Page 21 - Layout 1

ELECTION
not only made in profit; it also limited the amount it could spend Bill of Rights in the 10th amendment. Furthermore, I have seldom
on administrative expenses. This is an unprecedented mandate
to limit both the profit a company can make as well as how much
it can spend on administrative activities. Whether or not you like limit the 50 incubators of innovation toward product design. To
an insurance company is not the issue here. This tactic of forcing put it simply, this is a classic “power grab” by the federal govern-
a company to limit what they can spend on administrative costs
should frighten everyone. Your business could be next! And as it
turns out, most insurance companies over the last ten years have
only made between 3 percent to 5 percent net profit on average.
Thus, if the insurance companies are attempting to charge more
to consumers in order to gouge them financially to make huge
profits, they are doing a poor job if they only make 3 percent to
5 percent profit.
When the federal government takes on the role of “we know
best”, seldom does it turn out well for the recipients of their “wis- lost however!
dom”. Healthcare premiums have increased, making the ACA
anything but affordable. And if one cannot afford such a robust
mandated insurance product, with extremely high deductibles,
then the patient is not protected financially.
Therefore, half of the country would like to see this piece of leg- recognize that healthcare will continue to increase so, make sure
islation scrapped. The remaining half are either receiving a pre-
mium subsidy or obtaining a real benefit by obtaining insurance
for a pre-existing condition that otherwise would have cost that
individual dearly. There are those that like the “idea” of “free”
healthcare and think somehow that the ACA will evolve into such.
Regardless how one “feels”, Trump has made a campaign promise
to repeal and replace the ACA.
What will the replacement look like and will the replacement
reduce the costs of healthcare? One of Trump’s ideas is to allow in-
surance companies to compete across state lines in an attempt to
make insurance more competitive. A lot of individuals that hear
such an idea claim that competition will reduce costs and make
things better. In a general rule, I would agree. However, this is an
idea I strictly oppose for health insurance. Let me explain.
First, health insurance companies already operate in multiple
states to the extent they want to operate in multiple states. Take
United Healthcare as an example; they operate in all states in one
or more of their product offerings. They contract with over a mil-
lion physicians and 6,000 hospitals. How would “federalizing”
healthcare insurance companies make them more competitive? It
would not!
And my objection is the proper role of the Federal Government.
The US Constitution specifically created the Federal Government
to be limited and small. Every time legislation attempts to transfer
a part of commerce regulated by each individual state to the federal
government, we diminish the “States Rights” as guaranteed in the
IMPACT
seen the benefit of “one size fits all”. And mandating that all states
have a certain benefit design will certainly increase the cost and
ment to centralize power over 20 percent of our economy. And,
since Congress has a dismal approval rating of less than 20 percent,
why would we hand over more power to an institution we already
distrust?
Furthermore, I hate to be the bearer of bad news; however,
healthcare will NOT be affordable in the future, regardless of what
the federal or states governments do. I can assure you that health-
care costs will continue to increase year after year. No politician,
republican or democrat, will be able to reduce the cost! All is not
Trump’s other idea is to reintroduce Healthcare Savings Ac-
counts (HSAs). HSAs are not insurance products per se; they help
consumers with the out-of-pocket costs they are responsible for.
If I were the architect of the HSAs this is what I would do: First,
that over time consumers are adequately prepared financially to
manage the increase. How do we accomplish this task?
Right now, the HSAs have limited contribution levels with too
many stipulations. I would remove the maximum amount one can
put into an HSA. Let’s face it, deductibles are likely to increase as
a way of decreasing the rise in healthcare premiums. I would not
make it conditional and tie it to a Qualified High Deductible
Health Plan (HDHP). Co-insurance, co-payments, deductibles,
and limited and uncovered services are all components of insur-
ance that are the financial responsibilities of the consumers. Thus,
consumers will continue to see increases in deductibles and out-
of-pocket costs. Unlimited contributions to the HSA will prepare
consumers for the 1st dollar coverage and limited and excluded
items under their insurance. Also, continue to make the contribu-
tions tax free and allow the consumer to lower their gross taxable
income by the amount of any and all contributions. Allow em-
ployers to also lower their taxable income for any matching con-
tributions into the employee’s HSA. Allow the consumer at age
65 to withdraw an amount of money out of the HSA tax free for
non-healthcare services. Allow consumers to accumulate an un-
limited amount every year with no penalties if they do not spend
a penny on healthcare costs. Allow consumers to leave to their ben-
eficiaries, upon death, the amount of the HSA without any estate
tax consequences. Allow the HSAs to be portable and attach it to
the consumer as it is now; however, also have their employer spon-
sored insurance product become portable. The healthcare ex-
changes already exist; thus, it would not be difficult to allow
continued on page 22
visit us at www.bcms.org 21