Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on October 11, 2007

The vote was 84 in favor, 22 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 489 at House Journal 112)

Click here to view bill details.

Sounds like Blue Cross wants to be non-profit and for profit.

Rep. Emmons, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Due to the lack of due diligence through the committee process, I believe voting on these bills today is premature. Legislation of this magnitude requires indepth scrutiny at the committee level to serve the citizens of this state. That scrutiny was lacking and citizens of Michigan expect better of their legislators."

Rep. Alma Smith, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on this bill because of its potential to substantially constrict the insurance market to Blue Cross Blue Shield and its known and future subsidiaries. Such restriction of competition has the opportunity to increase insurance costs to Michigan's consumers."

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: In 1938 the Blues made a deal in the state of Michigan to be the 'insurer of last resort,' in exchange for tax exempt status and the ability to deal exclusively, (exclusively means that if BCBS is the provider a company cannot have any other insurance provider but them). Thanks to this arrangement in 68 years BCBS has captured 70% of the Health Insurance Market. No other Health Insurance Provider has this large of a percentage of market share in any other state in the nation - the closest Blues market share in another state is 38%. No where in their original charter and mission was there any intention to allow the blues to buy property and casualty companies or any other insurance companies. Blue Cross has non-profit status, but can buy and sell like a for- profit company. They are the Microsoft of the Healthcare industry in Michigan, but unlike Microsoft they are not subject to any of the monopoly or anti-trust laws. The Blues are so dominant in the large to medium markets all the other commercial insurance companies combined control only 10%. These bills will not help competition it will hurt it. I cannot vote for this set of BCBS/Accident Reform HBs 5282 - 5285, because they will drive up the cost of Health Insurance on the citizens of Michigan. Five years ago the Small Group Health Reform drove up the cost of group Health Insurances by adding new regulation and rate band - now they want to the same thing to the individual market. This will drive up the cost of individual Health Insurances, so the Blues can more easily compete. Commercial Insurance Companies and the people will have to bear the cost of this change, which will benefit Blue Cross. If Blue Cross wants to operate like a for profit company then lets make them one and remove their tax exempt status and ability to deal exclusively. California received 3 billion dollars for letting their Blues do what Michigan has allowed them to do for nothing."

Rep. Palmer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I am voting no on this bill because I believe it makes a mockery of the proper committee process and conducive to policy debate and dialogue necessary for good legislation. The comprehensive reform of an issue as complex, and essential, as the individual insurance market demands serious and thoughtful discussion, not a single perfunctory committee meeting and a rushed vote on the floor of this chamber. There may be good reforms in this bill, and there may also be items that could be very deleterious for our state, yet those potential eventualities have not been well documented and vetted in an orderly public process. As representatives of the people, we owe it to them to take a careful look at this complex issue, and not send it through simply based upon the limited analysis we have reviewed thus far. The expansion of the 'for profit' component of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan may end up being good for consumers, as they will have additional options in the care market. The cost of insurance for seniors who have traditionally benefited from subsidized insurance rates may remain unchanged or lower as a result. However, these issues, as well as the proposed reduction of the BCBSM loss ratio, potential changes in administrative costs, and any risk changes to BCBSM reserves, and the ability of other carriers to compete in the market are all questions and issues that are yet unresolved from the perspective of many of my constituents and my own analysis at this time. House bills 5282-5285 will clearly affect the social mission of BCBSM. This vote in no way is meant to reflect upon the mission or the great service that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has provided to the families of Michigan since 1939, but simply a result of the lack of information and analysis available so far."

Rep. Stahl, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: BCBS Ind/Mkt Reform Bills No Vote In 1938 the Blues made a deal in the state of Michigan to be the 'insurer of last resort,' in exchange for tax exempt status and the ability to deal exclusively, (exclusively means that if BCBS is the provider a company cannot have any other insurance provider but them). Thanks to this arrangement in 68 years BCBS has captured 70% of the Health Insurance Market. No other Health Insurance Provider has this large of a percentage of market share in any other state in the nation - the closest Blues market share in another state is 38%. No where in their original charter and mission was there any intention to allow the blues to buy property and casualty companies or any other insurance companies. Blue Cross has non-profit status, but can buy and sell like a for- profit company. They are the Microsoft of the Healthcare industry in Michigan, but unlike Microsoft they are not subject to any of the monopoly or anti-trust laws. The Blues are so dominant in the large to medium markets all the other commercial insurance companies combined control only 10%. These bills will not help competition it will hurt it. I cannot vote for this set of BCBS/Accident Reform HBs 5282 - 5285, because they will drive up the cost of Health Insurance on the citizens of Michigan. Five years ago the Small Group Health Reform drove up the cost of group Health Insurances by adding new regulation and rate band - now they want to the same thing to the individual market. This will drive up the cost of individual Health Insurances, so the Blues can more easily compete. Commercial Insurance Companies and the people will have to bear the cost of this change, which will benefit Blue Cross. If Blue Cross wants to operate like a for profit company then lets make them one and remove their tax exempt status and ability to deal exclusively. California received 3 billion dollars for letting their Blues do what Michigan has allowed them to do for nothing."

Insurance companies run Michigan, and that's why it is in the toilet.