TPMDC
Anti-Reform Chamber Won't Be Helping GOP With Calls To Repeal Health Care
U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue
Share
Send to a friend!
Republicans in Congress say they'll campaign on repealing the health care legislation passed last night, and several already have introduced bills to roll back the new measure. Conservative groups are passing around "repeal the bill" petitions on the Internet and boasting big numbers. But it seems like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn't on board, despite spending more than $144 million on an ad campaign against passage of the measure.
President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue issued a statement Sunday night saying the bill "ignores the will of the American people" and isn't real health care reform.
"Should the legislation passed by the House today become law, the Chamber will work through all available avenues--regulatory, legislative, legal, and political--to fix its flaws and minimize its potentially harmful impacts," Donohue said. "Through the largest issue advocacy and voter education program in our history, we will encourage citizens to hold their elected officials accountable when they choose a new Congress this November." But in an interview published today with Wall Street Journal reporters and editors, Donohue said the Chamber won't be pushing for repeal.
According to the Journal, the Chamber won't back a repeal despite calling the measure "very, very expensive."
From their piece:
But Donohue made it clear the chamber won't be spending any of its substantial war chest on a campaign, favored by Republicans, to repeal the legislation. The Washington-based chamber, which represents three million businesses of all sizes, spent heavily in an unsuccessful effort to kill the health bill. Minutes after Democrats won passage in the House Sunday night, the chamber issued a statement calling the vote "a wrong and unfortunate decision that ignores the will of the American people."But once the bill becomes law, Donohue said, "If people want to try and repeal, let them. We're not going to spend any capital on that." Instead, he said the chamber will push for changes to the bill when it enters the regulatory stage, always a key pressure point.
In the 2,800-page bill "you've probably got 15,000 pages of regulation before this is finished," he said. "We have to see what we can do to deal with some of the issues that seem most egregious," and mount challenges in Congress and potentially in the courts, he said.
Comments (65) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mans_best_friend
March 22, 2010 6:05 PM
Translation: We're not betting on a mule in the Kentucky Derby.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
March 22, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Ha! You said it best!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 22, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
They recognize that there's no chance of repeal. And they're hedging their bets until they determine which side to be on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 6:12 PM
Even the establishment crazies have left the building! Looks like all they got are the teabaggers and the GOP echoplex (Limpdick, Beck-Laden, Shit Hannity, etc). Luvz it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 22, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to gonzo
This has got to sting the Repubs a little. But "Repeal Health Care Reform" is really just a trick to get the money and votes of the teabaggers and others who still believe the Republican lies. Remember the Repub fund-raising powerpoint and memo on how to appeal to the small donors and take their cash. The big donors like C of C will still give, just not based on this ruse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PAvoter
March 22, 2010 6:24 PM
At least the Republicans can count on senior citizen Tea baggers to demand that government keep their hands off THEIR health care.
Maybe they can stage a demonstration where senior citizens will burn their Medicare Cards in protest of government run health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
March 22, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to PAvoter
I was just listening to a caller on Thom Hartman who opposes the bill because "the government messes up anything they run". But, he's happy with his VA healthcare and his wife gets Medicare, which they are happy with. Do these people understand how idiotic they sound?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
March 22, 2010 6:28 PM
maybe they read Frum's analysis about the Republican's Waterloo: http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
March 22, 2010 6:29 PM
Why would they repeal a bill that for the most part is good for the insurance companies?
In other words they are saying,"Hey we are racist and bigoted just as much as you guys(teabaggers,republicans, etc) but hey we can't let our profits suffer."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
March 22, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to Ironcomments
I don't understand why the Chamber and businesses of all sizes aren't using all their resources to throw off the yoke of employer-based care and advocate a single-payer system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to trblmkr
Me neither. Unless the Big Businesses that really control the CoC at the DC/lobbying level really like paying some of their execs compensation in the form of Cadillac plans and don't want to have to pay tax on those puppies. Up until the passage and implementation of HCR, that was tax-free compensation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 22, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to trblmkr
Because businesses of all sizes use the employer-provided health care benefits to lock workers in. If there is single-payer, employees will be free to move around without worrying about losing coverage, pre-existing conditions, etc. In other words, the businesses use the employer-provided health care benefits as a mechanism to control the turnover in their workforce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jrw
March 22, 2010 9:30 PM in reply to tytester
Very doubtful about that. I'm an employer. Health care costs are growing so fast and are so out of employer's control and are so undervalued by employees that not having to worry about providing health care would be a godsend. It's much cheaper and effective for employers to compete for employees using other parts of compensation, such as wages and working conditions. Single payer would be an employer's dream; paying taxes to cover health insurance would be much cheaper and predictable then paying skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 22, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to jrw
I was under the impression that large companies who give health benefits to their employees get huge tax breaks. Is that not true???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 23, 2010 9:10 AM in reply to lousgirl84
They do get some benefits -- they don't pay withholding or SS employment taxes on the "value" of health care benefits provided to employees. This is probably an even larger government subsidy for private health care than Medicare expenditures (don't quote me on that -- but it's huge).
However, as the above commenter said, this "tax benefit" is dwarfed by the out of control escalating cost of health care. In most cases, employers have more control over whether they give someone a raise (as a result of not giving them employer provided insurance) than they do over how much they are going to spend next year on insurance. Even cheapie plans are incredibly expensive.
I have no idea where the CoC and its constituents' heads have been. In 1994, I would say that the automakers viewed CoC as their proxy (CoC nationally does not really represent "small" business -- most dues are paid by large Fortune 500 companies), and that, as in so many other ways, the autos had simply ossified in their thinking and couldn't see how much they, in particular, would benefit from reforms to health care. Now, there are perhaps certain CoC members that see a benefit to the way they do things as a relative advantage over their competitors -- Wal-Mart versus Costco or Safeway and Giant, for instance, where Wal-Mart undercuts the latter because its health benefits suck. But overall, there is no question that American businesses of all kinds are really disadvantaged by the current system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
March 24, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to rb6
Which begs my original question, what drives the CoC's pro-status quo position. I note GM Canada often speaks in support of the system there but is eerily silent on changes here...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
March 23, 2010 1:09 AM in reply to jrw
I am also an employer and agree 100% with your comments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
March 23, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to trblmkr
Many larger companies self-insure and contract the insurance companies for the paperwork. There is money to be made in insurance, and companies want a piece of that pie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 23, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
Huh? Large companies may enjoy relative advantage versus small companies -- and thereby "prefer" the current set-up to retain that advantage -- but even large employers despise the large outlays they make for health care benefits. At most, they push insurers to a near break even position and provide "volume" for the administrator in order that the administrator can get better discounts from providers and vendors. In no sense do they "profit" from the health care enterprise unless they are actually in the health care industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
March 24, 2010 8:41 AM in reply to rb6
Besides, many of these 'large companies' have divisions/subsidiaries in countries with universal/single payer systems so they have the means for direct comparison. There must be some tangible reason for their reticence in the face of the CoC's official position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
March 22, 2010 6:34 PM
I think the Chamber realizes the money would be wasted.
Republicans are not going to repeal this legislation. They're just using repeal as an electoral ploy. It's a short term strategy that will ultimately hurt the GOP.
So, my advice to Republicans: please, please run on this nonsense. Please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lester
March 22, 2010 6:37 PM
Because they know that there is nothing like that and that Republicans are just saying it to make themselves feel good after a crushing defeat.
Good thinking!! Don't waste your money on an effort that would be futile in the end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
March 22, 2010 6:39 PM
First the repubs said that the bill wouldn't pass. They were humiliated with its passage. Now they threaten repeal. How is that going to work out for them?
Then the old codger, McCain, says there "won't be any more cooperation."
Question, John : How will anyone notice?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 22, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Another question for John: When was there cooperation in the first place?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
March 22, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Another question for John. When will you and the other Republicans realize you lost?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to loria
And get over it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 22, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to Cal Gal
And actually try to help do something for the (non-rich) American people. Ha ha. Just realized what an absurd idea this is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Promise, McSame to oppose all JOBS bills? Please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
March 22, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to JNagarya
Right. It's kind of like Bill Kristol predicting that the health care bill will fail; that Obama is dust; in other words -- whatever he predicts (or Cheney prophesies -- we can count on the opposite happening! BooYaa!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
March 22, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to CVille Dem
"McCain, says there "won't be any more cooperation.""
McCain is sooooooo funnnnieeeeee!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
March 22, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Nice! Well folks, the secret's out. I wonder if they would say that specifically in the campaign ads. Sweet!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
March 22, 2010 6:53 PM
I got a feeling that when the Chamber sees all the new customers its insurance members are going to get, they'll be full blown supporters of this legislation!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 22, 2010 6:55 PM
$144 million to back a political party that has a collective IQ that begins with a decimal point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
March 23, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to we r all husseins
Good one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
March 22, 2010 6:56 PM
The key sentence in the WSJ story is actually "Instead, he said the chamber will push for changes to the bill when it enters the regulatory stage, always a key pressure point." All this talk of repeal is indeed political posturing, and it ain't gonna happen. But this is a bill with a multiyear timeline and extremely complex regulations, the enforcement of which are no doubt still rather up in the air. This announcement from the Chamber is not really cause for celebration on the part of those supporting the Democrats' health care reform.
Essentially the C of C is saying, "Repeal is stupid and not worth bothering about, we're saving our money (and more importantly our lawyers) for later on when we'll be fighting aspects of this legislation tooth and nail." Much of the fate of reform will be in these future fights among lawyers, corporations, and government officials as to what the law actually means. Boring and confusing to us normal laypeople but way more important than the "we're going to repeal this" nonsense from the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
That's exactly why the Dems need another stretch of 40 year majority rule in the House, with some able successor to someone like Dingell to fire off Dingellgrams and hold the regulators' feet to the fire. The Chamber "works" on regulation by gutting it at every turn, or when it can, installing corporate shills in regulatory positions during GOP administrations to rot out regulatory structures from within. Keeping the Chamber from exacting its "Midas touch" on the referees is going to take a significant amount of vigilance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 22, 2010 7:35 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Ding ding! We have a winner!
First they resisted regulation on lead, then asbestos, then cigarettes, dioxin, chromium, diacetyl, benzine, beta-naphthylamine, exposure to radioactive materials, climate change and now health care reform. Usually, legal challenges to regulation take decades to wrap up - and without enforcement in the mean time. If small-ball regulatory battles are what the Chamber are threatening, you'd best believe they're serious about side-stepping this law for decades to come.
I sincerely hope that Obama and the Dems in Congress have the wisdom to give OSHA its teeth back and to see that these HCR regulations are enforced to the maximum extent that the law requires.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kythe
March 22, 2010 7:06 PM
Too bad. Frankly, I think an "operation blowback" is badly needed...something along the lines of an ad campaign reviewing the Chamber's greatest hits and ending with "call the Chamber of Commerce. Ask them why they misled the American People on healthcare reform".
You could do this with Freedomworks and the other wingnut organizations that were involved in spreading lies. Hell, those organizations might even think twice next time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to Kythe
I'm sure Dick Armey made some good fees out of all this bullshit. Another slicker who took all the rubes to the cleaners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
March 22, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
What was your nickname in high school? Snappy Sphincter? Hee hee hee. Ain't nothing changed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 22, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
There you go with your anal fixation again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 22, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
wow...you just seek me out anywhere here in TPM and affix your anal cravings....tsk tsk tsk sailorFELCHqueen...so weak and stupid. I almost pity you. Not really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
March 22, 2010 7:07 PM
I'm still unclear on how the Repukes are rationalizing this: the American people voted and elected these representatives to Congress. They took a vote. How exactly is what happened *not* the "will of the American people"? Is it just because a handful of crazees SAY SO?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
March 22, 2010 8:03 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Is it just because a handful of crazees SAY SO?
Yup. People in "real America" say so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dnegri
March 22, 2010 7:09 PM
My Voter's Guide:
If the Chamber endorses, I vote NO. And vice-versa.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gonzo
March 22, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to dnegri
BINGO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
March 22, 2010 7:47 PM
Why would the Chamber want to have this legislation repealed...it represents a windfall, with its mandates, for insurance companies. I am surprised they were opposing it to begin with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
March 22, 2010 7:47 PM
I believe a Constitutional battle would be much more effective and more to the point, as many of our so called representatives have so elaborative stated.
This would also be a good show of just how much these folks value their right to live beliefs.
It would also be a good followup of their previous Constitutional mandates... like declaring war before sending perfectly innocent patriots off to die in nations at one's whim, and torturing folks (also smothering generals to death... if anyone remembers that Guantamino event), and holding others without trial holding them without trial, and kidnapping foriegn presidents (remember Noriega)... those other little deviences from Constitutional law.
Of course actually saving lives and helping the needy is apparently not something our current folks in Washington believe our nation is about. War and death is much more important...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 22, 2010 8:32 PM
Hey, my husband and I are "American people" and the Democrats DID follow our will in passing HCR. Anybody who says they didn't follow our will is LYING. They are LYING LIAHS!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oldjkdfighter
March 22, 2010 9:08 PM
Is that how liberty dies.....to applause from all the Socialistcrats that voted last night? Sad day in our history
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
March 22, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to oldjkdfighter
Yep. That's the line, "this is how liberty dies, with applause from the Socialistcrats." That's totally what Natalie Portman said in the movie. I'm not sure whether it's sadder that you're using a line from Star Wars as a way to respond to a major piece of legislation or that you're altering it to make it even lamer than it was when George Lucas wrote it. Also I'm pretty sure Lucas had George Bush in mind, but whatever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Impishparrot
March 23, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
I thought that sounded familiar...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
March 22, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to oldjkdfighter
Hey, oldwhatever. The good news for you is you apparently wouldn't know sad (or liberty, for that matter) if it were to wallop you square in the arse and smack you with a beat down proper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
March 22, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to oldjkdfighter
Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap Clap Clap clap clap clap clap clap and so on and so forth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
March 23, 2010 5:23 AM in reply to oldjkdfighter
You bitter tears taste yummy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
March 23, 2010 7:42 AM in reply to oldjkdfighter
Hmmm...we must have missed you when we were rounding up all the 'real' Americans last night!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 22, 2010 10:53 PM
Well at least the Chamber wants to stay relevant, unlike their pals in the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
March 23, 2010 12:23 AM
The racism,homophobia,gun nuts and hooliganism in the Tea Party and GOP has made it toxic for the Chamber to financially contribute to the GOP campaign to repeal HCR. Some businesses would leave the Chamber and some that stay would be boycotted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrewhouseBob
March 23, 2010 6:44 AM
Congress passed a law in the late 90's to prevent insurers from excluding coverage for things like motorcycle riding, horseback riding, mountain climbing, etc. By the time the law took effect, the insurers had already gotten to the regulators and the actual law continues to allow insurance companies to exclude coverage for those "dangerous" activities. Keep vigilant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
March 23, 2010 9:47 AM in reply to BrewhouseBob
Actually, the law requires the insurer not to exclude people from coverage solely because they participate in those activities. It never mandated that insurers cover injuries associated with those activities. And even the first point is a matter of interpretation: what the law actually required was that no one be excluded on the basis of a health related factor -- which was broadly interpreted to mean participation in high risk activities (an interpretation I agree with, but one that was hardly mandated by the statutory language).
In a parallel: an insurer couldn't exclude someone who has documented infertility problems, but that requirement doesn't require the insurer to pay for infertility services.
Laws and regulations do matter, but I think your example is somewhat off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
March 23, 2010 8:43 AM
The CoC doesn't represent 3 million businesses. It's more like 350,000.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
March 23, 2010 10:52 AM
When the CoC drops the 'cons banner, game's over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 7:37 PM
Ding ding! We have a winner!
First they resisted regulation on lead, then asbestos, then cigarettes, dioxin, chromium, diacetyl, benzine, beta-naphthylamine, exposure to radioactive materials, climate change and now health care reform. Usually, legal challenges to regulation take decades to wrap up - and without enforcement in the mean time. If small-ball regulatory battles are what the Chamber are threatening, you'd best believe they're serious about side-stepping this law for decades to come.
I sincerely hope that Obama and the Dems in Congress have the wisdom to give OSHA its teeth back and to see that these HCR regulations are enforced to the maximum extent that the law requires.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?