This morning’s Times carries a puff piece about health insurance lobbyist Karen M. Ignagni, the point person for the Insurance Industry’s drive to destroy health care reform. It seems that the misunderstood insurance companies and their lobbyists were taking a friendly approach to health care reform and are now mystified, totally mystified, at the fact that the Democrats are pointing to them as the chief villains in this many villained drama:
One of the main architects of the friendly approach, Karen M. Ignagni, the industry’s chief lobbyist, personally pledged to President Obama that insurers would not stand in the way of a sweeping overhaul this time.
For a while, it seemed to be working — until recently, when the insurance industry re-emerged as Washington’s favorite target. “Villains,” Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, called health insurers. And Mr. Obama derided the industry for pocketing “windfall profits.”
Taken aback, Ms. Ignagni, the 55-year-old chief executive of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, wondered on Tuesday why insurers were being singled out when, in her view, they had accepted that change was necessary.
Yes, it was working fine until nasty Nancy Pelosi turned on them. Of course, that disregards the fact that the insurance industry has been spending over a million dollars a day to kill the bill, that it broke its pledge to co-operate within days of making it,, that its front groups have been running misleading and deceptive ads in an attempt to engender fear about the health care proposal, and that the industry and its lobbyists are behind the supposed spontaneous demonstrations of thugs who are disrupting town hall meetings around the country, all of which events took place prior to the Democratic decision to zero in more intensely on the insurance companies.
These would all appear to be salient facts, and it would seem it would have behooved the reporter to suggest to Ms. Ignagni that they might explain the mystery she can’t seem to fathom. But, no such thing. Not a word is mentioned about what is obvious to any informed observer, and not a person is quoted in the article who has a different take on the subject.
One Comment