Dan Heffley, CCAHU President

On lunches and politics: An open letter to CCAHU members

I’ve received some feedback regarding our luncheons that I wanted to share with membership and more importantly, address. One point is highly controversial and the other is more for understanding.

The first is our choice of speakers this month, Sharron Angle. We’re primarily an educational association--we’re certainly not a political organization. However, my duty as President is to help preserve the good of the order and to allow us to thrive into the future. With PPACA now the law of the land, my ability to comply with these duties has come under serious attack so that we are now in survival mode. I’ll be on vacation in Kansas shortly so I’ll borrow an appropriate maxim from that neck of the woods-- you don’t plant your crops when your storehouse is on fire.

Over our history, we’ve traditionally tried to be neutral in the political arena. Opinions, as well as political leanings, tend to be a highly personal thing and the potential to offend by promoting a particular agenda is high. NAIFA faced a similar quandary when they were presented with an opportunity to have Sharron speak at a national level, which they declined. The reasons for the declination were many but it boiled down to this: NAIFA’s core business is life insurance and investments, not health insurance. In fact, I was informed that they actually lost membership because they did not support the PPACA legislation.

We, however, ARE involved in the health insurance market…intimately. For those who understand the legislation, we know that it will threaten our livelihood, possibly even eliminate it. I don’t know about you, but my chosen profession is an extension of who I am, which is HIGHLY personal to me. Between the MLR provisions, the Exchange provisions and the calling to resurrect the public plan option, our industry and profession continues to be threatened. This legislation will not, as one uninformed, wishful-thinking agent (not a member) recently told me, “just go away”. No, it needs to be fought long and hard on multiple points.

Which brings me to our speaker, Sharron Angle. The reason I asked her to speak is two-fold: 1) She supports free-market reforms as a way to reform the system, and 2) to give our membership a close-up look at this candidate. She is far different than how some perceive her. A member recently told me that they would not attend the luncheon because they didn’t want to listen to that (less-than-flattering-colloquialism). I asked if she had spoken to her personally and what she based that upon—answer was “no” and “the media” respectively…she’s coming to the meeting.

As President, I do not necessarily need to support all of Sharron’s positions nor do you. Her position on health reform is the only issue that matters to me as President of CCAHU. Personally, I may not see eye-to-eye with her on other platforms or even health reform. I would suggest however, that if that’s case for you on health reform, you’re in the wrong business. I also understand that as a junior Senator, she won’t have a rubber-stamp, but instead will be one more vote against the current majority party’s support of PPACA in it’s entirety. The same goes for her other positions: She’s one vote, not the decision-maker. But it’s how health reform is ultimately enacted that’s the key here. That’s where our focus should be.

The other point will be brief. I’ve been told that our lunches are too expensive for what is served. You’re right—I can get our lunches for much less than $30—if that’s all we were getting. That $30 covers not only the food, but the serving staff, the audio-visual equipment, the internet connection, the microphone and sound system, the private use of the venue, etc etc etc. The alternative would be to fold the costs into the dues like NAIFA does and include lunch—NAHU’s monthly dues are currently less than half of what NAIFA’s dues are. (Note: NAHU National dues are going up January 1st $75 a year).

In closing, as President I do what I think is right for the association, our industry, and our clients who look to us for guidance. How you vote come November 3rd is up to you. At least you’ll have a first hand look unfiltered by media on which to base your decision on the newest candidate.

P.S. I’ve made a similar request of Reid’s office, even so far as to extend it to Reid’s Senior Health Liaison Officer a month ago. I’m still waiting for a response.

Dan Heffley
CCAHU President


--
Regards,

Dan M. Heffley, LUTCF
State Legislative Chairperson--National Association of Health Underwriters
President--Clark County Association of Health Underwriters
Insurance Commissioner's Producer Advisory Committee Member
Governor's Consumer Health Assistance Office advisor
Nevada Health Care Leadership Task Force Member
NAIFA Member
Contributing Columnist HealthNews.com
Director of Benefits- Amcheck Payroll Services Las Vegas
Moderator-The American College
702-434-4112 Direct
702-581-4048 Mobile
702-434-1080 Fax
dan.bgb@gmail.com

Make My Day.

What does NAHU and the person that uttered that famous line have in common ? Both have been around for 80 years this year. May 31st was the 80^th birthday of Clint Eastwood- actor, director and advocate. I mention this because in addition to giving us acting (and directing) such movie favorites as Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino, directing Invictus and Flags of our Fathers, he is an avid advocate for businesses, recognized by various organizations for his advocacy.

As this health reform has started to shake out, we’re already seeing the shape of things to come. For those of you unaware, I was informed today that Golden Rule (a United Healthcare Company that sells individual products) is discontinuing insuring children as a standalone policy because of the provision in the law that all children must be taken irregardless of pre-existing conditions. Anyone that understands the insurance industry understands that it can be compared to a balloon…squeeze one area, and another area over-inflates…it’s called cost-shifting. We’ve seen it with insurance mandates and we’ll continue to see it as this defective law’s provisions are implemented.

More than anything, we need a legislator who has a good grasp of business and insurance principles. A background in healthcare is also helpful. Accessibility and active listening are also helpful. In the Senate race, I’ve met with Harry Reid’s office numerous times…but never with the Senator himself. By contrast, I have met with Nevada’s other Senator numerous times and even had the honor of serving on his health care roundtable this past summer. I say this for what follows.

In the race for the Republican nomination for Senator, I attempted to meet with the three (in my estimation) front runners: Sue Lowden, Danny Tarkanian and Sharon Engle. Danny was kind enough to call me back personally; I scheduled a meeting with him and health care reform leadership…it was canceled with a promise to reschedule. I’m still waiting. Sharon Engle couldn’t commit to a face-to-face, but was gracious enough to hold a 45 minute conference call with us where we were very impressed. Sue Lowden, on the other hand actually met with me a couple months back—personally for near-on two hours. Well here it is a week before the primary…and I called Sue’s office and suggested a telephone call with leadership. She wouldn’t do it…instead, she found time to personally drive to Henderson and meet with us face-to-face, where she expounded her pro-business standpoint (she helped with the Worker’s Comp issue in 1995) and her toughness as a litigator.

I know we’re not a political organization. Clint Eastwood stated, “A man needs to know his limitations”. I know my limitations…and I know what I’m good at. Some people say that our state would be better served by having a Senate Majority Leader in power. Whether that’s true or not I cannot comment on…What I CAN comment on is that the Senate Majority Leader believes that the PPACA law is the fix for our system (we know it’s not) and has been parroting rhetoric at the forums he’s held. (We all are familiar with his infamous Chamber of Commerce speech-which he repeated less than a week later !) We are an inherently non-partisan organization; however, we are faced with an imperfect law that threatens our very survival as an industry because it left out cost-containment measures needed to make health reform work. We need leaders in Washington who are willing to listen to us and act upon our input to make the best of this law. We need leaders on a national and state level who are willing to put in place cost measures not in the bill on a state level to help us contain these costs. We need leaders who are ACCESSIBLE. In a perfect world, we all would have health insurance, live in a white house with a picket fence, dog, cat and two-and-a-half kids. However, as Jon Ralston said, “that’s all well and fine on Planet Utopia, but we live in the real world”. In the “real world”, payroll has to be met, the rent has to be paid, business licenses have to be renewed. In a perfect world, I’d be driving a Lamborghini…instead I drive a fuel-efficient convertible…not that I’m complaining.

Clint Eastwood showed that you had to be a fighter and sometimes take unpopular positions, that on the surface, would could looked at as ludicrous…one that Sue Lowden did in testifying against the mammogram mandate because of the cost-shifting that it would entail; I feel her pain. After all, I testified against the autism mandate last year, which didn’t exactly sit well with my brother and his family (my nephew’s autistic). Doing what’s emotionally right doesn’t mean it’s the ‘right’ thing to do. I mean, who DOESN”T want to help autistic kids or advocate mammography ?

The point of all this is that as an industry, I need to advocate on behalf of our membership and by default, our clients who look to us for guidance. I can’t tell you who to vote for, but I can certainly pass along the information on who has our collective backs and who doesn’t.

Dan Heffley