Why Can’t Health Insurers Criticize the Government?
This blog has recently given the health insurance industry a hard time for its fight against Gilead, an innovative pharmaceutical company, and drug-makers generally. So, it may be time to clarify that we approve of private health insurance and wish health insurers the best of success in a healthcare system that is consumer-driven and suffers little government control. We are not going to get there if health insurers cannot support others’ criticism of the government.
Eric Lipton of the New York Times has discovered that America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the health-insurers’ trade association, gave $1.593 million to the Voice of Free Enterprise, a project of the National Federation of Independent Business, to advertise against U.S. Senator Mark Pryor’s support for Obamacare in Arkansas. AHIP made this grant anonymously. Lipton and his sources would prefer that the trade association be forced to disclose its contribution to the advertising campaign.
Obviously, that would utterly stifle AHIP’s freedom of speech. The federal government is now its members’ largest customer, and their largest regulator. To openly criticize the federal government would invite retaliation. Because of this, trade associations’ public pronouncements tend to be quite milquetoast. Especially in a government-run sector like healthcare, forbidding interested parties from anonymously supporting others’ speech would give the government near compete control of the public dialogue.
Of course, that is what the government wants. But no citizen should want it.
“To openly criticize the federal government would invite retaliation.”
Verry scary.
It’s scary, and sad but true. Insurers basically have to abide by the government’s rules and they better like it, or else…
I think you may be missing the point of why it is important for there to be transparency in election donations. If the trade association for health insurance industry funds a campaign against a pro-ACA candidate, it should be known what their interests are and who is supporting the other candidate. Voters in this election should know where candidates are getting their donations from and how this will affect their interests. If a candidate is getting money from large oil companies, you’d want to know that because it will influence the decisions the candidate makes if elected to office.
I think the difference here Frank is that the government has the power to harm those who disagree with it. Think IRS targeting of conservative groups. Even though the president feigned outrage, he went on to deny there was even a smidgeon of corruption there. So, government can threaten certain groups and never be held accountable. That is pretty scary.
Exactly. If voters want to know where candidates funding comes from, they can declare that they will not vote for a candidate who does not disclose.
In any case, these ads are not sponsored by a candidate. They are issue ads.
I used to have the same views as you, until I saw what incumbent politicians do to people whom they know oppose them. This is the real purpose politicians pass these laws: To protect themselves.
I would certainly like to here stories of what some of these politicians do!
“Why Can’t Health Insurers Criticize the Government?”
They can, it is just highly advised that they shouldn’t…
“The federal government is now its members’ largest customer, and their largest regulator”
This is a problem. But a problem that they did help bring upon themselves. The government being more invasive in health insurance had its tradeoffs. Insurers weren’t going to get out scot free.
“Especially in a government-run sector like healthcare, forbidding interested parties from anonymously supporting others’ speech would give the government near compete control of the public dialogue.”
The government will have control of health care and the public dialogue about it. That’s about as Orwellian as you can get.
Yep, and it becomes even more insidious when you consider that media often colludes with those who support government-run healthcare. Let’s remember, the government has plenty of spokespeople, the private sector does not.