Andy Dillon's health plan proposal...?

[bain_sidhe]

What are your thoughts on it? I'm leery of anything being supported by the right-wing Mackinaw Center and chambers of commerce, but... it could also be the "seed-stock" for a true "single payer" plan in Michigan, so I'm torn. OTOH, I'd have to see ironclad protections that some future right-wing administration couldn't gut the benefits or raise the premiums exorbitantly after they get everybody into the pool.

It also concerns me that much of Dillon's "promotion" of the plan either implies or out-right states that public employees' health coverage is too "generous," and should be brought more inline with plans found "in the private sector" by increasing premiums and co-pays, and reducing coverage.

BTW, my husband's college faculty is represented by the MEA, which opposes Dillon's plan.

If you haven't heard about it yet, here are some links to bring you up to speed:

http://www.Mackinac.org/10792

http://www.mea.org/gov/072409_faq_health_plan.html

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20090722/BRIDGING96/307209990/1123

http://www.healthcarelawyerblog.com/2009/07/proposed_mi_health_plan_pools.html

So, whaddya think?

[PassingFair]

1. The unions are against it.

Especially worried about the teachers union
not having collective bargaining chips when
it comes to their health insurance.

[MichiganVote]

2. No thanks. Work in education and haven't seen a raise in over ten years.

By the time the health ins. costs are factored into the year...there is no raise in education. As for teaching ins. being too generous..give me a break...we contribute to our health "benefit" plans. Our premiums and co-pays have gone up with everyone else's. And that has nothing to do with being in a union.

So no thanks. When the wealthy are paying their fair share, we'll talk.

[Festivito]

3. It's a step closer to single-payer with some mixed benefits.

Preface as to how I see single-payer: For US, would cost 1T$/year, we now pay 2.5T$/year. That leaves 1.5T$/year to become savings if we go to single-payer eliminating insurance companies altogether. And, this would be self-insurance -- no middle men.

T = trillion

Dillon's bill seems to stop shy of self-insurance and still includes insurance companies(unnecessary as I deem them to be). It does, however, intend to make a single-payer of insurance companies for all under State of Michigan employ.

(The US government, I would think does this. As a US government employee you have a list of companies, plans and prices to pick from having various costs for various areas within government.)

The gain comes from two areas: 1. One payer, one arbiter, less costly redundancy for insurers and state departments and a larger pool leads to a lower price. 2. Fewer choices, such as teachers with a gold system might have to settle for a silver system with, perhaps, higher co-pays and deductibles.

So, I see this as a mixed bag. If a worker sees their benefit falls, and it will cost them more, then they wish to negotiate for a higher salary. This amount in not included in either raising or lowering the projected cost of a health plan.

That is: if teachers suddenly get a $1,000/year deductible, they would want to argue for an extra thousand a year salary, even more so after taxes they would have the thousand to pay for their health. The plan might show savings in health care, but might not actually save any money -- and might actually lose ground.

The pooling effect should still produce a net savings.

The notion of careful monitoring saving money, seems a joke. First, that's what you pay the insurance companies to do. Will Dillon offer redundancy? Problem is, insurance companies, like all companies, exist to make a profit and only offer as much service as is needed to make it look like they offer a service. Money is number one.

Sorry to go on so long.