Comments on: “First Do No Harm To the Economy” by Jon B. Hurst

By: Jon Hurst

Jon Hurst — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:43:43 +0000

I agree with you Rueshambo1. There are some lessons to be learned from the recent reform of auto insurance in the state. New insurers have entered the market, and consumers are enjoying double digit premium reductions. On the other hand, we seem to still want to protect our “non-profit” local health insurers, and seem uninterested in fostering a competitive marketplace. Thus, we continue to have double digit increases in the health insurance marketplace, and have no insurers willing to do what is needed to represent and protect consumers. Rather they seem to merely go along with the outrageous annual increases of the hospitals and providers. It is a shame. Both auto insurance and health insurance are mandated, and health costs about ten times more per family. Yet we seem resigned to allowing one insurer to have about 50% of the marketplace–essentially a monopoly.
Jon Hurst

By: Rueshambo1

Rueshambo1 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:56:21 +0000

One of the ways fix the health insurance issues in MA would require bringing in more insurance companies to the state and make it a more competitive market. The best insurance companies aren’t in the state yet, especially in the individual market and the ones who are there run the market.

By: BillRandell

BillRandell — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:05:39 +0000

New Hampshire, last I heard, has hold off on their cig tax increase. They know that when Mass increases their cig tax by a buck a pack, their cig business will go through the roof and will collect more in tax revenues by tax increasing their rates.

What will the Commonwealth do when the projected revenues for the upcoming tax increase are not their?

Bill Randell

By: morgan

morgan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:49:09 +0000

“While we focus on lowering costs, we can’t just let the law mature as is. Without new revenue, the current path is unsustainable, and would crowd out vital state investments in education, infrastructure and other human services.”

Where is this new revenue going to come from? Already 62,000 potentially paying Commonwealth Care enrollees have been exempted by the state because they cannot affort the insurance. In other words, even though these folks supposedly earn enough to buy insurance through the Connector, they clearly have too many other financial obligations to be able to purchase coverage. As the state chases down the remaining 350,000 or so uninsureds who are supposed to be able to purchase insurance (but haven’t done so yet), it will have to grant many, many more folks financial exemptions. How many people will be exempt in the end….100,000, 200,000? And as Mr. Hurst points out in his article, putting the squeeze on small businesses could have as of yet unforeseen consequences on the economic climate in this state. Finally, is it realistic to believe that the state can find additional funding for this program while simultaneously lowering health insurance premiums? Already the newly insureds are facing 10% increases in premiums and double co-pays this summer.

By: Brian Rosman

Brian Rosman — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:10:18 +0000

Jon raises some important points that must be considered when thinking through who should pay any new assessment. Employers are paying more due to increased take-up rates, and everyone is pleased that, so far, it appears that employer offer rates are holding steady.

We’ve always emphasized the need for a level playing field. Employers who do cover their workers face unfair competition from those who don’t, and without minimum standards there’s a race to the bottom that leaves everyone worse off.

In terms of business climate, virtually every large employer listed by DHCFP as relying on the state to provide benefits to its workers are located here because they serve customers here. Wal-Mart and Stop and Shop are not able to just move to South Carolina or South Asia.

Jon writes correctly that employers face a quandary when making part-timers eligible for coverage, since it makes those workers ineligible for subsidized CommCare. Employers can legitimately choose to make its workers eligible for state subsidies. Those employers in fairness ought to reimburse the state for some of the benefit that they reap as a result.

Jon suggests “the proper course of action for all now is to allow the law to further mature, and to put all of our focus on lowering health care premiums.” While we focus on lowering costs, we can’t just let the law mature as is. Without new revenue, the current path is unsustainable, and would crowd out vital state investments in education, infrastructure and other human services.

Yes – focus on reducing costs. The consensus is building. But at the same time fairly find the revenue needed so we can continue with the success we have created.