Chamber of Commerce to Congress: Go The Baucus Route
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is asking the Congress to slow down the pace of health care negotiations, and to strip the public option and employer mandate provisions from various legislative proposals, according to a letter delivered today.
"The undersigned...wish to urge caution in addressing one of the most difficult problems facing our nation today - reforming the health care system," the letter reads.
The creation of a new government-run insurance plan is a step in the wrong direction. Employers currently suffer a significant cost-shift from existing public programs, and the program described in House legislation would significantly increase costs for every American who purchases private insurance. We do not believe that the government plan will be a fair competitor. Because of the increased costs and lack of competition caused by a government plan, employers will not be able to continue offering their current plans, which cover more than 170 million Americans.You can read the entire letter below the fold.We are further concerned with a proposal to mandate that employers either provide health insurance or pay huge fines or payroll taxes. This "pay or play" mandate is especially bad because employers are also required to pay the majority of employee premiums. Even with some exemptions, this provision will kill many jobs. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress.
If there's something familiar to you about the idea of a health care plan without a public option, and without an employer mandate: congratulations. You've been paying attention.
That's basically the plan Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee is set to propose--the sort of plan that a wellspring of progressivism like the Chamber of Commerce could get behind. And it should come as no surprise. Yesterday, the Chamber delivered a letter to the Finance Committee, praising its work, and taking swipes at the House's efforts.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS: The undersigned chambers of commerce, associations, and businesses, representing millions of employers who create jobs and provide quality, affordable health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, wish to urge caution in addressing one of the most difficult problems facing our nation today - reforming the health care system. Collectively, we are dedicated to improving our nation's health care system, especially in terms of lowering health care costs, improving the quality of care, and making sure every American has access to affordable coverage. However, we believe that the legislation currently being considered would not improve the system, but jeopardize the parts of the system that currently work. In fact, these bills do nothing to "bend the cost curve" rather according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the "curve is raised." The creation of a new government-run insurance plan is a step in the wrong direction. Employers currently suffer a significant cost-shift from existing public programs, and the program described in House legislation would significantly increase costs for every American who purchases private insurance. We do not believe that the government plan will be a fair competitor. Because of the increased costs and lack of competition caused by a government plan, employers will not be able to continue offering their current plans, which cover more than 170 million Americans. We are further concerned with a proposal to mandate that employers either provide health insurance or pay huge fines or payroll taxes. This "pay or play" mandate is especially bad because employers are also required to pay the majority of employee premiums. Even with some exemptions, this provision will kill many jobs. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress. The business community is eager to work with Congress to reform the health care system. Businesses, as providers of healthcare benefits, continue to see health care costs rise far in excess of GDP growth or inflation. Innovative businesses have valuable outcomes to share with legislators about approaches they have developed to help drive quality and control costs. We urge Congress to focus on consensus areas that can accomplish our shared goals. Chief among these should be initiatives to improve quality and lower costs, introducing fair regulation of the insurance market, and building a robust marketplace for consumers. We believe that responsible and constructive health reform that we all can support can be enacted this year. We call on Congress to enact reforms that improve the health system without jeopardizing those who currently have coverage.


















If the Chamber is for it, I'm agin' it.
So:
No public option
No funding mechanism
No employer mandates
But just maybe we'll mandate that everyone purchase "private" health insurance?
July 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left something out.
July 28, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They also left out where they will raise the trillions of dollars for our future deficits, since health care costs are out of control and will bankrupt the country.
Any reporters out there on the Hill want to ask these gutless CROOKS what they propose to do about the ballooning costs of health care??
The Obama plan addresses this. If they don't like his method, doing nothing is not an option.
July 28, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate Silver points out that for all the hoo-ha about CBO scores, the Finance Committee Bill scores exactly as the incomplete draft of the HELP bill some weeks back
Fine by me. Makes the end game easier and moves the Finance Committee out of the blocking position
July 28, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're okay with a bad CBO score. That just means they'll need more time. And reform will die in the meantime.
July 28, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point I'm no longer sure that's a bad thing, because there are very poor odds of getting reform as opposed to "reform".
July 28, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh the all or nothing crowd?
Mostly get nothing.
It's not perfect, so who cares, right? Once our Utopia is established, we'll come up with something better. After all, in a few years, American people will be smarter and the insurance cos will roll over.
Strangely allied with the GOP opponents that just want to kill anything.
July 28, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the idiot crowd? Satisfied with WORSE than nothing. Which is what the "take any crumb we can get" idiots are going to get.
July 28, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, "idiot". That's anyone who disagrees with Steve LeBonne. A real fuckign class act, that.
Getting absolutely nothing here is worse than a bill that doesn't do enough.
First, reforms against insurance abusive practices can not wait. I take it Steve LeBonne doesn't have AIDS or cancer or diabvetes, and so is okay with allowing the insurance crooks to continue to deny coverage for pre-existign illnesses.
Second, expanding coverage, even to a few mill. more is better than allowing these people to suffer. Again, Steve LeBonne may be covered, but millions are not.
Or we could take the "wait another 15 years" route for something perfect. Which is fine for Steve LeBonne, but not for people who will be suffering and dying in the mean time.
July 28, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with a whole bunch of good Democrats like Sherrod Brown. Once again, pout up or shut up: are you comfortable siding with Max Baucus against Sherrod Brown? Because that's exactly the position you're articulating.
And you also simply don't understand a damn thing about the economics of the proposals, because the Blue Dog's ideas most certainly CAN and will make the present system even worse, actually inflating costs by merely pumping money into the current dysfunctional system with no effective means of cost control, while doing nothing effective to increase access to care.
July 28, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a real solid argument technique -- "do you know who you are disagreeing with??" Called "appeal o authority" I think.
Now address my points please.
1.Will it or won't it remove the pre-exisitng conditions exclusions and other abusive practices? Yes or no?
2.Will it or won't it reduce the uninsured by several million people? Yes or no?
Forget costs -- if this increases costs, they'll be faced with the bill eventually. It would be better to increase access now and deal wih the cost later than your alternative -- do jack shit.
July 28, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not good enough for me, and not good enough to get the support of progressives in either house.
Howard Dean has it right: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/dean-60-vote-majority/
July 28, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, you don't answer my questions. I didn't ask you whether it was good enough for you. I asked you about facts.
Please answer: Do these flawed bills still not include a banning of these pre-existing conditions exclusions? Do they cover millions of uninsured?
Let me put it this way: If, say, tens of thousands of people get sick, suffer, lose a foot or go blind due to untreated diabetes, and die because they can't afford meds in the meantime will you twiddle your thumbs and wait for a "perfect" plan that makes you feel good, is that right? Is that ethical? Is that conscionable?
July 28, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. You're placing yourself to the right of a large bloc of mainstream Democratic members in both houses who have vowed to withhold their support from a bad bill. Are you comfortable siding with Blue Dogs against them? Because that's what you're doing with this comment.
July 28, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, off topic, but I want to know where the obama and holder and Napolitano news conferences are hyping up this terrorist apprehension? Why don't we have the alert level raised? Where is all the hype?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_nc_terror_arrests
Oh, yeah, that's right. There is a new sheriff in town and times have changed. This sounds like the biggest apprehension since 9/11 and was real, as opposed to manufactured. Where is the right wing noise machine hyping up the job done apprehending these terrorists? Pathetic.
July 28, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally Baucus makes sense: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33420
July 28, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with that very very funny piece is that Baucus' wife already left his sorry ass a few months back!
July 28, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, for a minute there, I thought you were that annoying spammer who pops up around here, until I looked at the username.
My favorite part of that?
There's a huge stack of old bills in my office, each containing tons of that sort of hackwork. I'm tempted to burn down the entire Hart Office Building and cleanse the planet of every physical trace of my senatorial presence.
July 28, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chamber Of Commerce = Self-Satisfied Large Business Owners
July 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I wonder what percentage of the Chamber of Commerce's membership is comprised of small insurance companies? Perhaps their support for a plan sans a public option is just another straightforward example of unenlightened self interest on the part of small business and big business alike.
July 28, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
miguel, you may be right, in terms of local Chamber of Commerce's, but I really do think that if they are pushing nationally, it is the big guys who object to a Public Option. They are the ones who are in office, and who have the power in this organization.
July 28, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to WaPo, Chamber doesnt' speak for various state chambers. Maine chamber is sitting this one out. So are several others.
Apparently business is divided on this, despite the rightwingers who run the national one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203662.html
July 28, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink