What's new(s)in the Insurance World?

Opinion

On the Role of Government in Health Care

by Mitch Palmer, RHU July 2006

In order to determine what path this country should be taking relative to the ongoing health care predicament, the collective order of this country should be to retrace our steps back to the fundamentals. Our founding fathers prided themselves on developing a foundation comprised of the Bill of Rights, personal liberty, competitive free-enterprise, and all the freedoms that we freely enjoy without governmental intervention.

I think it would be a safe bet to presume that those who were at the beginning of our national heritage had no way of knowing what issues would be at our doorsteps 225 years hence. It was beyond anyone’s comprehension to envision a health insurance system that was sick and in disrepair. However, what they did understand was the development of the freedoms that we have today and that millions have given their lives defending such freedoms.

The young government of the late 1700s could never envision the country that we live in today. With all the issues of the day demanding our attention, do we want the government intruding in our lives any more than they already are under our present public policy? We truly enjoy all of our freedoms, and certainly this country should never consider changing the moral compass with which we all have been blessed in our lifetime. The issues of the day are truly complex, and there are no simple answers to make any blanket statements. This country has divergent opinions, a multitude of ethnic diversities, religious pluralism, political free-enterprise -- the list could go on ad infinitum.

In determining whatever course of action, the one ever-present issue that echoes with a repetitive mantra is “How much will it cost and who will pay for it?” If the state paid for every citizen’s health care at 100% of the cost, you would see many states on the verge of bankruptcy. But the current system needs help in order for more people to be reached by a system that, for the most part, has worked.

Now, not everyone needs to be helped as there are citizens who can well afford their insurance and the treatment it allows them to receive when needed. The state has current programs that enable citizens to receive care and medicines—some that provide services at no cost. Obviously, there are certain “tests” that recipients must “pass” in order to participate in many of the programs. Illinois has many such programs already in existence, but some have not been very well publicized. Shame on the state for that error of omission.

As we all know, the system of health care that we all enjoy is not without its flaws. The system of private enterprise is supported by most people but, at the same time, they readily suggest that health insurance costs too much and that everyone should be covered, never mentioning the harsh realities of cost. “Let someone else pay for it!” or “The government should pay for it!” If we depended upon the government to bail us out of this dilemma, we would be waiting a very, very long time. We should solve the problem at the local or state level, but keep what we have developed since World War II.

Okay, so what should we do? Remember, no simple answers. In Illinois, there are plans in progress to expand programs and provide access and affordability to those segments of the population that have been hit hardest financially and those that have been denied access for any number of reasons. In the fall, the Health Care Justice Act committee must report back to the state legislature with some recommendations as to how the system can best be fixed, or perhaps “remodeled” is a better word. However, there are several overriding issues in Illinois that are not unique to the Midwestern state.

First, the state is in the red as far as the financial picture is concerned. Deficit spending is the crying mantra these days and, while the bleeding does not seem to be subsiding, plans to spend money that is not available are being thrown around like darts to a dartboard. The current administration seems to think that Illinois must be the cornerstone and precedent-setting state when it comes to the health delivery system-wide problem. While I applaud and respect the initiative, I question the logic behind the actions.

Second, legislation that is pending addresses the cost issue by adding another tax (SB 2561) to health insurance premiums. If this legislation becomes law, costs will increase for the consumer because carriers will not want to “eat” the entire increase. You will also see some carriers exit the state. This would be very regrettable as the business climate has been quite good of late.

Third, this is a gubernatorial election year. In November, the Illinois electorate will go the polls. I predict that this will be a very close race, and it could get quite nasty. However, because the challenger is a woman, the political mudslinging typically seen in an election year may not get as ugly. Given that it is an election year, the legislative decisions normally considered will be delayed or bogged down in political red tape.

With this political landscape as the current backdrop, and as the campaigning becomes more heated, the Health Care Justice Act might be a bit more hollow in substance. The issues still remain in the forefront, and politics will always be a part of the “soap opera theatrics” but, as ludicrous as it becomes, genuine legislative intent is thwarted from its true form, and it is watered down until the election dust clouds move off to reveal the clear picture and the new political players.

While the political neophyte might believe that both sides of the aisle will all get along after each election, the realities are that differences will remain, and actual issues will remain unsolved. While health care should not be a political issue, we all know it most certainly is a political hot potato.

So what it really comes to is this: If the federal government determines that the states cannot address the health delivery system issues at hand, then it will legislate federal direction that will clog an already-overburdened system, and health care across the country—let alone each state—may very well crash and burn. The original conceivers of free enterprise, business competition, and freedom of choice may not have envisioned our societal ills, but their concepts continue to make this country great, and continue to be part of the solution. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mitch Palmer is a 30-year veteran of the insurance industry. He is a past-president of Chicago & Northeast Illinois AHU and is currently the legislative chair of the Chicago Southland AHU. He is the vice president, life/health/employee benefits at Boyle, Flagg & Seaman Inc. with offices in Oak Forest and Tinley Park, IL. Mitch earned his B.A. from the University of Illinois-Chicago in 1973 and his M.S., Ed. from Eastern Illinois University in 1976. He can be reached at 708-429-6300.

This article is reprinted here with permission form HIU Magaazne .