Sit In at Humana Downtown Today

A group of loosely organized protestors are planning to peacefully demonstrate (sit in) at Humana’s downtown headquarters at 10:00 A.M. this morning.

The group, according to messages posted and sent on Facebook, are prepared to be arrested on “behalf of healthcare as a human right.”

Will you be at the protest?

Get video, tv newsies. Good photo op.

38 thoughts on “Sit In at Humana Downtown Today

  1. This community should be doing everything it can to protect the jobs Humana provides. Without Humana, the downtown movement dies… or loses a ton of momentum at the very least. I’m not saying Humana is a model organization, but people need to quit demonizing the only Fortune 100 company with a Louisville headquarters.

  2. To play devil’s advocate:

    Who says anyone is demonizing Humana?

    “[B]ehalf of healthcare as a human right” doesn’t sound demonizing to me.

  3. Yes, let’s support the plan that will end private insurance and start a government run health care plan.

    Jake, those ‘obsence’ profits? Do you know what the insurance companies’ profit margin is…. 2%. Not excatly windfall profits there.

    But hey, let’s go through with the Reid plan or the Pelosi plan. Who knows or cares if they actually work?

    And remember Jake, this is a one way door, once we go into it, we can’t come out. We fuck everything up, but good.

    And ask yourself this question: What if your side is wrong?

  4. “behalf of healthcare as a human right.”

    Where is this “right” enumerated to us? You think anyone in the media will ask that question?

  5. I think it’s cute that you assume where I stand on a health care public option.

    It’s also cute how you spin out of control.

    Who said jack about profits?

  6. As of now, most of them are across the street from Humana, in front of the Kentucky Center. Maybe they’re not as willing to get arrested as they thought.

    It did look peaceful, if a bit loud.

  7. David: There are apparently folks inside and a demonstration outside of folks who don’t want to be arrested.

    How many folks did you see? A few? 20?

  8. Maybe they should apply for one of those 200 jobs at Humana while they’re there. Probably don’t have time though, have to pick the kids up from head start, stop by the food stamp office, apply for their energy assistance, K-TAP and sure hope they don’t forget about that free cell phone.
    Time to print more money!!

  9. I drove by on my way to work @ humana, and told them to “get off my yard!”lol, I think security kicked them out.

  10. According to WFPL, “Humana Spokesperson Jim Turner says the group is welcome to stay in the lobby as long as they are peaceful.”

    Um, he realizes they aren’t leaving, right?

  11. Not saying doing nothing. I’m saying ‘public option’ will destroy health care and the economy. So you better get it right the first time or were all fucked.

  12. This community should be doing everything it can to convince Humana that government-sponsored or mandated health insurance is not in direct opposition or conflict to market-sponsored health insurance. With an expanded pool of health insurance members out there, Humana stands to reap a bonanza in premiums managing said health insurance plans. And thusly, could significantly expand it’s employee rolls, thereby positively influencing the local economy even more.

  13. Jeff, you obviously don’t understand the consumer market for insurance.

    Here is the major flaw in your reasoning:

    The Pelosi bill is going to force coverage by impsing an $850-$1500 fine on individuals for not maintaining coverage. This is far less that coverage with cost, so the vast majority will opt out and take the fine.

    The fine amount will go to the government, then when they become ill, the insurers will have to pay for the treatment, not having received a penny in the fine money.

    How is this going to be windfall. Your theory would be correct if the fine amount was comparable to the open market cost of insurance.

    To make matters worse, due to the prohibition of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, people will cycle on and off of insurance when they become ill and get healthy.

    It’s common sense Jeff, why would you pay for health coverage until you get ill, if the insurers are forced to cover you if you apply after you are sick.

    Similarly, why would anyone pay for car insurance, if you could get coverage after a wreck and the insurer would be forced to pay the claim?

    As such, how is Humana going to “reap in premiums” under this scenario? They may get an expanded pool of sick people, but they are going to have a shrinking pool of healthy people.

  14. Mark H,

    So you’re saying that a mandate with a $s penalty won’t produce more insurance customers for Humana (and the rest of insurers) than the current system of NO mandate and NO penalty for the currently uninsured?

    Yea, that makes sense. All because the poor freeloaders await until they get sick to get insurance. Of course, it’s not like freeloaders without insurance are currently allowed to go to the emergency room and get treatment. They’re all just turned away to die under the current system. NOT!

    We are all (as the public) already spending to cover the uninsured so they receive emergency room treatment and you’re worried about Humana? Like I said, that makes sense.

  15. Keatssyamore,

    You are making emotional statements that have nothing to do with what is going on. There are many ways to provide coverage for the uninsured that would be far cheaper than the current plan.

    What you don’t understand is impact of removing the exemption on pre-existing conditions within having a motive for people to maintain their current credible coverage.

    The only reason to maintain health insurance or maintain Cobra coverage to keep from having a lapse in credible coverage.

    In other words, the main reason people maintain insurance now and employers provide medical coverage when they are healthy, is that they know that if they wait until the get sick, they won’t get coverage.

    If you don’t understand that insurance only works if they is a healthy pool of people paying into the system to cover the people who are sick, then you’ll never understand my point. You must be able to spread the risk.

    Unless there is a deterrent to dropping your coverage until you are sick (ie mandated fines that are equivalent to insurance premiums for those choosing not to get coverage, or the lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions), the whole system collapses. You will have a disproportional number of ill members in the system and the cost structure will collapse.

    Do you honestly think people would pay $1500 a year for car insurance if they could get away with paying a $500 fine, knowing that if they got into a wreck they could apply for insurance coverage and they would have to cover the claim?

    What makes sense is to implement cost-saving measures to drive down premium costs and find ways to supplement or provide coverage or the poor. In addition, you could fund a high-risk pool for people caught in a doughnut hole with a pre-existing condition.

    That makes sense.

  16. here’s to hoping humana goes down hard once health care reform legislation is passed and the public option puts it out of business :)

  17. Mrk H,

    If you don’t understand that insurance only works if they is a healthy pool of people paying into the system to cover the people who are sick, then you’ll never understand my point. You must be able to spread the risk.

    And when you exclude the sick people (the healthier my pools, the more profits I make), who pays for the treatment of the sick (us at the emergency room door)?

    Seriously, Mark, of course that’s the problem with health insurance. There’s even a name for this nasty economic problem that’s created in the health-insurance marketplace, it’s called, “ADVERSE SELECTION”. But apparently the thing that economists see as the problem with private health insurance covering everyone, you think is actually a feature of the system.

    Like I said, that makes sense.

  18. Mark H,

    Do you honestly think people would pay $1500 a year for car insurance if they could get away with paying a $500 fine, knowing that if they got into a wreck they could apply for insurance coverage and they would have to cover the claim?

    Inapt analogy. You won’t be able to apply and get “retroactive” health insurance and your car insurance example is absurd because you are talking about retroactive car insurance for ‘the claim’.

    Of course, in the real world, once you have an accident in your car with no insurance, you can then subsequently apply for car insurance to insure yourself against additional accidents.

    Similarly, if I chop my hand off and go to the emergency room for it, there is nothing in the health insurance bill that would allow me to then buy insurance coverage for slicing off my hand and require the insurer who just had to write ‘Lefty’ coverage to then pay for the emergency room treatment I already had.

    There is a problem with (for instance) cancer/diabetes folks not getting coverage till they need it. However, that also happens right now under our current system and we all pay for it. Maybe the volume of this problem would increase to the point at which insurance companies could no longer turn a profit by extending health care to some and we’d get single-payer.

    Now that makes sense.

  19. Keats,

    You may want and be happy with government care.

    I do not, and my concern is that the Pelosi bill is going to take that option away from me and my family.

    I guess my experience in life has shown me that private business is superior to the government in doing about everything.

    The Stimulus Bill, TARP, and Cash for Clunkers sure as hell hasn’t even come close delivering what they promised. Why will health care be any different?

  20. Mark H,

    The Stimulus Bill, TARP, and Cash for Clunkers sure as hell hasn’t even come close delivering what they promised. Why will health care be any different?

    Don’t you realize that the Stimulus Bill, TARP and Cash for Clunkers were all government programs designed to BAILOUT FAILED or FAILING private businesses?

    So, given the last two years particularly, your “private business is superior to government”argument makes as much sense in reality as your “you’ll be able to buy car/health insurance for your accident after you have your accident and have it pay for that accident you already had” claim.

    BTW, Mark H, is GM still operating? Did the entire financial sector collapse? Has California declared bankruptcy?

    But yeah, Mark, it’s clear that government = bad and private business (Lehman, GM, etc) = good.

  21. Look, the protests on Thursday-Friday are not against Humana and the jobs they have provided.

    They to educate people on SINGLE-PAYER healthcare. It is, without a doubt, what this country needs.

    It has already worked in other countries and we ALREADY have a version of it here: it’s called Medicare.

    It doesn’t put the government in charge of your healthcare, they just pay for it. And when I say THEY I am referring to OUR tax money that is currently NOT being spent to help us… to the tune of about 40 cents of every tax dollar going towards an illegal war while only about 4 cents goes towards healthcare.

    Single-Payer Health Insurance will reduce the debt for just about everyone in the middle/lower class and will not cost us any more money. The only people who risk seeing a rise in their taxes, if any, would be people making over $500,000. THEY DESERVE HIGHER TAXES. That is how our country became so rich is because we used to tax the rich MUCH higher.

    It’s a simple solution.
    Single-Payer Health Care
    I challenge ANYONE to find a reason why it would not work.


  22. The government just raised its debt ceiling to $14Trillion. If it was a business, it would have been gone long long ago.

    I never said government is bad, it’s just less efficient and more costly. You can bury the cost in $14Trillion in debt and act like it’s cheaper, but it’s not.

  23. “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

    Margaret Thatcher

  24. Mark H,

    Although I do farm labor for my Dad in Hardin County, but I do it for free because he is ill. So you can’t really call that employment.

  25. Mark H,

    When complaining about rising debt ceilings, you might consider that the financial system bailout of your “superior private businesses” has cost about $11.6 trillion in the last 2 years.

    Here’s a handy article that can explain it to you. So, of course, the debt ceiling is being raised.

    Do I expect this welfare for bankers will eventually result in hyper-inflation down the road? It’s quite possible. But when it does, remember that it will be the bailout of the financial sector (AIG, GS, Citi, etc) that does it, not some healthcare plan that costs maybe an additional $2 trillion over 10 years . Nor will it be the paltry $800 billion in Stimulus Program money that brings it on. It will be the $11.6 TRILLION WE HAVE RACKED UP IN THE LAST TWO YEARS BAILING OUT THE PRIVATELY RUN FINANCIAL SECTOR BUSINESSES!

    One last time and with all due respect, Mark:

    You clearly have a valid point about the freeloader/pre-existing condition problem and you have a valid point about the costs to the government of taking more responsibility for healthcare, but these problems are so minor compared to the problems inherent in the current healthcare delivery/payment system and in the current U.S. government debt situation (created by bailouts to private sector financial firms) that you are missing the forest for the trees.

  26. First of all, I am very sorry to hear about your father. I hope he recovers soon.

    My clients are all in the banking industry and Wall Street, and I was absolutely not in favor of the bailouts. I can tell you for a fact that several banks were forced to take money and lend it out, only to then be chastised by the same politicians for taking it.

    The goal was to contain control of a large part of the private economy. While businesses seek profits, politicians seek control and the power it brings.

    My concern is that there is nothing in this bill that is going to lower costs. The CBO even agrees that it’s going to cause costs to go up. The goal is to force people into a government-run plan and open the door for decades of surcharges and taxes on every product, good, or service that can tangentially be related to higher health care costs. That way, they can tax the middle and lower classes without calling it a tax.

    There are many things that can be done to provide coverage for the uninsured without taking over the private sector. For the cost of this monstrosity, you could by all of the uninsured plans for years to come.

    My fear is that many people are going to take the bait of the government’s offer of security, only to sacrifice their freedom of choice and the excellence that our system currently offers.

    Physicians facing lower government reimbursement rates will flock into private concierge or pay-for-fee practices. The government will then move to prohibit them, because they will be “unfair” to those who can’t afford them.

    I would love to find a way to lower costs, increase competition, and provide a way to help the uninsured find and afford coverage on their own. Unfortunately there’s nothing “in it” for Washington in that scenario.

  27. Mark H,

    Not in favor of the Banking Bailouts, huh? Did you happen to follow what happened in the financial markets after Lehman was allowed to fail? I don’t know whether bailout was the right thing, and I’d have certainly rather seen prospective regulations that kept banks from getting leveraged up 30 to 1 and 35 to 1, but the time for that had passed by Lehman’s failure.

    Why don’t you explain to me what impact 10 or 20 Lehmans (which would’ve been the outcome without the AIG bailout b/c of all CDSs secured by MBSs) would’ve had on the world economy?

    Of course, it’s kind of funny that after complaining that your clients got bailouts, you’ve turned around in your post and somehow made your clients the heroes of their own huge free market scam by alleging these bailed out banks have had to “lend it out” when in just the last two weeks there have been numerous reports that the banks DIDN’T lend the money, but rather took it and traded with it in the commodities and stock markets (I call it doubling-down). Why do you think gas went right back to $70 or $80 a gallon when the world economic activity drove over a cliff? I’ll tell you why, cause GoldmanSachs money is pushing it there.

    Seriously, Mark, here’s a link to just one of the articles that explains where the bulk of the bailout money went and how it was turned into profits for its recipients:

    “NEW YORK — The big banks are showing they can still make money, even as Main Street struggles — though not from lending, refinancing homes or other bread-and-butter business.

    Instead, they’re doing what Wall Street does best — betting big on stocks, bonds, commodities and other assets.

    Citigroup, the shakiest of the major banks during the financial crisis, reported Thursday it eked out a quarterly profit from trading, despite suffering more losses on consumer loans. Trading also drove big profits at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

    That some banks are making money now is a sign of remarkable recovery from the crisis a year ago. But the lopsided business model raises questions about what happens if trading profits fall off and banks are left to rely on more traditional operations.

    “The good news is that banks are in better shape. The bad news is that they’re not making loans to consumers and businesses,” market analyst Edward Yardeni said. “That could come back to bite them because these trading gains will only last so long.”

    For now, trading is pretty much the only way banks can make money. And it’s more lucrative because there are fewer competitors, interest rates are near zero and government subsidies have allowed banks to borrow cheaply and invest in assets that offer the highest returns.

    I suspect you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? With that suspicion in mind, you may have the last word (since you were clearly going to try to have it anyway). But I respectfully think you’re still missing the forests for the trees when it comes to the causes of the exploding national debt and the weak and getting weaker dollar since a couple trillion over 10 years to care for the sick and uninsured seems like a much better expenditure/investment of public money than giving $12 trillion over 24 months to banks so they can drive up commodity prices (which they have and continue to do) in search of profits that they can create obscene bonuses out of (something that also happened/is happening with the Bailout $$$s).

    If you’re really interested in “find(ing) a way to lower costs, increase competition, and provide a way to help the uninsured find and afford coverage on their own” you might look into how France does things, or even the State of Maryland here in the good old USA. But that’s only if you were serious.

  28. Mark H,

    I forgot to thank you for your sympathy about my Dad. That was rude of me, I apologize for that and now say, “Thank you.”

  29. I am actually an environmental scientist, but I will leave you as having the last word.

    With regards.

Comments are closed.