I braved the rain last Tuesday evening (Sept. 29th) to attend the health care town hall in Bellevue hosted by State Representative Doug Ericksen. There were about 35 people in the audience. Ericksen talked freely and with specificity about how the system works, current laws that affect it, and legislation that has been proposed to change it, some of it by him. He believes that government has a role in subsidizing low income individuals, assisting those with chronic and catastrophic conditions, ensuring greater transparency, guaranteeing portability and promoting access. Everyone in the audience seemed to agree with him.
Not surprisingly, his proposed solutions differ from the those of the Democrats'. Some solutions he supports on the federal level are: federal tax credit to individuals to purchase health insurance, eliminate the employer tax deduction, tort reform, increase health savings accounts, and allow purchase of health insurance across state lines. Some solutions he supports on the state level are: allow purchase of plans across state lines, change state mandates to allow a core (more limited) benefit plan, transform Washington's Basic Health Plan (an insurance program for low-income people not eligible for Medicaid) into a premium-subsidy program for ages 35 to 64, repeal two percent tax on insurance premium for HSAs, give small employers and self-employed individuals a tax credit for providing insurance. These proposals, and a few others, are spelled out in more detail on his slide deck presentation, available here.
Interestingly, all of the state proposals mentioned were in bills introduced in the last legislative session that never made it out of committee. Most never received a hearing. I would like to see more public debate between those state legislators that supported the bills and those that didn't. And I would like to hear more of Ericksen's ideas and proposals. During the meeting, there were references to the need to control costs, but little discussion about the moral hazard problem that is a major factor in creating it. A few quick words with him after the meeting revealed that he has also thought about that issue, but none of his proposed solutions take a direct aim at it.
Erickson has led town hall meetings in Bellingham, Richland and Yakima, and has scheduled future events in Burlington (Oct. 5) and Spokane (Oct. 7 and 17).
Btw, what does it mean to "eliminate the employer tax deduction"? In place of what?
Posted by: Michele on October 1, 2009 04:54 PMI think it's a fine idea (as long as you have a mandate and exchanges like the Obama plan) but is nearly impossible to pass.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 04:59 PMRight now, employers can deduct the cost of insurance benefits that they give to their employees. In contrast, individuals are not allowed to deduct the cost of their insurance. The idea is to equalize the playing field.
Posted by: Carter Mackley on October 1, 2009 05:16 PMBut hundreds of millions of people would be disrupted, so it'd be hard to pass.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 05:19 PMA federal mandate would give employers more leverage over workers since the negative consequences of losing benefits or the job are greater, especially in very tight labor market.
The Clinton health plan was/is all about a federal mandate which gives the health insurance providers a captive market with a sympathetic regulatory body that will allow them to lock in solid rates of return. The money people owning shares in the entire sector (including IT) don't do competition but rather collusion and cooperation between providers (streamlining). We'll have to wait and see what the lawmakers/regulators do with issues like preexisting or non-smoker or non-car or whatever. The providers will probably get plenty of leeway to screw with individuals lacking employer coverage. It's all about improving the bottom line of American employers.
I see the Selective Service System going active and those that can't hang with the mandate for what ever reason could get pulled in and given a job at 90-percent of minimum wage or military service which right now could use 5-10 million occupation troops in places like Central Asia...or South America...or Russia...or Iran...or Iraq.
--------------------------
"federal tax credit to individuals to purchase health insurance"
There is an inverse relationship of skills to number of dependents. Why should the middle class subsidize these people, and how does this reduce the federal budget deficit?
"eliminate the employer tax deduction"
Yes.
"tort reform"
LOL
"increase health savings accounts"
Ripoff. What kind of interest rate do you expect to get in a deflationary economy? Again, why should middle class taxpayers indirectly subsidize the insurance industry?
"purchase of health insurance across state lines"
Yeah, so what?
"transform Washington's Basic Health Plan"
It would make more sense for the feds to deal with that right now and allow the states to get rid of these programs.
"give small employers and self-employed individuals a tax credit for providing insurance"
Another indirect subsidy to the insurance industry courtesy of the taxpayer.
Posted by: donbless on October 2, 2009 01:12 AM-
And what Obama plan are you referring to?
-
But not for illegals, right? You're for them getting public education but against them getting public health insurance. Is that a correct statement?
Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 07:14 AMWhy is he there?
The world is obviously racist. I guess when you trash your country constantly, the world starts to believe you.
Posted by: Gary on October 2, 2009 08:19 AM