Note from Erick: Senator Hill submitted this to the AJC in response to one of the AJC columnists, Jay Bookman. The AJC told him it needed to be a 200 word letter to the editor. I’m posting the entirety of it here under his name.
Once again, Jay Bookman skews the facts of legislation to suit his own liberal tendencies. My proposed Constitutional Amendment does not prevent Georgians from having health care choices. The Constitutional Amendment will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices, whatever their choice may be. This is needed because threats of single–payer health care or an individual/employer mandate are not unique to Washington, DC. Fourteen states have introduced legislation calling for single-payer or a form of government payer health care. The Health Care Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment ensures this will never be the case in Georgia.
We believe the states are better equipped to reform health care. So, what role should Washington play? Congress should create an environment in which the free market can flourish. Congress should remove regulatory and legal barriers that restrict states from creating more competitive insurance markets. The taxing of individual insurance should be eliminated so everyone can save money and buy insurance with before tax dollars. Currently, only employer sponsored plans are able to utilize the before tax option. In addition, the federal government can act as a back-up or safety net for those who need more assistance such as participants in Medicare, Medicaid and PeachCare. Otherwise, let the States handle reform.
Bookman has chosen to attack a bill that never came out of committee three years ago. Several years ago a few states were considering offering a health insurance marketplace where individuals and businesses would be allowed to review and purchase health insurance. This was proposed as a potential mechanism to offer portability of insurance and avoid denials for pre-existing conditions when you changed jobs. After Massachusetts’ experiment with a version of the exchange concept many states, including Georgia, looked to other free market solutions. We don’t support individual or government mandates but rather freedom to choose both a health care provider and insurance plan that you want, and thus propose a Constitutional Amendment to preserve those freedoms.
Let’s clear up the issue of a health insurance exchange. There is a HUGE difference between a voluntary state-based exchange and a national health insurance exchange. For one, states (not the federal government) are the primary regulators of health insurance. It is within the regulatory authority of states for states to set up an insurance exchange or marketplace. It is absolutely out of bounds for the federal government to do so. Second, the national health insurance exchange, combined with the public plan, is a lethal combination. It creates a scenario where the government simultaneously plays regulator and competitor. This is like going to a football game and the referee owning one of the teams. Senate Bill 28 did not set up such a scenario. The Bill merely allowed private companies to come together in a common marketplace to sell insurance products; no government option was involved. It did not change the rules of the game in order to win, which is what the national health insurance exchange and the public plan could do.
If Bookman would spend more time focusing on what Georgians really want and less time on legislation that never even came out of committee, then he may realize that Georgians want the freedom to choose their healthcare providers, and they want to be protected against some government bureaucrat deciding what’s best for them and their families. If we begin with this concept then healthcare reform can truly offer more affordable, high quality accessible coverage for every Georgian.
{ 56 comments }
Sen. Hill,
Thank you for taking the time to write to the AJC regarding your thoughts on health industry financing reform.
Here is a very simple question regarding Georgia’s ability to provide its’ citizens with adequate, minimal access to affordable health insurance:
Alabama, and other States offer its’ citizens ‘high risk pool’ policies where those folks with pre-existing conditions can buy into a State plan for a reasonable fee.
“Why has Georgia set up, but not funded, a State ‘high risk pool’ policy for its’ citizens?”
Each year this comes before the legislature, and each time, the funding is denied.
Thank you for the courtesy of a reply,
Mr. B. Balz
Great question!!!
Hello, Sen. Hill.
Do you really believe we need a state constitutional amendment to invoke a federal constitutional amendment? In the same vein, do you really believe a state constitutional amendment will somehow trump the commerce clause in the federal constitution?
Do you really believe that the bill you introduced that died in committee isn’t worthy of associating with its authors?
the national health insurance exchange, combined with the public plan, is a lethal combination. It creates a scenario where the government simultaneously plays regulator and competitor.
Are you saying that insuring veterans and the elderly — both of which are public options that compete with private industry — is a “lethal combination” or is it just lethal when everyone can get into the game equally?
Finally, if you stop spending all that time trying to think up labels for people who disagree with you — let’s see, what can we call you? — then you might have more time to think up a way to cover 100% of Georgians instead of the screwed up system we have today. Good luck with that.
Sincerely,
ByteMe.
Once again very good questions!!!
No answers, but great questions.
Well the bill (SB28) never got out of committee because Senator Hudgens wouldn’t let it out of committee. So what did Hill do? He split up the bill into 5 or 6 bills to try to get them passed one at a time.
As far as his “exchange,” that would have put every single insurance agent selling health insurance out of business.
I also see that Hill didn’t address his provision to require everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fee/tax/penalty.
Proof that the committee system works
A classic non-denial denial.
Hill did write both bills, and they are contradictory. Nolo contendere.
Also, this response is dishonest in that it proclaims the amendment would protect choices- making the assumption that a national plan would “prevent Georgians from having…choices “, which is false.
Also, Hill refers to a “national health insurance exchange” but ignores HR3200, Title II, Section 208: OPTIONAL OPERATION OF STATE-BASED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES.
We may not like the idea of a government bureaucrat deciding what’s best for us, but that is less likely to happen under HR3200 than the insurance company stock price watching bean counters who would be doing it under less regulation.
I agree, states are better equiped to reform healthcare. States can not address cost issues as much.
Also, where is this single payer line coming from? The two bills going through Congress (I know there are 5 or 6, but the 4 GOP bills are nonsense) do not propose a single payer system.
Back to the state thing…I think the biggest problem is that states have consistently worked to do nothing about healthcare reform. In fact, most of Judson Hill’s campaign contributions come from the healthcare business community. Publicly these companies want reform, privately they are undermining any attempt at it. Profit incentives are what are at play.
Like Judson Hill, the healthcare industry does not care about the quality of heathcare that is provided. They only care about profit margins.
Our government, state or federal, is not contracted (by this I mean social contract) to act in the interests of the healthcare industry. They are contracted by us, through democratic elections, to represent our interests. This is where the problems of healthcare reform come to play.
Since 1933, every President has had a healthcare reform discussion amongst their advising staff. All but two Presidents addressed, head on, the idea of reforming the healthcare system. The problem we keep running into is an ideological one. For some reason, too many Americans believe that what is good for business is good for the People.
In a generation or two, these feeling may not exist…but we have got to make it that far to know. Most of these feelings are bred out of indoctrination encouraged during the Cold War. I ask you though, if it is good for business…is it good for the People. The defaulting on pension funds has never helped the People…but it helped business. Lax airline security never helped the People…but it helped business. Using toxic chemicals in the production of toys-food helped business…but not the People. We can keep going on…but it think the point is made.
The point, in regards to healthcare, is a bit different…but not all to much. Much of the federal legislation deals with similar concepts: rescinding policies doesn’t help people, but it helps business…denying coverage for preexisting conditions doesn’t help people, but it helps business, etc.
Also, you people seem to not get it. The public option is one of some 100 options. If you enroll in the federal program there are going to be 100+ private options and one federal option. You people are acting like this bill nationalizes healthcare. It doesn’t. Everything in the bill is voluntary.
The proposed Obamacare…
1) doesn’t really control costs;
2) doesn’t really provide a politically feasible means to pay for the public option or any other option. Da money.
Harry, there are several revenue streams that can be manipulated to pay for this. The premiums people pay for their insurance will still cover their costs, as now. Besides that, there are fees that employers pay into a fund, fees that some individuals pay into a fund, fees that insurers pay into a fund, and maybe some other stuff too I think.
Good luck trying to pass medical welfare costs directly to employers and employees as a “voluntary” program. It’s a tax bill, is what it is. Either that, or it will end up same as Medicare and Medicaid – that is, not adequately funded.
Democrats need to understand that one gets what one pays for. People who pay for something certainly don’t want to stand in the same line with those who get it free. There’s really no free lunch, as every socialist system has discovered sooner or later.
Harry, employers and employees are paying for it now anyway. These are attempts to find less expensive and more justifiable ways to pay for it.
For one, Harry, this is not socialist.
Two, Medicare was fine until Bush and the GOP passed an unfunded prescription drug plan in 2003.
And no, you don’t get what you pay for. Americans are not getting what they pay for. Americans are spending an average of $8500 per person per year. That is aggregated across the population and weighted by the life expectancy.
That is the nature of the insurance business though.
You know, maybe its too early, but I am going to go ahead and quote Irving Kristol: “The enemy of liberal capitalism today is not so much socialism as nihilism.”
Over 500,000 people file bankruptcy each year due to medical bills. these aren’t just poor people…these are people with 6 figure salaries too. When the capitalist sentiment develops the “screw them” theme…we are in trouble.
Voluntary including the $2,500 fine for an employer not offering healthcare?
If you found out that it would cut your health insurance costs by a similar amount — because you’re spreading the costs to all the people currently getting treatment without paying — would that make it seem like a better deal to you?
The deal isn’t the issue. GC stated it was voluntary. I am saying it’s not.
Ah. I think he meant it was voluntary to get your insurance from these organizations, not that larger employers paying for insurance for people was going to be voluntary.
Or maybe you already knew that.
I was just looking at the word voluntary relating to something coming from the federal government. If it’s truly voluntary, why pass a law at all?
Because otherwise it wouldn’t exist as an option at all?
The public option is voluntary.
You can go with any of the dozens upon dozens of private insurers that are going to participate in the program.
The fines are not $2500. There will probably be a system of fines in the final bill, but we are a ways from that. Remember, there are two (technically 3) serious bills going through congress.
There are plenty of tax credits in the bill that will allow the uninsured to better afford the policies offered by the federal program (private insurers and the public option). These credits will be available to individuals and employers.
Again, there are several things that need hammered out. President Obama is not in favor of the idea of fining people for not being insured.
I know alot of you claim to be business people. Well, Congress works much like any negotiation. You start high so you have a starting point to negotiate from. It would be foolish to step up to the negotiating table with the bare minimum final product.
Piling many more high-maintenance consumers into the pool with low-maintenance folks will not cut any costs for the low-maintenance people (most of whom have already taken responsibility for their health). On the contrary, the costs to us low-maintenance folks will increase. Somebody has to pay for all this, baby.
Meanwhile the increasing provider charges go unaddressed. With the exception of surgeons’ fees, the medical costs that break a family do not come from doctor billings; they come from high-tech medical tests or just regular low-tech medical tests ordered over and over and from hospitializations, in which one day in an ICU can break an uninsured family with no backup. Then of course there are the expensive medications many must have or are told they must have. I know a number of elderly people who are on 7 to 10 medications.
Japan has a lid on provider charges; and ER care, among other services, is reportedly bad. The Japanese doctors won’t subject themselves to the stressful conditions for what they regard as low pay. Primary care in Japan is like an assembly line, they say, so that doctors can see as many patients and obtain as much reimbursement as possible. I would argue that our system is already like this, the assembly line, but I guess it could get worse.
Make no mistake: any talk of backing away from public option distracts from the fact that Obama and the Democrats have a public plan they will push through: further expansion of Medicaid to cover more middle-income people. No competion with private insurance there? Well, some or many middle-comers will take steps to drop their incomes into the Medicaid brackets. Some mothers will quit work and stay home with the kids. Some men and women will quit jobs they hate that they’ve been hanging on to just for health insurance. After all, there is a magic well. For some. For many others, we will get none of the water and all of the bills.
And we’ll see a wonderful (in many ways; not saying reform in provider and insurance costs is not needed) health care system blown up for nothing, because the path we are on and the path the Democrats propose are unsustainable. There is simply no magic well in a country in which those paying in are being outnumbered by those taking out.
You’re only “low maintenance” until a lump is found. Then you’re not.
“Somebody has to pay”.
We’re already paying. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
We are already paying. We are trying to find a less expensive way to pay.
There are 40 million uninsured, but there are not 40 million who don’t get healthcare. Everybody gets healthcare if it’s an emergency.
Like the path set up by the GOP is sustainable.
Allowing capitalist economic philosophy to govern the health care industry was the problem from the get go.
We may very well have passed the point of no return.
Like the bailout last year, this is not going to fix all problems over night. This is step one in a decade long recovery.
Sen. Hill,
We strongly encourage you to oppose any reform. We can and will police ourselves.
Sincerely,
Insurance Industry.
Sen. Hill,
That goes double for us. We promise to be good boys.
Sincerely,
The Banking Industry.
Who said this? ” We are five days away from fundamentaly trnfrming America.”
Sorry, transforming
Steven Spielberg?
Nah. The guys who made that new Transformers Movie… who were they again?
Yeah, that was Spielberg, and Michael bay.
Michael Bay will burn in eternal hellfire for making me sit through Transformers II. (Yes, I was forced. There was no public option for another competitive, government produced movie.)
The kids dragged me to the I-max version. Sucky and expensive
Ok, now I know who to blame for that.
Nope..time’s up. It was Barak H. (Hussein) Obama 5 days prior to being elected President.
Obama was behind Transformers 2?
Well, that certainly explains all the pissed off people at town hall meetings…duh!
I thought all those pissed off people at town halls — you know, the ones who are over 65 saying they want government out of Medicare, those people in particular — were just the left end of the intelligence bell curve. I didn’t realize they also wanted to blame Obama for Transformers 2.
Next question. Who is we?
@DonnaLocke
You stated: ” Piling many more high-maintenance consumers into the pool with low-maintenance folks will not cut any costs for the low-maintenance people (most of whom have already taken responsibility for their health). On the contrary, the costs to us low-maintenance folks will increase. Somebody has to pay for all this, baby.”
Cong Price is supporting a bill that allows inter-state, high risk pools to allow larger groups of folks with pre-existing conditions to come together, ostensibly to share and keep costs manageable. I think that makes some sense, but if GA were to opt out of a Federal program, even one that made sense, we’d be punishing ourselves.
@Goldwater You make an excellent point: Big Governmet used to police Big Business, now they are partners with consumers at risk.
“All we have fought for in this Revolution shall be lost if large corporations and banks are allowed to control.” (Terribly paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson)
Health care reform will not control costs because the political incentive will be to expand coverage and lower out of pocket costs for the “middle class” with each election cycle.
Except that a hundred other countries are already doing it. Are we less capable than them?
Why do you hate America?
benevolus
Look at history.
Social Security was originally a 2% (split between the employee and employer) tax on those working in manufacturing only when it was started. Benefits were supposed to be based on contributions and available funds. The system was quickly changed to one of defined benefits without regards to available funds or contributions. Over the years politicians bought senior votes by continually expanding benefits. The tax has increased 700% and now it prevents the average American from saving for retirement.
Likewise the income tax was supposed to be a small tax on the wealthiest American. Now it is a huge monster that impacts the lives of everyone. The great society was supposed to have ended poverty by now. Unfortunately all it has done is create a permanent lower class that is dependent on the government.
Medicare has 100′s of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse every year according the President. So why would we expect anything different from health care reform?
Perhaps you’re right. If we can’t do it perfectly, we shouldn’t even try.
The thing is, we can do this. It is appropriate for government to do such things. It doesn’t matter what political philosophy you ascribe to (ok…if you are an anarcho-capitalist then it does) this is an appropriate function of government. Many things the democrats have been doing over the past several months are.
I will use Irving Kristol again (for the sake of the neocons): his Public Interest states, rather clearly (I use the language of John Rawls rather than Kristol), that the government is justified in stepping in when markets move past the Paretian equilibrium. We have been past this equilibrium for far to long in several industries. Energy, finance, health care, higher education…the list is not as long as most liberals think…but it is much longer than most conservatives think. This is a result of the nihilism of capitalism…aka Market capitalism (as opposed to social capitalism).
We are a nation. We are Americans. We are a society. We are not 300million utility maximizing agents competing for scarce resources. Do you jobs and do them well. That is all that is required of you in the capitalist tradition. If you were a utility maximizing agent you: one, would not blog. two, probably wouldn’t vote. three, actually research before making political decisions. Glenn Beck, Boortz, hannity, olberman. etc…these are not sources of information. You would actually sit down and evaluate the costs avoided, costs eliminated, benefits derived and perceived benefits to derive from the next session, compare those statistics with the same statistics (subsituting action for rhetoric and history for the challenging candidate) before casting a vote. And 97% of you would vote democratic in 2010. 2012 might be a different story.
No, redistribution of income such as we have seen lately and such as that proposed is not a legitimate, reasonable, or equitable function of our government. We are in these messes because government did not perform its true functions, that is it did not protect and promote the welfare of all by reasonable regulation and oversight. Instead our government, our career politicians, allowed and invited corruption and corporate/industry influence — greased political favoritism that has altered market forces to the degree that government intervention/takeover is now not only tolerated but worshiped.
One other thing — these proposed tax credits for health insurance buys are not actual TAX credits. For many recipients, they would be like the “Earned Income” Tax Credit: straight welfare payouts from the incomes of other taxpayers, not a refund to the recipient of any income the low- or no-income recipient paid in or would ever owe as tax.
“We are in these messes because government did not perform its true functions, that is it did not protect and promote the welfare of all by reasonable regulation and oversight. Instead our government, our career politicians, allowed and invited corruption and corporate/industry influence — greased political favoritism that has altered market forces to the degree that government intervention/takeover is now not only tolerated but worshiped.”
Very true. That’s what congress needs to address, not another centralized, collectivist welfare program.
Here’s what’s happened in Massachusetts with their mandatory health system (from WBZ radio, Boston):
1. MA now has a serious shortage of OB/GYNs, Urologists, Internal Medicine specialists, Dermatologists, surgeons, and others. Doctors are fleeing MA’s insane politics and taxes. Criminal aliens are choking the system (signs in MA hospitals now have to be in NINE languages, and every illegal gets assigned a tax-paid translator at the hospital).
2. The estimated cost has been shown to have been – ahem – “a bit low.” It is now costing Massachusetts upwards of $ 1.3 billion a year, four time the original estimated cost, and cost growth continues to explode (related fact the Globe didn’t bother to mention: MA is currently $2.1 billion in the red – most of it from universal healthcare). As the Globe socialists reluctantly admit, this “is not sustainable.” (Duh!)
3. Even after all that, the program is unaffordable to many, in that as much as 32% of the under-the-table salary earned by a criminal alien may have to be paid towards his family’s health coverage, and he may even have to be responsible for copays! (the horror!)
Goldwater,
The irony is that the government has been the primary contributor to market imbalances in each of your listed areas. The exploration and production of oil and gas has long been viewed as a national interest; thus the oil industry has received substantial favorable tax treatment over the decades.
Everyone has forgotten the root cause of the financial crisis was sub-prime loans. Sub-prime loans were made to carry out a national public interest policy of expanding home ownership. Sub-primes were enabled by Federal loan guarantees; remember that Country Wide (the face of sub-primes) was Fannie Mae’s largest customer.
Medicare and requiring employer provided health care insurance along with state regulations and mandatory coverage are the root causes of our health care crisis. The aging population will start to accelerate this crisis. Higher education is primary dominated by the State University systems; not sure how you can even consider this to be a market based problem.
Everyone has forgotten the root cause of the financial crisis was sub-prime loans
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Let us know when you get out of talking points school and can explain how the foreclosures all up and down the Florida coastline in million dollar condos was because of “subprime loans”.
If you can tie it in to how the bond rating agencies were colluding with the investment banks, how the big six investment banks were allowed by the Bush SEC to leverage their book up to 30:1 (when banks are supposed to never go above 12:1), and how the largely unregulated independent mortgage companies got away with writing loans they knew would fail after they sold them to an investment house to bundle and resell to some other unsuspecting schmuck, then maybe you can rejoin the class.
Byteme,
All those issue are really just a bunch of noise. Have you ever wondered why these lenders and mortgage companies would extend loans to someone they knew cannot pay it back? Have you ever wondered why investment bankers and foreign governments would buy the same loans in the secondary market?
The answer is real simple Fannie Mae derived revenue from “.. assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans”.
In other words Wall Street received all the rewards whereas Fannie Mae absorbed all the risks. This the holy grail of finance – receiving a return in excess of the risk taken.
Why was this allowed to happen?
“The U.S. Congress chartered Fannie Mae and certain other GSEs to help ensure stability and liquidity within the secondary mortgage market. In addition, we believe our activities and those of other GSEs help lower the costs of borrowing in the mortgage market, which makes housing more affordable and increases homeownership, especially for low- to moderate-income families. We believe our activities also increase the supply of affordable rental housing. ”
Read the Fannie Mae’s 2007 10-K. The root cause of the financial crisis is spelled out in the document.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=108360&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2NjYm4uMTBrd2l6YXJkLmNvbS94bWwvZmlsaW5nLnhtbD9yZXBvPXRlbmsmaXBhZ2U9NTQ5MzUwNCZkb2M9MSZudW09OQ%3d%3d
You are both are right. The government took the risk and credit swaps put the problem on steroids while the Bush, Clinton and lawmakers looked the other way and or promoted the irresponsible behavior.
But the American people also are responsible. Like the healthcare debate to many are willing to believe they can have a lifestyle without the price.
It’s not noise just because you’ve decided it’s noise. I really do understand what went on and why things were done and FNM was only one cog in the machine, but a really small one relative to the money that was being poured in by hedge funds (and investment banks creating off-book hedge funds that they ended up having to bring back on the books as the funds started to tank).
And the reason the independent mortgage brokers wrote the loans is because they got their money as long as the person paid for the first 90 days of the mortgage. After that, it wasn’t their problem, so they only had to be sure the mortgage got paid for a few months and then they sold the loan off to the investment banks who then rolled it into giant derivatives that the rating agencies decided were AAA even when they had a huge risk of default and that got pension funds and other banks (all over the world) to buy into them (they had to have that AAA rating to buy them and the investment banks paid the rating companies to make them AAA).
The amount of bad loans on FNM’s books was low compared to the derivatives and other bank bonds they bought to try and get better returns on their money. When the value of the banks tanked all at the same time, FNM was leveraged too high to be solvent. Same as BS, LEH, C, and BAC. The government guaranteed them all to keep the system running… because to let them die would have been more expensive.
So there’s your lesson for the day. You’re welcome.
And now back to the matter of the actual topic, which was Senator Lightweight’s constitutional amendment to invoke a constitutional amendment.
ByteMe,
I am not sure why do not believe Fannie Mae played a significant role in the financial crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee almost half the mortgages in the US. Geithner has stated that it might cost up to $400 Billion to bail out both firms and the tax payers will probably never be fully paid back.
Losses at both firms are predicted to continue through next year at least. The important point, however, is without the implicit Federal guarantee on their debt this whole mess would not have occurred in the first place.
I actually agree with John Konop in that everyone from the regulators to the current and past Presidents to the current and past leaders of congress to the bankers to Wall Street knew what was going on and the risks that were be taking. The political will was to encourage and extend the risk.
There was not the political will to control or stop the risks that lead to the crisis; which brings me back to my original comment that health care reform will not save costs because the politicians will continually work to expand coverage and lower the cost to the “middle class”. A constitutional amendment to keep Georgia out of the health care reform mess might be warranted.
It’s not that I don’t believe you. This has little to do with belief and more to do with facts. You worry about $400 billion. That’s peanuts compared to what the FDIC has insured that would have had to have been made up by taxpayers had they allowed all those investment banks to tank at once. At 30:1 leverage, an investment bank only needed to lose 3% of its investment base to lose their entire deposit base. The rest was borrowed money and that money gets paid back first.
Try trillions in deposits gone. And the FDIC by law would pick up the tab.
But you would be foolish to think that the FDIC is a bad thing, so I’m guessing you just didn’t grasp what their true liability was in this. Billions? That’s chicken feed if it keeps us from having to lay out trillions to make sure everyone’s bank account isn’t suddenly wiped out.
As for your last sentence, let me go back to the questions I asked at the top: Do you really think a state constitutional amendment is needed to invoke a federal constitutional amendment? Do you really believe that a state constitutional amendment somehow blocks the commerce clause in the federal constitutional? The lightweight politicians won’t answer, maybe you can.
I remember saving clips of Bush II quotes along the lines of get-people-into-homes-make-it-happen. Whatever it took. Clinton put out some of the same directives. I was saving the clips at the time because we were tracking the decisions to lend to illegal aliens. The eventual defaults cut across legal status, of course.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }