[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment

Fri Jun 15 14:06:44 PDT 2012

 Aetna's views might change for the reasons Newt Gingrich's views (may)
have changed.  An individual mandate looks enticing, until one begins fully
to understand what the Progressives will do with it, and at what cost.  (I
don't just mean dollars).

Don't be so sure "Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of interests, would be a
mandate."  Aetna, too, may be learning.  Indeed, I'm betting there was a
time GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner might have thought a ten-year tax break
for General Motors would be *nirvana* -- "an ideal outcome, in terms of
interests."  Guarantee you he doesn't think so any longer.

I am glad to see you are willing to watch the experiment.  I too will
watch.  Of course, as Bill suggests, it may be hard to gauge what
concessions Aetna may already be making behind the scenes.  But that won't
keep us from watching.  If you discover anything interesting, Mark, please
let us know.

Steve

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>  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>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> 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.
>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>  [image: 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.
>>>  [image: 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.
>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>  [image: 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.
>>>  [image: 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>
>>>  [image: 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>
>>> .”
>>>  [image: 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>>> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> 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
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120615/5fb98886/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/20120615/5fb98886/attachment.png>