Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Justifying “Threemil”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Remember this comment about one of the governor’s amendatory vetoes from earlier in the week?…
One bill would eliminate property taxes for 16,000 Illinois veterans. Blagojevich’s proposal would be available for veterans with a disability of 50 percent or more, such as the loss of limbs.
Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), said she did not think the break to veterans would have “any trouble at all.”
I thought Davidsmeyer’s prediction was almost surely right. The real controversy behind the scenes was over another AV because of the hit to insurance companies…
A second measure would allow parents to keep children on employer-provided health insurance until they turn 26. It would allow active duty or veteran dependents to remain on the insurance until they are 30. A similar measure has faced hurdles in the Senate because of resistance from the insurance industry, but its prospects improved following House passage.
* Well…
The Senate on Tuesday rejected one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s debut attempts to substantially change legislation using his veto power, but the governor scored a victory when lawmakers accepted his changes to another bill.
Meeting in special session, lawmakers contended the Democratic governor exceeded his authority by creating a new bill that would free disabled military veterans from having to pay property taxes. Action to accept the veto got 27 votes — it needed 30.
“It’s unconstitutional, it sandbags our constituents and puts us in a trick bag,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Palatine Republican.
But Blagojevich’s “Rewrite to Do Right” campaign succeeded when the Senate accepted his rewrite of a second bill, which now becomes law, although some legislators predict it will be challenged in court.
* More…
Sen. Dan Rutherford, a Chenoa Republican, voted against his own bill because he said the governor’s amendatory veto prevents legislators and citizens from dealing with the policy in a public forum. “We’re in a political debate here,” he said. “We’re not doing this as a good public policy process.”
* The proposal received just 27 “Yes” votes.
Democrats voting “Present” were: Cullerton, Frerichs, Lightford, Link, Noland, Raoul, Sullivan, Trotter.
Republicans voting “Present” were: Dahl, Dillard, Murphy, Pankau, Peterson, Risinger.
One Democrat, Bill Haine, voted “No.”
So, despite the impression given, Democrats had as much to do with killing this proposal as Republicans.
Things are getting mighty strange at the Statehouse.
* Back to the health insurance bill for a bit…
Business groups said the new insurance law actually may increase insurance rates, though they did not say by how much. Still, they warned the expansion could result in some employers dropping health coverage for workers.
Jay Shattuck, a lobbyist with the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, said his group will look at whether to sue to block the new law. He said there’s no incentive for healthy, young adults to sign up for coverage through a parent’s insurance plan when they can buy individual coverage much cheaper.
“There are hundreds of thousands who have the option to buy coverage in the private market now that have failed to do so,” he said. “Why would they seek coverage now?”
Kim Clarke Maisch, Illinois director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the majority of young adults who will take advantage of the new program would be unhealthy and drive up costs.
Expect a lawsuit soon.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Justifying “Threemil”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I must admit I was surprised when I heard what happened with these bills. I agree with Rutherfords comment.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:36 am
“He said there’s no incentive for healthy, young adults to sign up for coverage through a parent’s insurance plan when they can buy individual coverage much cheaper.”
To quote the President with a near-equal-but-still-serious level of hyperbole:
“The biggest lie ever told”
Have any of them ever had to go on the individual insurance market to get coverage?
The price is ridiculous. I know several parents who pay for or contribute to individual market insurance coverage for their children who are in entry-level jobs that don’t provide it and don’t pay enough to afford it. They are paying an arm and a leg for that individual market coverage.
To be able to keep them on their family policy, even if they are paying the full cost, will be welcome.
Comment by GoBearsss Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:36 am
I’m in favor of access to affordable health care for all, but wouldn’t the proposed bill targeted at twentysomethings tend to favor children of wealthier parents who can afford to keep the kids on their insurance even if premiums increased after age 21 or whatever and would probably do so because their coverage is likely to be more comprehensive (and thus, effectively, cheaper) than anything the kids can buy on the market.
Buying independent coverage is expensive and it’s much easier for the insurance companies to throw you off it for absurd reasons.
Or would parents receiving Allkids also be able to keep the kids on Medicaid until age 21?
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:38 am
Cassandra -
You are right. Most who would take advantage of this are middle class, upper middles class. But that 300,000 is still a big chunk of the uninsured. Piece by piece.
This is a big suburban issue. That’s why I was surprised there weren’t more suburban Republicans out there going hard for this. Would be a good issue for them.
Comment by DumberThanULook Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:47 am
DumberThanULook, Linda Holmes, a suburban Democrat and a Tier One target, voted “No.”
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 11:52 am
I like this proposal. It would likely be more costly for the parents once the young adult reached 18 because the employer would most likely stop subsidizing it, still, it’s a heck of a lot cheaper than an individual policy. And because parents are choosing to do this, they’re likelier to insure their healthy young adult children than the young adults themselves would be. So I don’t think it will be a huge cost to most employers.
But I don’t like this as part of the AV process. It should have been a separate item, introduced by a legislator, debated by legislators, etc.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:06 pm
My apologies, but Senator Haine is squarely in the pockets of the insurance lobby. I dont even think he quetions their positions. He just carries their water, no questions asked.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:16 pm
Surprised about that too, Rich. But her republican opponent ain’t running against her on healthcare. So she probably felt OK.
Comment by DumberThanULook Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:26 pm
Both of the Gov’s improvements are a form of unfunded mandate the state has become fond of.
They get the credit for doing something, but others are forced to deal with the costs.
There is a great danger that insurance rates will rise and force small businesses to drop their coverage. Without a public process of hearings and testimony no one has an accurate picture of the effects of this improvement.
e.g. while it can be argued that adding mostly healthy young adults to the insured pool would not raise costs, you have to consider the costs related to accidental injury involving sports and transportation accidents.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:30 pm
While you are rarely incorrect, you listed Sullivan as Republican voting Present. While many of us miss Dave Sullivan being in the Senate, I think that was his Democrat Sullivan Caucus member, John Sullivan.
Comment by GOP Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:30 pm
Since Insruance companies like to have big deep pools, some system which allows kids to takc in to the pool the parents are already swimming in seems like a win win for all.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:31 pm
GOP, oops. lol. Changed.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 12:35 pm
No property taxes for disabled veterans, eh. Sounds as all-American as Mom and apple pie. Except, isn’t this the same state that put a cap on property taxes? And isn’t this the Governor who diverts funds from local government to fix state budget problems? And isn’t this the same Governor that likes to make a big splash with last minute freebies (free bus rides for Grandma, for instance)? I’ve actually been trying to be tempered about Blagojevich, because I feel kinda sorry for him with all of his bad media coverage. But this type of reckless, somebody else will pay grandstanding has really got to end.
Comment by phocion Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 1:02 pm
There they go again with their lies and empty political rhetoric. NFIB is out of touch with small businesses that they state that they represent. The individual market is out of touch for everyone except for the wealthy. Health care costs IS an economic issue — health care costs are second only to gas prices when it comes to what people are worried about.
Middle class Illinoisans are having a harder time making ends meet. If that means giving Illinoisans choices on how to insure their children - power to consumers to make that choice. If that means cutting the profits of the insurance industry, my sympathy is with people working for a living and wanting to protect their family by having the option and choice of affordable, accessible and guaranteed health care for their family.
Comment by Heath Care for ALL Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 1:12 pm
HCfA,
If insurance companies feel their profits being pinched, they’ll raise rates. So, who pays? All employers and employees who pay a % of premiums. So, the secretary could end up subsidizing the manager’s slacker 25 year-old’s health care. Great solution, Rod!
Comment by South Side Mike Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 1:47 pm
This is not an insurance issue, but a constitutional issue of whether the AV actually was a significant re-write of the enrolled bill. My opinion is that if the Governor thought his AV was that important, why did he not initiate legislation that addressed it? I hope there is a court challenge based on the constitutionality of the amendatory veto and that the heartstrings issue of insurance coverage is addressed in stand-alone legislation that can be debated free of tainted legal considerations.
Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 2:32 pm
Illinois ranks at the bottom regarding insurance reform. As a fiscal conservative, why should hard working Illinoisans and businesses allow the insurance industry to take a 18% cut of your premiums so they can hired people who can investigate your health and then deny you health care. How stupid, but hey the insurance industry rights the laws - at least for now.
Comment by Heath Care for ALL Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 3:33 pm
young adults are the some of the lowest risks for health insurance purposes. My son, a graduate student with another year of school in front of him just turned 23 and had to come off my plan. The real “cost” to my plan for the 4 or so 20-somethings a year that would remain on the plan is marginal, the $95/mo it is costing for catastrophic coverage puts a crimp in my son’s alread tight student budget. (how much of that $95 is Insurance Company margin?)
As an option, a law could be passed or a bill could be veoted requiring all institutions of higher learning to provide coverage for their students.
ANYTHING THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER COVERED IS GOOD !
Comment by The Horse Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 4:23 pm
Covering dependents till age 26 is good public policy. It is not true that it is easy to buy individual insurance in Illinois. There are only 5 states that have “guarantee issue” for all individual insurance options. Illinois is not one of those states. HIPAA requires that each state set up at least one option for those individuals who cannot get insurance. In Illinois there is the Traditional CHIP and the HIPAA CHIP. There are many conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to qualify for coverage on these plans and they are VERY expensive. HIPAA does not limit the premiums individual health plans can charge. While your application for insurance won’t be rejected because of health problems, the premiums for individual coverage can be much higher than for group plans. Premiums are usually between 120% and 150% higher than the premium for traditional individual insurance.The individual health insurance market in Illinois is characterized by medical underwriting. (Jay Shattuck, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, and Kim Maisch, NFIB, make no mention of this “little” issue). When there is medical underwriting, an insurance carrier can:
• Deny coverage
• Limit coverage
• Exclude conditions via “riders”
• Otherwise reduce covered benefits (eg. $1000 prescription drug deductible)
Benefit packages are generally less extensive than what is available to most groups.
Deductibles and cost-sharing are generally higher, due to cost considerations of the individual purchasers.
Take this example from a study done by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2001:the Results of 60 applications for “Alice”, age 24 with hay fever: Only 5% of the applications were offered as a “clean offer”, 70% were offers with benefit limits, 10% were offers with premium increases, 7% were offers with premium increases and benefit limits, and 8% were rejected. An insurer may offer a person with hay fever a policy that excludes coverage of any upper respiratory condition. Something as simple as hay fever may mean you are not covered if you get pneumonia.
Keep in mind that young adults generally constitute a healthy group. All studies have concluded this. Therefore costs may go down, as opposed to being raised as a result of this new law.
Comment by Sheba Seif Wednesday, Aug 20, 08 @ 5:19 pm
The Financial Article of the Illinois Constitution specifically enumerates who (or what) can be exempted from property taxes. It is a short list, and veterans, disabled or not, are not on it. Therefore the tax AV was unconstitutional on its face.
It is amazing to me that I never saw or heard that anyone, including on this board, ever raised this point as an objection. It is both appalling and amusing that so much debate was devoted to the question of whether the scope of the AV was constitutional, when no mention was made of the fact that its substance was unconstitutional, which moots the other question altogether.
So many “aye” votes in both chambers! You’d think that our legislators, or at least a member of their staffs, would at least read the Constitution once each term so that there would at least be a chance for some bells to go off.
The only valid reason I can think of to vote for an unconstitutional bill is the existence of a severability clause which would allow the offending provision to be struck down by a court while preserving the rest of the measure. But surely that should be pointed out in debate, and someone should guarantee the lawsuit needed to make it happen.
I’d like to believe that was in the mind of every “aye” voter, but I wish I believed it was in the mind of even one!
Comment by Oberon Thursday, Aug 21, 08 @ 7:08 am