Despite criticisms opponents might have about Healthy Wisconsin, the groundbreaking reform plan proposed by Senate Democrats, I think that we can agree that it would provide everyone in Wisconsin with health insurance. Try as they might, opponents of Healthy Wisconsin have failed to come up with a plan that provides health care to the people of Wisconsin.
Healthy Wisconsin guarantees everyone the ability to choose his or her health care network and doctor and help control the spiraling costs of health insurance for Wisconsin's small businesses. You need only to talk to Greg Bass of Park Printing House Ltd. In Verona, Deb Carey of New Glarus Brewery or Mike Rayome of Graphic Packaging in Wausau to be reminded of how Healthy Wisconsin is good for business.
Under the plan, approximately 4 million Wisconsinites - those not covered by Medicaid, BadgerCare, Medicare, and other federal programs - will receive the same, quality health insurance coverage that state legislators enjoy. Even the plan's harshest critics don't argue that point.
Small businesses in Wisconsin are struggling with continued increases in premiums and all indicators are that the costs will continue to rise. Recent reports indicate the latest increase anywhere from 6 to 10 percent in the last year alone. Something must be done to preserve small businesses that make the wise choice of providing insurance to their employees.
Compared to the $9.2 billion that private insuring employers now spend on employee health care, the amount that Healthy Wisconsin actually requires them to pay - would actually result in $1.4 billion savings.
Health care costs in Wisconsin would decline in the first year by $751 million. Over 10 years, compared with the status quo, total savings would be $13.8 billion.
Wisconsin's families as a whole would save $432 million. Families with annual incomes under $75,000, which constitute 77 percent of all families in Wisconsin, would see reductions in health spending ranging from $1,328 per family to $262 per family.
After taking into account the large property tax cut that Healthy Wisconsin requires plus voluntary supplemental benefits for active worker and retiree health care costs, the net savings to private insuring employers would be $686 million.
Not surprisingly, private firms that today provide no insurance whatsoever - fully shifting their workers' health care costs onto those workers or onto other employers - would experience an increase in costs. It's time that everyone paid their fair share.
Government (i.e., municipalities and counties) employers would save $1.36 billion.
Healthy Wisconsin requires that 50 percent of this savings - a total of $680 million - must be passed on to households and businesses in the form of a property tax cut. This would drive the statewide levy down from over $8 billion to close to $7.5 billion, the second biggest cut in the property tax levy in recent Wisconsin history.
If Healthy Wisconsin isn't the plan Republicans want to support, I challenge them to come up with a plan that actually provides health insurance to the people of Wisconsin.
You cannot deny that reforming the current health care system is the No. 1 issue in Wisconsin. Try as they might, opponents have not been able to put forth an alternative that even comes close to Healthy Wisconsin.
The Republicans' lone answer? Health savings accounts and tax breaks, neither of which has been proven to actually reduce the number of uninsured or lower health care costs. In fact, through adverse selection, some economists actually believe that health savings accounts will increase the number of uninsured.
Research by the RAND Corp., the Urban Institute and the American Academy of Actuaries shows that if health savings accounts are more widely used, premiums for traditional comprehensive employer based insurance could more than double.
It would be convenient for Republicans to have Healthy Wisconsin out of the way as the state budget debate rages on. After all, doing nothing is much easier than offering a bold solution. However, their own polling shows that the people of Wisconsin are asking for change.
The truth is that Healthy Wisconsin is the only plan on the table that increases affordability and decreases the number of uninsured. If I were a Republican, I would want the proposal killed as soon as possible as well.
Wisconsin has the building blocks in place for a successful system; the time is now to lead the nation, in Wisconsin's proud tradition, toward comprehensive reform.
Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) is the author of the Healthy Wisconsin reform plan in the State Senate. For more on the ongoing debate over Healthy Wisconsin, visit www.biztimes.com.
6 Comments
Jon:
I am not sure how I feel about HW yet, however, it was wrong to stick it in with the budget. Also, have the Senate Democrats answered the 50 questions that the Republicans gave to the Senate Democrats yet. I really want to see the responses.
Instead of altering the entire Wisconsin economy with respect to health care, why not implement Healthy Wisconsin in Dane and Beloit Counties for five years. A similar approach was taken with the Family Care program. Let us see if these counties will thrive or suffer due to Health Wisconsin before we subject the whole state to such a dramatic, untested, program affecting all of us in significant ways.
PS: Regarding my previous comment about Dane and Beloit Counties. I propose funding for the program would be exclusively by individuals and businesses in those counties.
Bill, doing this piecemeal is exactly what the insurance industry opponents would want us to do. Increment it to ensure failure. The best approach is national, but that is not likely in this decade. The next best is state, and Healthy Wisconsin is designed very well to cut out the 31% of waste without altering the other half of the equation, hospital and physician care. If you really want to see it fail, take it to the county, city, or even personal level.
That said, IF it shouldn't work as planned, the insurance industry will be well poised to jump back in and save us from ourselves.
I agree with John that the 50 answers must be forthcoming. Some of the questions will require yet another expensive actuarial study, but the GOP should be willing to share the expenses. I'm sure the taxpayers would be.
Rep Erpenbach,
Let's respond to your editorial in the same order as you state things. Perhaps the Small Business Times could insert my comments right after yours.
Despite criticisms opponents might have about Healthy Wisconsin, the groundbreaking reform plan proposed by Senate Democrats, I think that we can agree that it would provide everyone in Wisconsin with health insurance. Try as they might, opponents of Healthy Wisconsin have failed to come up with a plan that provides health care to the people of Wisconsin.
Healthy Wisconsin would not provide everyone in Wisconsin with insurance. I am certain that illegal aliens, and others residing here who do not want to draw attention to themselves would figure a way to opt out. I would agree it will provide almost everyone with health insurance.
Opponents of Healthy Wisconsin have not provided an alternative plan. I agree. You do not need to provide an alternative to every plan someone might propose. As an example, I propose to take my family skydiving. They say no. They do not offer an alternative proposal. Just no to my proposal. Should they go skydiving because they did not offer a different alternative? Opposition to something stupid is often all that is required.
Healthy Wisconsin guarantees everyone the ability to choose his or her health care network and doctor and help control the spiraling costs of health insurance for Wisconsin's small businesses. You need only to talk to Greg Bass of Park Printing House Ltd. In Verona, Deb Carey of New Glarus Brewery or Mike Rayome of Graphic Packaging in Wausau to be reminded of how Healthy Wisconsin is good for business.
Healthy Wisconsin is good for some businesses and bad for others. Anecdotal information from three businesses does not prove your point. In general, economically, lower taxes and regulations provide more economic incentives, create more business opportunities, and free up capital for business expansion.
Under the plan, approximately 4 million Wisconsinites - those not covered by Medicaid, BadgerCare, Medicare, and other federal programs - will receive the same, quality health insurance coverage that state legislators enjoy. Even the plan's harshest critics don't argue that point.
OK. 4 million people will be covered. Thanks for reminding me about what you said in the first paragraph. I understand you are used to talking to democrats. Sometimes you have to repeat things.
Small businesses in Wisconsin are struggling with continued increases in premiums and all indicators are that the costs will continue to rise. Recent reports indicate the latest increase anywhere from 6 to 10 percent in the last year alone. Something must be done to preserve small businesses that make the wise choice of providing insurance to their employees.
Health care costs are rising. Small businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to fund employer paid insurance. Thanks for the update.
Compared to the $9.2 billion that private insuring employers now spend on employee health care, the amount that Healthy Wisconsin actually requires them to pay - would actually result in $1.4 million savings.
The current employers in Wisconsin pay $9.2 billion for their health insurance. Their share would be reduced to $9.1986 Billion($9.2 Billion less $1.4 million) and businesses that don't have a health insurance plan would begin paying. Or going out of business.
Health care costs in Wisconsin would decline in the first year by $751 million. Over 10 years, compared with the status quo, total savings would be $13.8 billion.
Health care costs would reduce by $751 million in the first year. This is a guess. If people are sick less, or consume less health care, the health care costs would probably decrease. Are you actually saying that people will be sick less often? Just because you say you will spend less on health care does not mean the costs to provide it will get smaller.
Wisconsin's families as a whole would save $432 million. Families with annual incomes under $75,000, which constitute 77 percent of all families in Wisconsin, would see reductions in health spending ranging from $1,328 per family to $262 per family.
These are BS numbers. You are using dollar figures based on assumptions that you do not explain. No bank or accountant would listen to or believe these numbers.
After taking into account the large property tax cut that Healthy Wisconsin requires plus voluntary supplemental benefits for active worker and retiree health care costs, the net savings to private insuring employers would be $686 million.
Great! Here come the property tax savings! Of course you will lower our property taxes. With all the property tax relief I have been promised, I should be paying practically nothing. Only an idiot would fall for your property tax relief argument. Again you are used to speaking to democrats.
Not surprisingly, private firms that today provide no insurance whatsoever - fully shifting their workers' health care costs onto those workers or onto other employers - would experience an increase in costs. It's time that everyone paid their fair share.
I love this one! Firms that don't pay health care are shifting all of their costs on to their workers! Imagine if the people who consumed health care had to pay for it. Guess what? Firms that do pay health care are actually shifting the cost from workers on to taxpayers because health care is a pre tax deduction. Most companies would pay workers more if they didn't pay health care costs. Some companies actually do pay workers who do not take health insurance more than those who do. I am always concerned when politicians start talking about making people pay their fair share. Look at the AMT. I think the reasoning behind the AMT was "fair share".
Government (i.e., municipalities and counties) employers would save $1.36 billion.
Government savings never seem to transfer back to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes.
If Healthy Wisconsin isn't the plan Republicans want to support, I challenge them to come up with a plan that actually provides health insurance to the people of Wisconsin.
Why does opposition to a poor plan create a requirement to come up with an alternative plan to cover everyone? Perhaps the alternative does not require everyone to be covered. Maybe we should make "the rich" pay their fair share and let them decide if they want to be covered, or perhaps just use their wealth and self insure.
You cannot deny that reforming the current health care system is the No. 1 issue in Wisconsin. Try as they might, opponents have not been able to put forth an alternative that even comes close to Healthy Wisconsin.
I can deny that reforming the health care system in Wisconsin is the #1 issue. I just did! Clean water, reliable low cost power, Lake Michigan, education, taxes, jobs, or many other issues could all be considered higher priorities. The state of health insurance might not be ideal, but there are certainly other issues that affect more people daily and immediately. Come up with a way to stop people from driving too slow in the left hand lane of the freeway. My priorities are a little simpler.
You make the "come up with an alternative argument" at least 3 times in this editorial. Now I know Republicans fall for this, since eventually you will goad them into coming up with a little less comprehensive but equally stupid plan based on your assumptions that something, anything, needs to be done right now to handle the unbearable crisis. That is your plan, and it always works well on the stupid party.
As an aside, I read somewhere recently that the Republicans were the "stupid" party and the Democrats were the "evil" party. When there is a proposal that is both stupid and evil, both sides will support it, and that's called bipartisanship. Eventually, the Republicans will return to their nature and we will get the stupid, evil agreement you want, so don't lose heart!
The Republicans' lone answer? Health savings accounts and tax breaks, neither of which has been proven to actually reduce the number of uninsured or lower health care costs. In fact, through adverse selection, some economists actually believe that health savings accounts will increase the number of uninsured.
Now wait! A few paragraphs ago you challenged Republicans to come up with a plan. According to your last statement, they have a plan! HSAs and tax breaks. You want them to come up with an alternative plan you like. So they have a plan, but you don't like it. Not the same as no plan.
Research by the RAND Corp., the Urban Institute and the American Academy of Actuaries shows that if health savings accounts are more widely used, premiums for traditional comprehensive employer based insurance could more than double.
Health Savings Accounts would raise costs for people in traditional plans. No S***! Healthy people who eat right and take care of themselves have fewer health claims. They would probably use HSAs if they could. Smokers, drunks, drug users, and obese want traditional insurance coverage, since their lifestyle causes more health claims. Perhaps they could pay for their choices through higher insurance premiums. Now you are just getting me annoyed.
It would be convenient for Republicans to have Healthy Wisconsin out of the way as the state budget debate rages on. After all, doing nothing is much easier than offering a bold solution. However, their own polling shows that the people of Wisconsin are asking for change.
The truth is that Healthy Wisconsin is the only plan on the table that increases affordability and decreases the number of uninsured. If I were a Republican, I would want the proposal killed as soon as possible as well.
Wisconsin has the building blocks in place for a successful system; the time is now to lead the nation, in Wisconsin's proud tradition, toward comprehensive reform.
Republicans are bad. Democrats have a bold solution. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…..
My bio? Art Flater is an overburdened taxpayer in Muskego, who's state representative only pretends to live in his district and has gotten just a little cynical about all of this stuff.
RE: Dane and Rock Counties with Healthy Wisconsin.
Jack,
Dane and Rock Counties (not Beloit as stated previously) are large enough(550,000-600,000 pop) to use as a test (similar to the Family Care program). I for one do not want to gamble this state's economy on a large, untested program such as Healthy Wisconsin that will significantly change the taxation in Wisconsin relative to other states. I see comments here that the other side has to come up with ideas- mine is a reasonable one- lets see if these counties thrive or decline with your plan.
If you can't compromise, I say no deal.