UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia illustrates the industry's subtle role. Elected last fall, Warner, a former governor of his state and a wealthy ex-businessman, received a choice assignment as the Senate Democrats' liaison to business. The rookie senator landed in the center of a high-visibility political drama—and in a position to earn the gratitude of a health insurance industry that has donated more than $19 million to federal candidates since 2007, 56% of which has gone to Democrats.
UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives. Corporations and trade groups play this role in all kinds of contexts, but few do it with the effectiveness of the insurers. In June, Warner introduced legislation expanding government-backed Medicare and Medicaid coverage for hospice stays for the terminally ill and other treatment in life's final stages. The issue isn't a top UnitedHealth priority. But the corporation wanted to help Warner with his argument that in the long run, better hospice coverage would save money. UnitedHealth prepared a report for lawmakers finding that 27% of Medicare's budget is now spent during the last year of older patients' lives, often on questionable hospital tests and procedures. Expanded hospice coverage and other services could save $18 billion over 10 years, UnitedHealth asserted.
When Warner went to the Senate floor on June 15 to offer his bill, he cited those exact figures. He thanked the company for its support and put a letter from UnitedHealth applauding him in the Congressional Record.
Warner acknowledges in an interview that he worked on the hospice-care legislation with UnitedHealth executives. But he stresses that he has long experience with health issues and has formed his own views. The senator echoes UnitedHealth's contention that a so-called public option could be a "Trojan horse for a single-payer system," meaning government-run medical care. Warner has heard from some of UnitedHealth's largest employer clients, such as Delta Air Lines (SWY). Delta CEO Richard H. Anderson, a former UnitedHealth executive, has told Warner and other lawmakers that big companies don't want government to limit their flexibility in crafting employee health benefits.
Yes, that is the same United Health Group that coped a plea.
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Slightly OT, but can I ask y'all a question?
I've been thinking lots of the Republican opposition to the plan(aside from trying to weaken employer mandates and kill the public option)is more about scoring a loss for Obama, than currying favor with insurers. Not that they don't want to do that as well, LOL. But, I mean, my Republican Governor signed basically this bill into law, and proudly so. And, some of the ideas in here have even been promoted by the Heritage Foundation. And, really, this is a market-based approach to health finance reform, which is right up their ally. What do you think?
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
multiple motives, i would think
republicans are always going to oppose, loudly and at length, anything championed by the democrats. this is a group-building exercise. motive one.
by opposing everything, they keep wringing more and more concessions out of the democrats, thus making what was a pretty good deal [for them] even better. if the bill was going to allow for only some middling competition for the insurance industry, why stop there? why not agitate until you get it watered down to nearly zilch competition? motive two.
if obama and/or the democratic party go down in flames, the republicans win. motive three.
no need for the right wing to be operating from just one motive [and i'm sure there are others that i haven't even thought of yet].
Would that it would be
a Trojan Horse to get to single-payer.
Let's not call Warner a "moderate" let's call him what he is, another goddamned neo-lib.
Someone should tell the Senator that single-payer is NOT government run health care.
A few years ago I was naive enough to think that single-payer had a real chance because I thought such a plan would appeal to industries other than health insurers, Wall Street and Pharma and maybe set off a war between industries.
I even thought that it would overcome crass stupidity.
Big oversight, I never accounted for incest.
Why would Pharma want single payer?
Under such a scenario the Government would have the power to set prices. I agree with you about other industries, though. Like the auto companies. But then I realized what stops them. It was Hillary when was bewildered that the auto exec.'s hadn't spoken health care when the big three(there were three then) met with Bush. And, I realized it's their personal ideology.
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
I didn't say
that big Pharma would favor single-payer. Quite the contrary.
What I said was:
Appeal to indusries OTHER THAN insurers, Wall St and Pharma
And what I meant by incest is what you meant by the personal ideology of automakers getting in the way of favoring a reform that would benefit their business, workers, the nation at-large, etc.
Oh, ok, I get.
I wasn't criticizing, just wondering what pharma would have in the deal. Hope that was apparent.
It's really weird isn't it? But I have a winger brother-in-law, who is a wealthy business man and would be most helped by a Medicare for All system, but he can not get past his ideology to see the economics.
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
Hillary at 68 will have nothing to lose.
And she was about there at 60.
Jesus h. Christ. We fr@ckEd up.
How did so many smart people get so stupid.
I get stupid. But I know when I hate too hard,
it's time to ask myself why.
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator