Search

Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« In Case You Missed It, Yesterday's… | There Is Still Time to Donate to St… »

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Health Premera Pushing Against Reform?

Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM

A reliable source sends over a copy of an e-mail that he says went out recently to employees of Premera, one of Washington State's largest insurance companies, telling those employees to call their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote no on the Democrats' health insurance reform bill:

Message from Jack C. McRae
Senior Vice President of Congressional and Legislative Affairs
Premera Blue Cross

We are reaching an extremely critical point in the healthcare reform debate. Later this week, possibly Friday or Saturday, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on its healthcare reform bill.

Please contact your Representative immediately to share your comments and concerns, urging them to vote no on HR 3962. For contact information, please visit http://www.house.gov/. Simply put in your zip code to get your Congressional Representative’s contact information. We recommend that you call and e-mail your Representative.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at jack.mcrae@premera.com or Kelly Jones at kelly.jones@premera.com.

Thank you.

I have e-mails and calls in to Premera to confirm that this e-mail was, indeed, sent to employees. So far, no response.

UPDATE: Premera spokesman Eric Earling says the e-mail was sent to "brokers" (private contractors who sell Premera and other insurance plans), not to Premera employees. But the e-mail does reflect the company's position: supportive of health care reform in general, but concerned about reports that the Democrats' bill will lead to higher premiums.

Share via

Comments (11) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I'm mostly curious why. Why are they against it? And why would their employees be?

Posted by kersy on November 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM

ELI....

IF U WANNA BODY

AND U TINK I SEXY.

COME OOOOONNNN.

THE WHITENESS AND UBIQUITY OF THE K-HOLE (KITTY HOLE).

I HIT THE BOTTOM OF THE K-HOLE (KITTY HOLE)

NAH I AIN'T TALKING BOUT THE K-WALLS (KITTY WALLS)

THOUGHT THAT WUZ UR BELLY BUTTON.

Posted by LaRiiiiM0RrrHAwtiiii696969 on November 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM

That's strange.

The AARP just announced they support the House Bill today.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on November 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM

why do you care?
you do realize some people disagree with your opinion, don't you?

Posted by kandie on November 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Because they want the government to save their asses. Our current system is creaking under its own weight and insurance companies could ultimately fail without a government bailout. But! They don't want to give anything up in order to get that de facto bailout. The assholes think they're entitled to the government saving their asses through mandates (for example) without having to give up anything, such as losing a few potential customers to the public option.

In short, they can go fuck themselves.

Posted by keshmeshi on November 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM

6 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy

Those damn money grubbing non-profits!

Posted by Mr.Joshua on November 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

This is unsurprising, given this:

http://www.whatstherealcost.org/wtrc/

They don't think "the real cost" is insurance companies.

I'm sure they don't know what they're talking about.

Posted by Mr.Joshua on November 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Keshmeshi may be right regarding their motives, but insurers have actually articulated an important shortcomming of the bill, one that need not make them assholes even in the eyes of the most fervent progressives.

The current bill has something it calls a "mandate", but it really isn't. The fine for not getting insurance is nothing for the first year and just a few hundred bucks after that, always remaining much less than the cost of getting insurance. That, coupled with the requirement that insurers offer everyone coverage at the same price and without regard to pre-existing conditions, means that it is a rational and indeed highly profitable strategy for healthy people to simply go without insurance, paying the minimal fine each year, then sign up if they ever get seriously ill.

My understanding is that the insurance lobby offered to endorse the bill if the fine were raised into the ten-thousand dollar range and bill included a program effective program to ferret out scofflaws (e.g. having to provide proof of insurance on your tax return).

Posted by David Wright on November 5, 2009 at 10:39 PM

9
you are 100% right but wasting your breath the liberal whiner moochers on slog expect the government to support them and public option is just a smoke screen to that end.

Posted by somebody pay for my healthcare on November 6, 2009 at 1:57 AM

Indeed, the real point is: How do we cut overall Health Care costs. The docs and hospitals want to pin the blame on the Insurance agency, no-one wants to touch Big-pharma, we taxpayers don't want to be taxed and our legislators have an eye on re-election. The health insurance industry, currently demonized, is only modest Part of a much bigger problem. A major problem that is not yet dealt in full with in these plans is the overall costs of health care. Un-regulated use of tests and procedures (MRI, CTScan, Radiology etc...), use of high priced meds over generics, a fee-for-service model where docs get paid for each procedure they do etc.. all lead to exponentially increasing prices with no one to help keep them from rising.

We can't wish government could just pay for it without a funding source. That funding source is in no way complete if we only tax the health insurance payers. (Which is part of what is being voted on). Americans, for some reason, want government to pay for it all, but refuse to pay the tax burden to do cover the costs.

A not-for-profit company like Premera has hit it squarely. Figure out how to cut the costs of health care, provide the most efficient care and complete coverage for it's customers, help to cover all Americans with affordable health care and work to keep the huge excessive profit motives out of the equation.

We all need to make sure we're all sharing the burden of the costs of such a program before we go this route.

Posted by sensibletwo on November 6, 2009 at 10:40 PM