Milwaukee Biz Blog

When money is involved, debates and arguments inevitably follow. The plan for a State of Wisconsin assessment on hospitals is no exception, and because it involves health care, the issue can be more complex than others.

By now you probably know that the Greater Milwaukee Committee has expressed support for the hospital assessment, and more than a few may wonder why the GMC is doing so.

Hospitals in Wisconsin, and especially in Milwaukee, must and do provide care for anyone in need, regardless of their means to pay. This means costs without corresponding revenue, and to make up for that deficit, hospitals must charge other patients more than they might otherwise have to in order to maintain their services.

Government assistance, particularly for Medicaid patients, has been lacking in Wisconsin. Wisconsin continues to rank low for federal dollars we receive. Hospitals have seen no increase in Medicaid reimbursement in nearly 13 years, and during that time, operating costs have risen dramatically. Statewide, Medicaid reimbursement covers only 48 percent of the actual costs of providing care.

The way it is now, cost shifting from the underfunding of the state Medicaid program has to be covered by business community, patients and ultimately, the taxpayers. The hospital assessment actually eases this burden and allows hospitals and government in Wisconsin to take advantage of the same Medicaid maximization opportunity that nearly half of all U.S. states have already profited from.

It really becomes a federal fair share issue, something Wisconsin needs to be more aggressive with wherever possible.

Since the benefits work for hospitals, the state, patients and the taxpayers, the Greater Milwaukee Committee wishes to lend its support.

 

Richard Greene is the director of operations for the Greater Milwaukee Committee, an organization of the region's business, labor, academic, philanthropic, nonprofit and civic leaders.

For the second time, our elected officials are meeting to see if they can come to agreement on our state's budget. The last budget bill our governor, senators and assemblymen worked on ended up a day late and dollar short.

Let me rephrase that … nearly 150 days late and now $652 million dollars short.

As early as August of last year, tax experts like Todd Berry from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance were saying the budget our elected officials were working on back then was at least $200 million in the red. And yet, our elected officials deliberated for months on a budget they finalized in late fall only to have our state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau say several months later that it was over $600 million dollars off.

How do independent experts like Berry know we are going to be in a deficit nearly six months before our state's Fiscal Bureau officially tells our legislature? More importantly, why didn't our elected officials do something about our spending back in the fall? Instead, we are now back at the drawing board trying to fill more holes in our budget because our elected officials don't know how stop spending.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, holding the line on spending is not a partisan issue, and the Independent Business Association of Wisconsin wants our elected officials
to do just that - hold the line on spending.

According to the Fiscal Bureau, the deficit is over $400 million and ideas like a hospital tax, accounting tricks such as delaying state aid to schools and some spending cuts are all being considered. The state, and more importantly the state taxpayers who will be responsible for the decisions of our elected officials, should demand that we get rid of our deficit in the same way we handle deficits in our own homes - cut spending.

Of all three proposals, the Assembly Republicans cut spending the most (roughly $360 million of spending cuts, compared with roughly $80 million by the governor and only $40 million by the Senate).

While we applaud the Assembly's efforts to cut spending, it doesn't go far enough. If our deficit is $415 million, then we should cut spending by $415 million. It is frustrating to see accounting gimmicks used in an effort to balance a budget - like the proposal of delaying state aid to schools. That only pushes the problem of spending too much into a different budget year.

What is really disturbing is the hospital tax proposal found in two of the budget repair bill proposals. Proponents claim the hospital tax will result in higher Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals, which will lower health care costs and all of this is possible because we get free money from the Feds in their federal match of our increased Medicaid payments.

First, who do these politicians think the feds get their money from? Yes, you guessed it, from us taxpayers. It's not free money, it's our money. Secondly, do these same politicians want those of us who pay for health care to trust hospitals that they will lower health care costs because they are getting higher Medicaid reimbursement rates?

After the last 10 years of double-digit increases to health care costs, consumers don't trust anyone, least of all providers who continue to build these extravagant hospitals. There is nothing in this proposal that guarantees hospitals won't simply pocket the increased reimbursement rates and add to their already large profits.
And let's be perfectly honest - even if hospitals are required to detail the increased payments and show how those dollars are being used, because we don't have true transparency of costs, such detailed accounting is meaningless.

If this is our government's attempt of reforming our Medicaid system, it's a poor one at best and is certainly a Band Aid approach to what should be a major overhaul of a failing system.

Our elected officials didn't get the budget right the first time around - let's hope they get it right this time. It's up to us, the electorate, to hold our elected officials accountable, since we are the ones financially responsible for their actions.

Bob Collison is a business owner and the current chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Independent Business Association of Wisconsin (IBA), the oldest state-based business association concentrating on issues facing small and independent businesses. For additional information, visit www.ibaw.com.

The Social Security and Medicare Trustees this week handed Congress a fresh reminder of its historic opportunity to transform these programs before it's too late.

Congress has known for years that our largest entitlement programs - particularly Social Security and Medicare - simply cannot survive as currently structured. Without reform, these programs will grow themselves right into extinction, thereby eliminating the retirement security and health safety net for the very people they were designed to serve.

Congress knows it must act. If we act now, we have the opportunity to reform these programs in a rational, well-thought-out way. We can make them better, stronger, more responsive, more resilient, more sustainable, and more in line with the way our economy really works. There is no reason to wait; each year of delay increases the likelihood that Congress will be forced to make deep cuts in benefits or raise taxes or debt to unsustainable levels.

The alarm has been sounded - this is the third consecutive Medicare warning. Hitting the snooze button, yet again, is not the right choice. Congress is lucky enough to have yet another major opportunity - in the FY09 Budget Conference Report - to do the right thing.

Americans should demand we take it. Because our actions on this issue, or lack thereof, will have an impact on these critical programs - and our nation's economy - for generations to come.

 

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) represents Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District.

State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) conducted a five hour long hearing Monday on Senate Bill 562, the Healthy Wisconsin AUTHORITY and Plan. For someone who has 25 years of experience helping people finance high-quality (but expensive) health care, I was struck by the theater of the proceedings and paucity of substance.

As just one example, I heard numerous individuals testify as to the "obvious" advantages of spreading risk over a larger pool to achieve lower costs. Over and over we heard about state employees having the best benefits anywhere and lower costs because of the buying power of this large group (260,000 statewide; 70,000 in Dane County alone).

Trouble is, that's not true. Where was testimony by the insurers (who cover both state employees and those of small business) that would reveal a significant disparity of costs on a per member per month (apples to apples) basis.

Let's also hear the testimony of impartial actuaries who would more accurately describe the utter predictability of morbity in any group over a thousand or so lives.

I can only conclude there is a reason such experts are not called to testify. It has to be the same reason this bill was reintroduced in the final week of the legislative session to be voted on, I'm sure, without further study and debate. The reason: politics.

Serious people in the private sector are hard at work trying to lower health care costs through hundreds of small steps that take time to bear fruit and can't be wrapped up into one neat reform sales pitch.

Their efforts are mocked as unverifiable and too little too late.

The real mockery should be reserved for those who think such a complex problem can be fixed in one piece of legislation. And for the utter deception of their sales pitch, they deserve the political results they nurture.

Jon Rauser is president of The Rauser Agency Inc., Milwaukee.

Healthy Wisconsin is on everybody's lips, primarily because health care is into everybody's wallet. It's getting worse, but doesn't have to be that way.

Healthy Wisconsin changes the way medicine is paid for; not the way it is provided. Its only problem now is political.

Healthy Wisconsin's strengths:

• Its biggest change is in the structure. Rather than employers paying a middleman insurance company, they instead pay a flat 10.5 percentage of wages (which replaces the 15 percent many are now paying for employee health insurance). That's a 4.5 percent savings.
• Employees would pay 4 percent of wages, which would be offset by a 16-percent increase in benefits, such as adding limited vision, dental for children, mental parity, pharmaceuticals, and the extension to family coverage for all. Complete portability is provided when changing or losing jobs, and pre-existing diseases are a thing of the past.
• Employers are no longer involved in heath care, and Wisconsinites are no longer obligated to take an employer plan or even a family plan. Every family member can make their own choice between either a health care network (HCN) or the traditional fee-for-service (FFS).
• Doctors and hospitals remain private and send their bills to a central payment administrator rather than to the 450 statewide insurance companies (or 1,500, if we allow cross-border insurers). This drastically reduces their billing overhead and these savings are included in the total $1.8 billion projected.
• The systemic changes eliminate the costs that add nothing to health care, like insurance broker commissions, actuarial costs, costs for cherry-picking and gatekeeping, high executive salaries and the ever-rising shareholder profits. Even the insurer's high costs for lobbying and campaign contributions to politicians that were passed on to the patient are eliminated under Healthy Wisconsin. These are all gone, though it also explains the massive opposition from the insurance industry and their politician supporters.

Healthy Wisconsin provides major savings to most businesses and therefore fewer will outsource jobs to countries that have no employer contribution for health care. More businesses will open, remain open and relocate to Wisconsin as a result. The Wal-Marts and McDonald's of the world will now start paying their fair share, but few taxpayers will object to that.

 

While some small business owners objected to the earlier version of HW, the new version provides a three-year phase-in period, which should be quite palatable. As well, a cap of $102,000 in wages taxed has been placed on two-earner families.

In spite of the frivolous scare tactics used by the proponents of a status quo approach to health care, Wisconsin would not become a magnet for the unemployed or immigrants. Most already have free Medicaid coverage in their own state, thus relocating families is a foolish option.

No matter how important the Healthy Wisconsin proposal is to the people and businesses in Wisconsin, there remains an insurance industry that wants to continue drawing profits from the medical field, and politicians who receive their contributions. Hopefully they will all realize that as Healthy Wisconsin improves the state's economy, other insurance markets will emerge and the state will grow accordingly.

Prior to retiring four years ago, I owned a company with 70 employees in four states (40 in Wisconsin). Had Healthy Wisconsin been in effect at that time, I would have indeed closed my offices in three states and moved the jobs to Wisconsin.

Importantly, after selling my company, the buyer did move offices. They closed Wisconsin and moved the jobs to the East Coast. Had HW been in effect at that time, I seriously doubt that would have happened.

How many more jobs are we losing because of our high health care costs? My guess is, a lot.

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate and publishes http://MoneyedPoliticians.net. He is the author of "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America."

The Wisconsin Tea Party (www.wisconsinteparty.org) is an organization whose members believe in the private sector's inherent ability to both improve quality and lower costs in health care. As such, we are constantly looking for opportunities for government to assist the markets in performing that function. 

Our group and its members have been in the audience and at the podium for too many programs on this issue to count. Invariably, the discussion seems to highlight the differences among parties on both sides of the issue. But maybe there doesn't have to be sides….

We've been listening - really listening - to what is being said at these meetings and what's being written on blogs such as this one. Undeniably, there are philosophical differences between our group and others about the nature and magnitude of the solution(s) to the health care issues facing our state, but there is also common ground.

We're not Pollyannaish about politics. Health care is a huge issue this session.

So, where will the issue be when the dust settles? 

Last week, we sent a letter to the state legislature encouraging them to introduce legislation to require greater transparency in health care pricing. Along with our letter, we sent to them a copy of legislation that was adopted in Minnesota last year and recently implemented.

As we've listened to the health care debate, we've heard from almost everyone that transparency is a good thing and that it is an important part of any effort to control rising health care costs. It's a pretty simple concept, really - tell us what it costs before we purchase health care services, not after.

Information is a powerful tool in the marketplace, regardless of whose dollars are ultimately being spent.

We know that transparency is just one of several areas where progress can and should be made this legislative session.  The Wisconsin Tea Party will, in the weeks and months ahead, continue to forward suggestions to the legislature. The time for the legislature to act is now.

 

Jeffrey Beiriger is the executive director of the Wisconsin Tea Party. For more information, visit www.wisconsinteaparty.org.

We are in the midst of what should be an earnest debate about just what our healthcare system should look like, how it should be funded and how it should be delivered.

Unfortunately, this debate has begun as a political debate and it continues as a political debate. That is ludicrous, since a politician, other than maybe for those few politicians who are health care providers, has never helped a person in need of health care.  Health care is neither Democratic nor Republican.

If and when Healthy Wisconsin is removed from the Democrat budget and re-introduced as a free-standing bill, maybe the debate can continue. As it stands today, there remain many unanswered questions. Whenever a Republican raises a question or makes a critical comment, the too-often-heard response is … "Where is your plan?"

That doesn’t change the fact that the unanswered questions remain unanswered. It simply serves to cause the "debate" to further degenerate.

We are witnesses to the plans espoused by Barack, Mitt, Hillary, Fred, John and the rest. They are not medically nor otherwise qualified to tell us what we should and shouldn’t be doing about reforming our health care system. They are politicians.

Unfortunately, politicians tell us whatever they think we want to hear. They view the polls from yesterday and set course with their talking points for today. They move money from one group to a more favored group.

That is not what we need. We need reasoned discourse. We need solid plans from all quarters that can withstand public debate in the full light of day. The informed public can then tell our politicians what we want and need … not the reverse.

We do need to hear from all sides without the volume turned on high. We are sufficiently knowledgeable so as to make good decisions. We need to study the good, the bad and the ugly … and yes, we can tell the difference. We need not repeat the mistakes made by others. We do need to learn from those mistakes. 

We need to understand while we have the best health care system on earth today, it can be improved. It can be improved without completely destroying what we have today. We are the envy of the world, but you wouldn’t know that if you only listened to the political mutterings.

We need to bring the cost of health care under control. We need to determine if employers will continue to make plans available or if individual plans will take over, or if the combination of those two approaches is the answer.

We need to realistically look at every state-mandated coverage item. Maybe we need to embrace a "menu-driven" premium system that would permit the individual to make his or her buying decision based upon actual or perceived needs. That alone could reduce premium costs by 20 percent or more.

We need to review the tax advantages offered to employers but denied to individuals. Maybe it is time for that playing field to be leveled and for the two approaches to be commingled.

We need to recall what insurance was originally intended to do. That was quite simply to be the safety net for the unfortunate few who suffered major or catastrophic health care costs. It was never intended for first dollar coverage until recently.

There are aspects of most every plan proffered that are good. That is the good news. Not everything that is good for us is incorporated in any one plan. That suggests that a single program will never fit every individual properly. That further suggests that a menu-driven system might well be a solution for many who are unable or unwilling to insure themselves today.

We know that we want everyone to have access to health care, but should they be able to wait until they have cancer to buy insurance and begin paying their share? With "guaranteed issue," we encourage just that. That means that all who are insured too soon have been penalized by those who wait until they’re diagnosed with a major illness. Is that really what we want? Won’t we eventually see almost everyone waiting for the day they’re diagnosed with something beyond the common cold?

We want to be welcoming to the immigrants who are working diligently to earn their position as citizens of our great country, but should the illegals be accorded the same gratuitous health care benefits?

Some 11,000 births per year alone occur in Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas, to illegal immigrant mothers. Some have had as many as three children in that same hospital. Is that what we want for our health care system? Who do we think is paying those charges? Isn’t it us?

We want everyone to be able have health care insurance coverage, but should everyone be paying the same price for their coverage? If they are abusing themselves health-wise, are they not also abusing all those who are consciously working to keep themselves as healthy as possible?

The oft-mentioned solution is called "community rating." That smoothes all costs over the entire population in the plan. That also means that virtually everyone is either paying too much or too little. Is that a proper solution if one doesn’t want to see income redistribution, or is it a proper use of income redistribution?

Is it not the responsibility of every citizen and legal immigrant to take charge of his or her own well-being? Is that not the American way?  What about the grasshopper in Aesop’s Fable who fiddles while the ants lay up the store of food for the winter? Should the grasshopper get a free ride?

How is it that we should rely on government to do for us when we can do for ourselves quite nicely? Is there any doubt we individuals can do better for ourselves than the government can do for all of us? Are we not individuals with individual wants and needs? Since when did a "one size fits all" approach to health care make any sense?

Do we want an income redistribution approach to health care, or do we want the profit motive at work to assure that we can find the best caregivers for our needs, given our ability to pay? Do we want a government panel making judgments as to what is covered and what isn’t covered and making decisions about what is rationed because money is in short supply? The marketplace is taking care of that now and has been since the inauguration of our health care system. We call it supply and demand in its most simplistic form. That happens with or without health insurance.

Do we want to interrupt, with price controls, the development of most new medicines and treatment regimens and equipment, or do we want the private sector to continue to risk huge investments in hopes of scoring a big new discovery that repays the risk taken by a thousand-fold or more?

What system of socialized medicine can we find that is better than the system we already have? If the answer is that there is no such system, then might we be further ahead to look at reforming our current system to better suit the needs of the 21st century? Are we smarter to build on the shoulders of those who have gone before, or is it better to scrap everything and begin anew?

Should we approach the changes we believe to be necessary incrementally? That would safeguard our current system while we strive to find improvements. Is that not better than simply closing the doors on the old system one day, and hoping that the next morning will bring those improvements we had hoped to see?

It is time for saner minds to prevail. This is a terribly complex set of issues with unintended consequences running rampant. There seems little, if anything, to be gained by scrapping the present system and embarking on a journey in quest of something better when there is no proof it will be better. To the contrary, there appears to be emerging proof that it would not be better.

There is everything to be gained by improving the present system, thus protecting all that is good, while searching out those improvements that will make the difference … that will give us that which we think we need in our healthcare world…not that which we’re being told we need as is now the case.

Alan Campbell is a licensed insurance intermediary who has been involved in a wide range of health care industry positions in more than 34 years in the industry. He is a former president of the Wisconsin Health Underwriters Association and is president of United Resource Group, a company providing online enrollment services for agents and their employer clients.
 
Editor's note: Be a blogger …
Is there an issue that you feel passionate about? Share your thoughts with the readers of Small Business Times by writing an entry in the Milwaukee Biz Blog. Just e-mail your blog entry, and a digital head-and-shoulder photo (if you have one) to SBT executive editor Steve Jagler at steve.jagler@biztimes.com.

I have purposely remained on the sidelines regarding the Healthy Wisconsin health care tax initiative. I assumed that this idea would eventually flame out as people much smarter than me debated the merits and exposed the fact that the initiative is fiscally and pragmatically flawed.

We are now in mid-September, and this initiative still has strong support. So, here are a couple more reasons, from a small-business person's perspective, why this program will be bad for business here in Wisconsin.

Because I know it so well, I am using Scheibel Halaska Inc. (SH) as an example:

The Healthy Wisconsin overview on the Wisconsin State Senate Democratic website lists "Levels the playing field among competing businesses" as one of the top five reasons why this is a good idea. A good idea for who? Our competition for the best employees?

SH is owned by two baby boomers who grew up in the 1960's and still have a "help your fellow man" perspective. As such, we have purposefully built a corporate culture and employee benefit program that is continuously focused on taking care of as many of our employees' fundamental human concerns as possible, which includes offering health insurance to all full-time employees.

SH has found this to be a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining the best employees. This initiative legislates one of our competitive advantages right out of existence.

The premium-sharing percentages will financially penalize almost all of our employees.  The total insurance tax percentage of this initiative is 14.5 percent. Employees pay for 4 percentage points of this initiative, or 27.6 percent of the total cost. A majority of our employees elect single coverage, for which they only pay 10 percent of the total premiums. This initiative is going to triple the cost of health care to a large portion of our employees.

Government has a long history of failing to effectively manage large-scale social services programs - we need only look at Social Security and Medicare for grounding for this statement. Why will this initiative be different? If history repeats itself, 14.5 percent of Social security earnings is only the ante.

In previous editions of the Milwaukee Biz Blog, SBT executive editor Steve Jagler and health care benefits consultant Dick Tillmar have commented that Wisconsin's businesspeople need to quit whining and start offering alternatives. It is in this spirit that I offer these two suggestions:

1. Mandate this initiative for any employer who is not currently offering health insurance benefits to its employees. This will definitely level the playing field for people who compete within the Wisconsin marketplace.
2. Allow employers who currently offer health insurance benefits to choose to participate (or not) in this initiative - now and into the future. If this initiative actually is as good of an idea as the Wisconsin State Senate Democrats say it is, aren't we going to end up in the same place anyways?

I am all in favor of creative thinking and bold initiatives with regard to solving the health care situation in Wisconsin, especially within southeastern Wisconsin. However, "off-the-wall ideas" are not the same as "out-of-the-box thinking."

 

John Scheibel is the chief executive officer of Scheibel Hlaska Inc. in Milwaukee.

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.

Operating a small business under our present health care system in Wisconsin is a challenge. When you make the commitment to run a shop here and think of your employees like family, you make a promise to them for their medical insurance needs.

That is not an easy promise to keep, as we have found at Park Printing. Next year, the cost for our employee health insurance will go up 42 percent.

Park Printing has been operating in Wisconsin for 55 years. We are the face of Wisconsin small business, but the prospect of such a significant increase in our health insurance threatens our very existence.
Our choices are minimal and all very difficult. We can reduce the benefit. We currently pay 80 percent and hope to keep our loyal employees. If we lose our skilled workers, it will be extremely difficult to replace them. Another option is to absorb the increased cost and offer no employee raises for three years (or more?). This option is certainly not good for the local economy or our employee morale and does not allow for any expected increase in health care costs in future years. Yet another option is to pass the costs along to our customers, potentially sending them elsewhere for their printing needs.

The printing business is highly competitive. Holding onto our customers while keeping a highly skilled group of employees and meeting the health care needs of our business has become more than just a challenge.

We are at an impasse and can no longer be the "responsible employer" - balancing the needs of our employees and the business - without significant consequences. Because we are responsible, caring members of our community, we retain our employees for many years with very low turnover. This means we have an aging workforce, which is hugely penalized by the health insurance industry.
Something needs to be done to reform the health insurance and health care system.

If we want to maintain strong small business, paying solid wages with benefits to all employees, a change must occur. That is why I am supporting Healthy Wisconsin. I did the math. Healthy Wisconsin is currently the best prescription for Wisconsin business. To be sure, it may need some tweaking down the road, but Guttenberg didn't invent the digital press either …

I know there is no easy answer, but it is time to make the difficult decisions and move ahead for a health care system that everyone in Wisconsin can benefit from. When the politicians see the end of the road as they argue about the state finances, that road should end with fundamental change in how we pay for health care in Wisconsin.

If it doesn't, they have not done their job. Small businesses and Wisconsin's people need their help … NOW!

 

Greg Bass is president of Park Printing House Ltd. in Verona, which has been in business in Wisconsin for 55 years.