On Thursday I went to the rally at Aetna's headquarters in Hartford. It was great to see a large gathering there to show Aetna that it cannot continue to get away with huge profits while cost sky-rocket. Anyways, I got a good response to the video I posted of the McCain rally on February 3rd, so I figured I would post a video of this event. Luis Cotto, elected in November to Hartford's City Council under the Working Families Party, was in attendance and gave a short speech.
How can Aetna, which claims to be on the side of reform, continue to make larger profits every year will costs keep going up? If the leadership at Aetna truly believes in reforming our broken system, they can put a hold on the denials. They have the ability to provide quality, affordable healthcare for almost everyone. They also have the ability to reap profits from a system that kills 18,000 Americans every year. So far, their choice is making us sick.
This blog is a response to an article found today in the New York Times, Insurers Seek Bigger Reach in Coverage. Apparently, the insurance industry is proposing their own ideas to reform our broken healthcare system and cover more people. What is unique about this is that it is one of the first times that the industry will admit that our system is not perfect. However, this article left me laughing at how ridiculous these greedy, heartless bastards are. Let us look at the plan proposed by the largest impediment to healthcare reform, sorry, I mean by the healthcare industry.
"The proposals, approved by a board of the industry's main trade group, would make it harder for insurers to cancel policies or deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. The steps would also limit the premiums that could be charged for such people."
That sounds great, especially the part about not denying coverage to sick people (or, as I like to call them, the ones that need healthcare the most). As an organizer who has knocked on doors five-to-seven days-a-week on healthcare campaigns, I wonder what took them so long to realize that sick people need healthcare. My answer came one sentence later...
"The trade group also called on states to provide individual coverage for people who were likely to incur very high medical bills. The effort is meant to help address the problem of 47 million Americans without health coverage. And it signals a willingness by insurers to abandon practices that have seemed aimed at excluding all but the healthiest individuals."
Now I get. The healthcare industry will cover sick people, as long as someone else pays for it. I can understand that I guess. As a supporter of a single payer healthcare system, I call on the government to fund healthcare for everyone just like the fire department. However, the healthcare industry is absolutely against that because they make too much money off covering healthy people (Aetna made around $451 million in profit in only the second quarter of 2007, a $15 million increase over the first quarter. Congrats on turning down even more cancer treatments!). How does this signal "a willingness by insurers to abandon practices that have seemed aimed at excluding all but the healthiest individuals?" These are the same people that have opposed every healthcare reform campaign, even Clinton's back in 1992. However, they explain that very well.
Karen Ignagni, the chief executive of the trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans said that, "What's different than in 1992 is we as an industry did not have a proposal of our own." The only reason that they did not have a proposal of their own, is because they were too busy spreading the lie that our system is the best in the world, and any change would lead to a decrease in quality. The real difference between now and then is that it is now widely recognized that our healthcare industry is a major part of the problem. The real difference is that the industry finds it worthwhile to save face through a week signal of good intentions. How do I know? Just take a look at another quote from the same article; "The industry's announcement comes at a time when dozens of states are already considering some kind of health reform and insurers are increasingly being vilified by the Democratic presidential candidates." Maybe that is just a coincidence. What I would like to know, however, is what sacrifice the industry is willing to make for the good of our nation. Where do the huge profits being made by executives come into the equation? If these executives are only willing to insure the sick as long as it does not hamper their ability to make a profit, maybe that is exactly the reason that profit should have nothing to do with healthcare... Nothing!
In Michael Moore's new film "SiCKO" there's a brief moment which should bring gladness to the hearts of many a Connecticut democrat. As Moore is railing against politicians bought and paid for by the drug industry he puts a dollar figure over their heads.
Moore voice over: "Here's what it cost to buy this woman."
"She" was followed by Tom DeLay in the clip. And "she" received $45,900 from Aetna alone last election cycle. Who is "she"?
Aetna's turnaround continued to pay off last year for former Chief Executive Jack Rowe with $47.9 million of compensation - $38 million of it from the exercise of stock options - while current CEO Ronald A. Williams drew a $20.9 million package without using any options.
On top of that, Rowe, who retired as Aetna's chairman last fall, was awarded stock-related units last year with a theoretical value of $16.5 million and vesting in one year. Williams' award of the "stock appreciation units" was valued at nearly $10 million and vests over three years.
The numbers, disclosed Monday in a regulatory filing for Aetna's April 27 annual shareholder meeting, were labeled "exorbitant" by a health care reform advocate.
"It's obscene that the CEO of a health insurance company would be making that much money when 400,000 of our state residents are uninsured," said Beverly Brakeman, director of the labor-community coalition Citizens for Economic Opportunity.
"It's time for the waste and profit to be taken out of our health care system," said Brakeman, who favors a single-payer system, with the government or a separate agency providing coverage for everyone. The role of existing health insurers would be dramatically downsized.
Brakeman, citing the Aetna executives' compensation, said, "Nobody's worth that much, especially when we're looking at a crisis in our state."
MLN is powered by