[EL] An Aetna Experiment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 13:56:37 PDT 2012
Why would Aetna's views change? It's interests haven't changed. And in
answer to Bill, it's supported the mandate through Republican and
Democratic administrations and Congresses, so it's not likely doing it
just to curry favor.
Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of its interests, would be a mandate,
which delivers customers, mostly healthy low-cost ones, without any
insurance regulation, so they could continue to screen out the less
healthy, higher-cost applicants. Of course, that's the very worst
combination by any interpretation of the public interest. (People who
really need insurance still wouldn't get it and would wind up in
super-expensive high-risk pools, or uncompensated care, and the whole
thing would be staggeringly expensive.)
I'm happy to treat the revelation of Aetna's political contributions as
an experiment in political retaliation. It's unlikely that a consumer
boycott would follow, since most Aetna customers (I'm one) aren't
choosing to buy from them directly, the cost of shifting is high, and
most other large insurers take a similar position (since they have
similar interests). And because the health reform /is /a market-based
program, administrators at HHS don't have a lot of room to randomly
punish large insurers for their political involvement, since they
desperately need those insurers to implement the program. But let's see
where the experiment stands in a year or two. And let's also see whether
Aetna's influence in Congress helped it get closer to the result most in
its interests.
On 6/15/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> Mark,
>
> First let me say, I would not be at all surprised if Aetna's views
> have evolved or changed in the past decade. To the extent those views
> have not changed, perhaps Aetna would, on a balance of factors, be
> willing to support candidates who would repeal a law containing an
> individual mandate in its entirety for fear of keeping a law that
> contains, say, an IPAB. I don't know the particulars of Aetna's
> calculation.
>
> What I do know is that the Chamber's ads will be independent of the
> candidates it supports and will be non-corrupting as a matter of law.
> (We will soon see if that legal proposition is burnished or dented in
> the Montana litigation currently before the SCOTUS). Therefore, all
> that is being further by this compelled disclosure is not
> anti-corruption, but only the so-called "informational interest."
>
> My point and question, however, is not yours, which, if I can
> summarize it, is tied to the informational interest as follows: Won't
> it be interesting to see if Aetna backs someone who will repeal an
> individual mandate?"
>
> Rather, my point is this: Will this recent disclosure of $7.8M bring
> the heat down on Aetna? That's the experiment I want to see run. I
> don't flatter myself enough to think my mentioning the potential of
> retaliation against Aetna here will constrain anyone from retaliating
> against Aetna. So, the integrity of the experiment survives, and we
> shall see.
>
> But I will flatter myself -- flatter my spotting of this issue some
> time ago, anyway -- to this degree. Senator McConnell's speech on
> government-on-citizen retribution at AEI, and a related speech at
> CPAC, show that my theory -- that we have now reached in America a
> state of affairs where Capitalists Need /Socialist Workers/
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/266623/when-capitalists-need-socialist-workers-stephen-m-hoersting>
> -- will have its day.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve Hoersting
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We already know Aetna's position on health reform, from it's
> actual /speech/ on the issue, which is different from the
> contributions it makes to influence elections. Aetna's position on
> health reform, going back a decade, has been that it supports an
> individual mandate, but opposes other insurance regulations.
> (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/3/667.full)
>
> Aetna's contributions to Republican candidates through these
> electoral committees will likely fund a message that, if it talks
> about health reform at all, will take the opposite position,
> attacking the mandate while promising to retain some of the more
> popular insurance regulations, such as guaranteed issue. Why?
> Because that's simply a more effective message for electing
> Republicans.
>
> That contradiction is interesting to know about. And if the
> Supreme Court overturns the whole health law, and the Romney
> administration somehow neglects to fulfill its promise to restore
> or keep the insurance regulations, the influence of mega-donors
> like Aetna might just have something to do with it.
>
> It's also strong evidence that these contributions have nothing to
> do with expression of a corporation's views, but simply getting
> Republicans elected.
>
>
> On 6/15/2012 8:49 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>> So, Aetna has disclosed the fact that it supports those who
>> support medical markets. This is interesting, and surprising.
>> Finally, the voters will learn that the Chamber /really/ supports
>> free enterprise.
>>
>> But let's see what, if anything, happens to Aetna in the next few
>> months. We will see whether the voters simply take their cues
>> from this disclosure and better understand the Chamber's
>> message. Or see whether the disclosure paves the way for
>> boycotts or brickbats.
>>
>> If the Target
>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/target-gay-marriage-ban-minnesota_n_1564739.html>
>> matter is any indicator, Color of Change or, perhaps, Kathleen
>> Sebelius in this case (/see/ Michael Cannon and Diane Cohen's
>> latest study
>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302876/ipab-obamacare-s-super-legislature-michael-f-cannon?pg=2>
>> to understand what I mean) will have Aetna selling "Single Payer"
>> t-shirts by October.
>>
>> Steve Hoersting
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Back Monday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:01 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> See you then.
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35746&title=Back%20Monday&description=>
>> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> |
>> Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “Aetna Confirms It Gave $7.8 Million To Chamber, American
>> Action Network” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:00 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Tip of a very large iceberg, I suspect.
>>
>> Must-read
>> <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27071457&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3d5m7n5&split=0>
>> Bloomberg BNA: “The insurance company Aetna confirmed June 14
>> that it donated about $7.8 million to two major
>> Republican-leaning organizations—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
>> and American Action Network—which have sponsored tens of
>> millions of dollars worth of political ads but have never
>> disclosed their funding sources. The revelation—which came
>> due to an accidental filing by Aetna—was significant because
>> few, if any, political donations from large, public
>> corporations have been revealed previously….’We support
>> organizations and candidates who share our views on how to
>> fix the problems facing our health care system, as well as
>> our country,’ [Aetna President] Bertolini said. ‘We fully
>> comply with all federal and state disclosure
>> requirements.’…The Chamber spent over $30 million on
>> television ads in the 2010 congressional elections—nearly all
>> of it backing Republican candidates or attacking Democrats.”
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35744&title=%E2%80%9CAetna%20Confirms%20It%20Gave%20%247.8%20Million%20To%20Chamber%2C%20American%20Action%20Network%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law and election
>> law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “Let Them Give Millions”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 8:54 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Andrew Rosenthal
>> <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/let-them-give-millions/?ref=politics>
>> on Newt Gingrich’s campaign finance complaints.
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35741&title=%E2%80%9CLet%20Them%20Give%20Millions%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “FEC Deadlocks On Attempted Evasion of Disclosure Laws”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:28 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> This item
>> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1766:june-14-2012-fec-deadlocks-on-attempted-evasion-of-disclosure-laws&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>
>> appears at the CLC Blog.
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35738&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Deadlocks%20On%20Attempted%20Evasion%20of%20Disclosure%20Laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election
>> commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “Florida governor mistaken for dead in 2006 vote”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:27 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Reuters
>> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-voting-florida-idUSBRE85D15R20120614>:
>> “Florida’s governor, who is leading a disputed purge of voter
>> registration rolls, had to cast a provisional ballot in 2006
>> because officials mistakenly thought he was dead, election
>> officials said on Thursday.”
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35736&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20governor%20mistaken%20for%20dead%20in%202006%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “WyLiberty Attorneys File Lawsuit to Stop FEC Chill on
>> Free Speech” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 2:03 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Press release
>> <http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-attorneys-file-lawsuit-to-stop-fec-chill-on-free-speech/>:
>> “Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys filed a lawsuit
>> <http://wyliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Free-Speech-v-FEC-Verified-Complaint.pdf>
>> in the Wyoming federal district court today against the
>> Federal Election Commission (FEC) on behalf of Free Speech, a
>> Wyoming grassroots organization…The suit, Free Speech v.
>> Federal Election Commission, argues that vague and overbroad
>> FEC regulations, which require grassroots groups to register
>> as ‘political committees’ (PACs), effectively shut down much
>> speech in the heartland.”
>>
>> It is not clear how much this complaint overlaps with the
>> recent 4th Circuit decision
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35602> in the /Real Truth
>> About Obama/ case.
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35733&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Attorneys%20File%20Lawsuit%20to%20Stop%20FEC%20Chill%20on%20Free%20Speech%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> “Law & Order: Election Administration Unit; News Roundup:
>> 2012 has been a litigious year”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:17 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.
>> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35730&title=%E2%80%9CLaw%20%26%20Order%3A%20Election%20Administration%20Unit%20News%20Roundup%3A%202012%20has%20been%20a%20litigious%20year%E2%80%9D&description=>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>>
>>
>> Justice Kennedy Issues Temporary Stay in Arizona Voter
>> Registration Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727>
>>
>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:11 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727> by Rick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> SCOTUSBlog
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/new-arizona-election-plea/>:
>> “FINAL UPDATE Thursday 2:20 p.m. Justice Kennedy has issued
>> a temporary order
>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kennedy-order-11A1189.pdf>
>> delaying the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, at least until
>> further briefs are filed in the case. The Circuit Court
>> mandate was due to be issued tomorrow, but now will be
>> delayed until at least next Wednesday afternoon.
>> The challengers to the Arizona citizenship proof requirement
>> are to file a brief by Monday afternoon, with a state reply
>> due by noon Wednesday. Earlier today, this post was updated
>> to provide a link to the application, here
>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11A1189-AZ-applic.pdf>.”
>>
>> Share
>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35727&title=Justice%20Kennedy%20Issues%20Temporary%20Stay%20in%20Arizona%20Voter%20Registration%20Case&description=>
>> Posted in NVRA (motor voter)
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33> | Comments Off
>>
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>> Pre-order The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>> www.thevotingwars.com <http://www.thevotingwars.com>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
--
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: @mschmitt9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120615/225a430e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120615/225a430e/attachment.png>
View list directory