[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 03:22:13 PDT 2012
Some may recall I said earlier, "First let me say, I would not be at all
surprised if Aetna's views [on the individual mandate] have evolved or
changed in the past decade *** for Aetna, too, is learning."
Interestingly enough, here is an op-ed by a CEO with evolving views on the
individual mandate in today's *WSJ*. "Why I No Longer Support the Health
Insurance Mandate."
Its author happens to be... Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna. Thought I'd share
it with the list.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464713182634028.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion&_nocache=1340013795649&user=welcome
- Steve
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:
> "The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
> views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark. We agree there."
>
> Where the heck did the idea that Aetna is owned by "citizens" come from?
> There is no reason to think that 100%, or even 50%, of the equity is held
> by American citizens.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
>> views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark. We agree there.
>>
>> We were promised in 1938, in a *Carolene* compromise, that it is safe to
>> close the courts to economic claims because economic deprivations are
>> unlikely to occur in a system of robust political processes: Economics
>> would be deemed a political question.
>>
>> Retaliation 1) by government officials 2) with the regulatory *means* to
>> determine a business providers' very economic fate (*see* IPAB and
>> Dodd-Frank for its sweeping authority and lack of checks by co-equal
>> branches), who have 3) demonstrated a *motive* to retaliate (*see*Attack Watch, the selective application of the DISCLOSE Act, a selective
>> application of Draft executive orders, Sebelius' threat to keep outspoken
>> opponents from healthcare exchanges and multiple other examples) and you
>> quickly begin to see the *Carolene *compromise is dead without a
>> meaningful exemption from campaign disclosure for independent,
>> non-corrupting speakers who rightly see political participation as their
>> only remedy but do not relish being next to be abused.
>>
>> If the *Carolene* compromise is dead, so is popular sovereignty. What's
>> a reviewing Court to do?
>>
>> - S
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Gingrich's views changed when his interests changed. His interests
>>> changed when he switched from being a lobbyist for the health insurance
>>> industry to being a Republican candidate for president. And I didn't say
>>> Aetna's best outcome would be a mandate. It would be a mandate with no
>>> other regulation -- a terrible policy and the opposite of public opinion.
>>> The parts of the health care law they want to get ride of are not the
>>> mandate.
>>>
>>> I doubt is so unsophisticated as to fall for something just because it
>>> "looks enticing." They have, you know, computers and actuaries and stuff.
>>>
>>> But ultimately, they believe that their best shot at having the
>>> influence that will get them closest to the policy results they want is to
>>> elect more Republicans. I keep coming back to this because I want to
>>> emphasize that these donations aren't about the corporation "expressing its
>>> views." They are about electing friendly legislators.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2012 5:06 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Schmitt
>>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
>>> 202/246-2350
>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120618/cb0def29/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/20120618/cb0def29/attachment.png>
View list directory