like that again. I am thankful that I am old and I wont have to live my life through the hell you guys will know. Ever thought about watching your own kids starve to death? Good Luck.
 @T_BONE_WALKER You are aware that his majority was in name only.  In actuality the GOP was still able to force gridlock by consistently saying NO.  In the senate a majority is 60+ senators that will vote for your side.  Anything less and the opposition can force a filibuster. Â
Â
Â
 @DeadRabitz  @T_BONE_WALKER You are aware that ObamaCare was passed along strict party lines. Not one Republican voted for it. Obama had a super majority his first 2 years and all he could do was pass a worthless insurance scheme.
 @Virtual Anomoly  @DeadRabitz Super majority? Try two months...the first two months of his Presidency, you know, while he was preoccupied with doing what every significant economist in the country was saying to do, which was to pass the TARP provisions started with Bush and get the stimulus plan going...either get the facts straight or shut your mouth.
 @T_BONE_WALKER "Wall Street has $250 Trillion in derivatives bet AGAINST this economy..."I agree with the general thesis of your post, but I need to point out that based on the phrase I've quoted, I'm not sure you understand the concepts of hedging and risk management.
 @Pahana I understand hedging and regulated derivatives in the commodities market, the OTC (unregulated) derivatives are what is going to crash and then the whole financial sector crashes. Do you understand that $250 Trillion is 5 times the GDP and is growing?
ALL "big money" is concerned by the election and more so if Mr. Romney wins because that will mean change from the status quo. Change ALWAYS upsets the markets, even when the change may eventually turn out to be good for those that are worried.
Â
As an individual I am concerned about many things if Mr. Romney wins the election and I am concerned about other things if Mr. Obama wins. No matter who wins there will be change.
So... lemme see if I have this straight; Under ObamaTaxN'Care, the Big Insurance Cabal will make out like bandits? And this is OK withe our Progressive friends? Strange bedfellows, the Red Brigade and  Big Bad Corporations.
Â
"But CEOs don't share the visceral objection that many Republicans have to a bigger government role in health care."
Â
Of course they don't, just as IG Farben and Mercedes had no problem with a rather scurrilous Leader of a large European country in the 30's and 40's. That is the nature of Corporatism.
 @Sid Vishess They also have to cover everyone and can not cut people because they get sick or they cost too much.  It was a give and take approach. Â
Â
I you had actually read the Healthcare law you would know that.
 @DeadRabitz I did read it. It is a horrible piece of legislation. You sure don't need 2,500 pages or whatever to say that insurers need to live up to their contracts with the insured. Mandating that they take on all comers with no time limitations simply raises the risk of insuring any one person. That risk/cost is passed on to policy holders. Of course, the single largest denier of medical services in the country is.... Medicare.  Go figure.
@Sid Vishess I am disappointed that he did. I understand that he had did not provide any alternative and thusly would take a bad law over no law. If anything we can say that Obama was naive before he became president. Now that he has had to deal with reality I think he is better prepared. Seasoned with some experience. I hope his second term is better. I personally don't think Romney would make a good president.
 @DeadRabitz Yes, you are correct. I am surprised that President Obama signed an extension of it. Â
 @Sid Vishess When I was in college (majoring in US History and political Science) I had to read the Patriot Act.  All of it.  Then pick a section and write 4-6 page paper on it.  I wrote my paper, cut it, edited it and cut and edit, rinse and repeat.  Till I had it down to a 31 page paper.
Â
You want glazed a poor piece of legislation that is more than anyone could ask for.
 @DeadRabitz Yep, that's clear.Â
 @DeadRabitz I concede the specification for fonts and length of a SUMMARY is OK.
 @DeadRabitz I read the Senate bill. 2409 pages. The law as enacted, I see, is 906 pages. I wasted a lot of time, I can see that now.
 @Sid Vishess Maybe now you will read it, that way you can stop pretending to know what you are talking about. Â
Â
Oh and this time count the pages correctly.
 @Sid Vishess No you haven't.  It's not 2500 pages long.  Either you didn't read it or you can't count. Â
Â
So again, you didn't read the law and don't know what's in it. Â Just man up and admit it.
 @DeadRabitz September 30, 2012, a fee equal to the product of $2 ($1 in the case of policy years ending during fiscal year 2013) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the policy. ââ(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.âThe fee imposed by subsection (a) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy. ââ(c) SPECIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY.âFor purposes of this section: ââ(1) IN GENERAL.âExcept as otherwise provided in this section, the term âspecified health insurance policyâ means any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health plan) issued with respect to individuals residing in the United States. ââ(2) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN POLICIES.âThe term âspecified health insurance policyâ does not include any insurance if substantially all of its coverage is of excepted benefits described in section 9832(c). ââ(3) TREATMENT OF PREPAID HEALTH COVERAGE ARRANGEMENTS.â ââ(A) IN GENERAL.âIn the case of any arrangement described in subparagraph (B), such arrangement shall be treated as a specified health insurance policy, and the person referred to in such subparagraph shall be treated as the issuer. ââ(B) DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENTS.âAn arrangement is described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement fixed payments or premiums are received as consideration for any personâs agreement to provide or arrange for the provision of accident or health coverage to residents of the United States, regardless of how suchÂ
 @Sid Vishess here
Â
(1) APPEARANCE.âThe standards shall ensure that the summary of benefits and coverage is presented in a uniform format that does not exceed 4 pages in length and does not include print smaller than 12-point font.Â
Â
If you can not understand that then you need more help than anyone can provide.
Â
 @DeadRabitz Until you post a Section of the Act that is written in understandable English, I am going to declare myself the Winner and move on.
 @DeadRabitz Yes I have.  YOU haven't read it because you can't point out ANY clear and concise language.Â
 @Sid Vishess So now you are just making stuff up. Â
Â
Man up and just admit that you haven't read the law. Â
 @DeadRabitz The Party of the First Part shall henceforth and not be an established prevention of the indicative subset to be determined by the Secretary."
Â
Well, my Bureacratese is a little rusty but I could manage.
 @Sid Vishess No you haven't.  I know it, you know it.
 @DeadRabitz Again, point out the real easy parts that are clear and concise. Since you read it, shouldn't be a problem.
 @Sid Vishess It's a good thing we don't have you writing our legislation.
 @DeadRabitz Although my eyes glazed over and hurt for days afterward.Â
 @DeadRabitz Yes, I have.Â
 @DeadRabitz "Henceforth, health insurance providers must live up to the contract with the insured or get a spanking."
Â
There... that wasn't so hard.
Â
And...
"Interstate purchases of insurance will be allowed."
Â
Â
"You have until January 1 to get health coverage. After that, you are a deadbeat and you can go fly a kite. If you can't afford coverage, you will be provided a voucher in the form of a tax credit which will be forwarded to your insurer that will cover you. Your deductible will be based on your income."
Â
Next case, please.
Â
Â
Â
 @Sid Vishess Well lets see, since it passed through the Supreme Court I would say that it meets at least that burden.
Â
But then again, I actually read it. Â You haven't. Â
 @DeadRabitz Please go through it again and tell us which section(s) are clearly and concisely written, leaving little room for lawyers or the Government to take matters to the Courts. Or ones that leave much of the import of the Legislation in the hands of a bureaucrat... er... Secretary of HHS.Â
Â
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/final-health-reform-bill-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act.aspx
 @Sid Vishess If you read it then you would know that we did in fact need the legislation.  Let's say you had healthcare and got cancer.  Prior to the Healthcare act and depending on what state you lived in your care could be watered down, denied, canceled, changed and a myriad of other descriptions to say that you the patient would not get the care you should get.  Then after you recover (As one always hopes) your insurance could drop you.  Then other insurance companies could refuse to cover you because you had a pre-existing condition.  But I guess you are just fine with that.
Â
The healthcare law is more the regulation of the insurance industry. Â It has protections for the industry, healthcare providers and patients.
Â
But since you never read it you don't know any of that. Â You just rant and rave with GOP talking points. Â Tell me, do you have a thought of your own?
 @Sid Vishess this was originally the GOP plan.Â
So  while it is very ironic that the progressives love this, it is equally ironic that so many republicans want to call this socialism and communism.Â
Both sides are being somewhat hypocritical.Â
Â
If McCain had won and had a GOP congress who passed this, all the republicans screaming about this being socialist would be praising this plan. Meanwhile, all the democrats praising this plan, would be screaming about how this is another attempt by the GOP to support big business.
Â
Â
This is why I say there is no fundamental difference between the Ds and the Rs.
Â
http://despair.com/thedestructor.html
 @Star Shooter There is some truth in what you say.
 @Sid Vishess Lets talk about that "nomination"
Is that the same campaign where everyone got to be a frontrunner? Is this the same campaign where the mantra was litereally "anyone but romney?" Is this the same campaign where Santorum said "if we're going to nominate Romney we might as well just vote for Obama?"
Â
Is this the same campaignt hat eventually settled (and reluctantly so) on Romney?
Â
Its been less than a year, and the version of history is already being subtly replaced.Â
Â
Â
Â
 @shane +++  @Star Shooter Yes, the Republicans were so taken to the right that they nominated a moderate Conservative.
Â
And the Heritage Foundation guy who helped craft the plan says that their idea of an IM was far different.
Â
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/
Â
Extra points for the juvenile name calling.Â
 @Sid Vishess  @Star Shooter It's plainly and completely true. It is very unfortunate that the GOP has become so hiijacked by the extremist elements of the party that they've moved the national legislative equilibrium quite a bit to the right, right along with it, and indeed sadder still that moderate and progressive voters have apparently seen no better option against this reality than to take the pragmatic if resigned approach of accepting whatever they can plausibly get, even if it is/was the legislative equivalent of the healthcare reform Richard Nixon would've passed had he been successful in his own efforts. Now we have a GOP electorate that calls the individual mandate provision, an idea originating from the extremely conservative Heritage Foundation, a SOCIALIST idea. Wow, Richard Nixon was a Socialist and so is The Heritage Foundation...how about that?? Bottom line, the country is in deep dung as long as close to half the voting population is anti-intellectual, anti-government, anti-women, and xenophobic, and are also apparently allied together to consistently vote along a stark party line of like-minded candidates who are to a person xenophobes, warmongers, corporate apologists, and religious bigots.