HOUSE LEADERSHIP UNWILLING TO PREVENT HEALTH INSURANCE TAX

Daily I read the dialogue coming from both sides of the No-Fault Debate. Allegedly keeping the interests of the general public in mind each side attempts to score points using partial truths directed at framing the issues in the light most favable to the special interest they support. The reality is that, as this issue has been framed, most voters don't care about it enough to scare the House Leaders (Followers of Big Insurance) into changing the positions they have promised to take.

There has been broad discussion about how a lapse in No-Fault will effect Auto Insurance, Hospitals, Doctors, Lawyers, Emergency Response Services, Insurance Agents and the like. However, there has been little attention given to the broader economic effects of a Lapse in No-Fault. These broader effects are what should direct our Legislative Leaders to the proper result. Instead of blind allegiance to the contributions they received (and continue to receive) from State Farm and others the leaders should do what is right for the state economy and the public.

In announcing her No-Fault Bill on Tuesday August 21 Representative Bogdanoff suggests that the Senate is now ultimately responsible for whether No-Fault is extended in some form or dies on October 1. She fails to point out that her proposed bill is the nearly the same as that rejected by the Senate previously and that it does not even have the support of many House Republicans let alone the entire house. At best this is a thinly veiled attempt to kill No-Fault and follow State Farms wishes while shirking legislative responsibility for the action (or inaction).

Personally, I believe that modest anti-fraud provisions and subsequent enforcement are adequate to address the legitimate concerns of the majority of stakeholders. Prior changes to the No-Fault law have already provided Big Insurance with substantial protections and profits have risen accordingly.

Rather than continuing to debate the merits of either position I would like to point out two significant consequences to allowing the Lapse of No-Fault. Consequences which I believe are more significant to the average citizen then either sides agenda and which should frame the debate for the purposes of our policy makers.

1ST CONSEQUENCE - LAPSE OF NO-FAULT CREATES HEALTH INSURANCE TAX

There is little debate that without No-Fault the premiums that individuals, businesses, local and state governments pay for health insurance will increase. Early one Blue Cross and Blue Shield advised that premiums would rise if No-Fault expires. Surely the other insurers will do the same. Since our local and state governments provide insurance to their employees a rise in insurance rates will tax the budgets of these institutions. Those businesses which provide insurance will take on more burden if premiums increase. And, most of Florida's citizens will feel the increase in their individual insurance premiums or percentage they pay for group policies. State Farm and others claim that allowing No-Fault to lapse will create a savings in automobile insurance. This is half true only if insured do not purchase other coverage to replace this coverage and protect against more uninsured motorists.

2ND CONSEQUENCE - UNPAID HEALTH CLAIMS WILL CREATE
FURTHER DRAG ON FALTERING STATE ECONOMY

Our legislature is already scheduled to meet in September for a special session to address the current and future budget shortfalls which are a result of a significant slow down in our state economy. Although No-Fault claims are not a significant portion of the daily cash flow in our state there are many businesses, professionals and government entities which rely to some extent on payment of No-Fault claims to remain solvent. Without these payments hospitals, doctors and other service providers will wait months if not years to recover partial payments. Our elected officials need to ask themselves "is it good public policy to further stress a state economy which is already near crisis?" Of course not, that is why the issue is not being discussed openly.

In my opinion either of these consequences provides enough reason to extend No-Fault for the interests of Florida's citizens. (At least until our economy recovers) But together, these economic costs far outweigh any perceived fraud in the system.

In early July I announced my candidacy for the District 91 House Seat because the incumbent legislator appeared to be making decisions which were not in the best interest of her constituents. If Representative Bogdanoff , as the leader of the No-Fault Bill in Florida's House of Representatives fails to pass legislation which extends No-Fault it will be another example of her willingness to blindly follow the money of Big Insurance to the detriment of Eastern Broward and Palm Beach counties citizens.



Political advertisement paid for and approved by Darin Lentner, Republican, for State House of Representatives, District 91.