I’d really like to hear a response on my above concerns. Which continue to grow in regards to this bill.

I’ve continued to research and found info regarding payments to this system planned on a “progressive sliding scale”. That really disturbs me. I can only assume that savings for some will be generated from higher payments from others. I’d be curious to see how those numbers pencil out. For those of us in the middle income range, that currently pay going market rates for our insurance (and are content to accept that cost for the benefit we receive), I can only assume we will be forced to leave our insurance companies and end up with this single-payer” system… and most likely be PAYING MORE, since we will be covering much of the cost of the currently uninsured. Since they would otherwise continue to keep opting out if they don’t get much cheaper pricing. How else can this math work?

I’ve hear that donations and grants may help…. but do any of us really believe those will be sufficient? Especially now that the President is attempting to reduce deductions on charitable donations.

It really scares me that no one has truly worked the math on this, since the math doesn’t seem to add up. I mean… can we really expect to pay for an additional 100,000 insurance customers, while keeping our rates as low as current, with no taxpayer subsidies? Based on what? The efficiency of this new govt mandated program? How often do we see that sort of efficiency from govt?

I’m afraid this bill hasn’t been thought through enough… and your above comment:
“Please note that the plan that will develop under HB1273 has to come back to the legislature for approval, so if it seems like the plan is not fully formed at this point in time, that’s because it’s not.”
doesn’t make me feel any better. Why attempt to pass anything before it’s been fully thought out. Please do us citizens this favor. We deserve to have all details considered before being passed into law.

We look forward to your response.

Thanks,
Todd

Can you please shed a little more light on how this new entity will provide lower costs than our current private system?

You mention “overhead” being lower, but I assume the entity will still be making an attempt to keep quality high, which would mean hiring good employees and investing in decent facilities. Typically, a new entity like this would be expected to have higher overhead, than a company that has been around for years working at becoming more efficient, in order to compete and stay in business. I know with my own provider, if they don’t stay competitive from year to year, as well as providing good service, I look at taking my business elsewhere. That’s a pretty powerful incentive for them to keep looking for ways to reduce their overhead. Do you think a non-profit start-up will really have that same incentive and ability? It’ll be a first.

So… I can only imagine that maybe you’re referring to lower costs based on forfeited profits (which is not technically “overhead”). But, since profits generally represent a return on investment to obtain financing, and I assume this new entity will need to be financed, who is expected to make that financing risk with no return? The taxpayer? Because I feel like our govt has been forcing us to invest in companies with no return quite a bit lately. And that IS absolutely a cost to the taxpayer, if that is the intention.

And in any case, even if savings from eliminating slim profit margins is what you’re offering, I have doubts that those will constitute enough of a price drop to convince many of the uninsured to start paying for their healthcare. Pull up any healthcare company stock on yahoo finance and check their last income statement. Humana (the 1st one I pull up) shows $29 billion in revenue, and profits of only $650 million… about 2%. No one is going to decide to start paying for healthcare based on 2% savings on their premium. Especially considering the likelihood that that 2% will probably be more than offset by higher costs of inefficiency, since they are a start-up, non-profit, govt sponsored/formed entity.

Unless there is some other easy overhead reduction that this new entity is aware of, that private industry hasn’t been able to find over years of searching for how to make more money, the only way I can see for this to be “cheaper” would be to subsidize the business with govt funds. Hence the recurring concern about cost to the taxpayer. And the recurring statement that “nothing is free.”

What am I missing?

Please explain to us where this significant savings comes from.

Thanks,
Todd

You betcha. That’s part of the reason that we don’t want this to be government-run. The Authority would set up a trust fund into which health care money would go. If the system is run as an entity separate from the state–a public nonprofit, perhaps–then the state could not raid health care funds in order to pay for various other projects. That’s a key component of the whole idea. Thanks for asking about it.

Tom Russell

No one has said that this is a free health bill. That is an error or misconception on your part.

You are correct, though, that we already pay for health care for people who are uninsured or underinsured through a variety of cost-shifting mechanisms.

If HB1273 passes and a health care system is created, then instead of paying a health insurance premium, you would still make a payment into the system. But, because the overhead would be lower, payments would likely be lower in a new system than in the existing one.

You would save money.

But again, the system would be not be free. I am not sure where that idea comes from.

Tom Russell

in 1995, when first dx with cancer, our net worth, -15,000.
now, age 56 and 54, our net worth is -107,000 We live in a 800 sq. ft. home.

The comment regarding people going into debt to pay for health care expenses is simplistic. I’ve been benefits professional for almost 20 years and have never seen this happen. First of all, most people in that situation don’t have any insurance to start with, and secondly, many people don’t have even a month’s gross wages in savings – so naturally they end up in debt to pay out-of-pocket expenses. I’ve seen dozens of highly expensive illnesses, many which ended in death, and I’ve never once had this scenario occur. It is, generally, a canard and it’s used to scare people. I’m notifying my clients to contact their representatives about this – people still do not want the government, even in this guise, involved in the delivery and complete financing of health care.