Sustinet: Universal Healthcare in CT by 2012Back to the Blog »
July 21st, 2009
Email This Page Print This Post
The CT State legislature’s override of the Sustinet veto will bring universal healthcare to CT by 2012.
Let me start by saying for the record that I believe that the effort to provide comprehensive, affordable health insurance for all is a very important economic and social public policy. I have worked in the health insurance industry for more than 24 years, and I know how important it is to have solid health insurance, and how scary it can be when you don’t. I truly believe that virtually all Americans share my opinion and believe that it is a noble initiative.
The challenge, of course, is how to implement and pay for universal coverage. How do we fix what is broken without compromising what is working well in the current system? And how do we do so in the most economically efficient manner for taxpayers and businesses? In an earlier post I summarized what I believe the prevailing attitude is among most Americans:
I do care about other people-I swear. I want them to have good insurance, I want them to have good healthcare. But I have pretty decent coverage myself (85% of us) and I have a good job (90% of us), and I don’t want to lose either. I am willing to help out, but I’m really tapped out financially and I can’t pick up the insurance tab for everyone. So I am all for health reform as long as it costs me less-not more-and as long as I get to keep what’s working in the system today.
I think this is true in CT, with respect to Sustinet, and I think it is true across the country.
Our job, then, is to try to influence the debate in a positive way to ensure that we preserve what is working, fix what is not, and deliver care and coverage in the highest quality, cost efficient manner possible.
So what exactly does the Sustinet bill give us? Essentially, the bill provides a framework for a nine-member Board of Directors to make recommendations to legislature by 1/1/2011 on how to implement universal coverage by 1/1/2012. The Board will be co-chaired by the State Comptroller and the Healthcare Advocate and include 1 position appointed by the Governor and 6 positions appointed by legislative leaders representing the Majority and Minority parties equally.
The full analysis of the bill is here, but here is the bill summary also from the General Assembly website:
This bill establishes a nine-member SustiNet Health Partnership Board of Directors that must make legislative recommendations, by January 1, 2011, on the details and implementation of the “SustiNet Plan,” a self-insured health care delivery plan. The bill specifies that these recommendations must address:
- establishment of a public authority or other entity with the power to contract with insurers and health care providers, develop health care infrastructure (“medical homes”), set reimbursement rates, create advisory committees, and encourage the use of health information technology;
- provisions for the phased-in offering of the SustiNet Plan to state employees and retirees, HUSKY A and B beneficiaries, people without employer sponsored insurance (ESI), people with unaffordable ESI, small and large employers, and others ;
- guidelines for development of a model benefits package; and
- public outreach and methods of identifying uninsured citizens.
The board must establish a number of separate committees to address and make recommendations concerning health information technology, medical homes, clinical care and safety guidelines, and preventive care and improved health outcomes. The bill also establishes an independent information clearinghouse to provide employers, consumers, and the general public with information about SustiNet and private health care plans.
Finally, the bill creates task forces addressing obesity, tobacco usage, and the health care workforce.
Exciting times and noble intentions, to be sure. But we all know the devil is in the details, and the successful implementation of the Sustinet plan will be a highly complicated and political process, and will hinge in no small part on the reform initiatives that ultimately emerge from Washington. Stay tuned.
One thing is for sure: as the great Bob Dylan once said a long, long time ago, The Times They Are a Changing.
Posted by Bill in Healthcare Reform, Sustinet
“…exciting times and noble intentions…” To be kind and to quote the infamous…”Hell’s path is lined with good intentions.”
To believe that Universal Healthcare accessibility, so-called health-care reform, is the “fix” required to set our healthcare system back on the right track is solely inaccurate based upon prior analysis and a historical perspective.
Risk assumption, and the payment of that Risk, is mitigated by the accumumlation of funds from individuals under-, or not, utilizing healthcare assets in order to pay for the smaller percentage of individuals consuming those health resources.
An example of how risk assumption should work is from Social Security Benefits themselves. FDR paid for SSI benefits for retired individuals because he had a 9 or 10 to 1 ratio of tax payers to benefit recipients…now less than two taxpayers pay for the SSI benefits of one individual…and, Social Security faces insolvency by 2035. Congress fails to protect SSI recipients because of its continued social engineering. Ultimately, it is the American Taxpayer experiencing increased loss of personal income in order to pay for the irresponsible, social-engineering, political contituency maintaining actions of an arrogant and detached representative hierarchy. You may feel better about yourself in relation to the “undermenchen” you strive to satisfy while you drive to work in your BMW and sipping your Soy Latte. You may be an example of whats wrong with society.
Europe, and European Social Democracies, have the same “…let them eat cake…” mentality when it comes to sating to social requests of the less fortunate. On the surface, the social liberals “feel good” because they’re caring for people who cannot care for themselves; however, history has proven that such “caring” individuals are more concerned about protecting their social status and growing their political franchise. What’s lacking in all the cost-benefit analyses is a determination of the actual costs to taxpayers for the growing numbers of government plan sponsored enrollees. Second, while the government(s) call for qualitative and quantitative analyses of our existing healthcare system, the principals fail to call for the same analyses of existing governmental health systems (i.e., Canada, U.K., France, Australia).
You’re being sucked into an argument because you “feel” for those who do not enjoy the same level of health benefits your family enjoys.
If parity of health benefits were a righteous and equitable benefit to enrollees, why would Congress exempt themselves from the Government Healthcare Reform Bill Congress wishes to impose on the American taxpayer? When Ted Kennedy (et. al.) agrees to allow wind farms in his neighborhood, I will, possibly, support Democratic National Committee reforms…until then, I can’t help but equate the stench of hypocracy with the pile I accidentally placed my boot while walking amongst the honorable…farmers.
Consumers need to be held accountable for their actions…government programs have never held anyone accountable because they’re founded on the belief of asuaging the complaints of those who fail to invest in themselves, compete for a better life for their families and save for the future.
Its about time we all did.