During the campaign, Barack Obama promised his cheering crowds that, when he rolled up his sleeves to work on health care, he would “have insurance company representatives and drug company representatives at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every chair.” Now is a good time to look at just what kind of seats special interest groups are having at Obama’s table and what they’re doing to bring the public around to their ways of thinking. This is the tenth of an occasional series of posts that will analyze their activities and how the media are covering them. The entire series is archived here.
It was only a matter of time before we heard from the business community. While the press has focused largely on the insurance industry and its opposition to the public plan option, other oppositional groups have also been hard at work. “The non-insurance business community is going to be in the middle of this,” says Harvard pollster Robert Blendon. “But there’s been very little coverage.” Anyone who thinks that trade groups representing American business are snoozing in their tents is sorely mistaken.
At the National Journal, Bara Vaida has done her homework on business lobbyists and has produced a good, in-depth story explaining what the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is up to. The group, a sometime ally of the insurance industry, doesn’t like a public plan because it represents government intrusion in the private market. Nor does it like the idea of its members being required to offer insurance to their workers. The business community will say reform is going to have “terrible implications” like cutting jobs, and the public will be sympathetic to that, Blendon says.
Big business has similar complaints. In a recent message to its members, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as influential a trade group as there is, asked them to “tell Congress to oppose flawed health care proposals.” In particular, the Chamber is upset over a public plan; any requirement that they provide employees with health insurance—the so-called employer mandate; and a minimum benefit package, which is emerging as a sleeper issue.
Reform advocates have hoped that legislation would force insurers to offer minimum benefits, as a protection against the skimpy coverage that is becoming commonplace. The Chamber says that a minimum coverage package, like the one offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, “will bankrupt employers and workers” and won’t appeal to younger workers. Instead, it’s advocating something like a high-deductible plan that includes preventative care. No surprise here.
Last week, the Chamber sent a letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Michael Enzi, outlining its objections. A public plan, the Chamber said, “must not be included in the legislation,” and “an employer mandate would exacerbate the already difficult situation of employers and workers.” Looks like Blendon is spot-on here. The Chamber also encouraged the committees, chaired by Kennedy and Enzi, to consider other provisions not included in legislative proposals. One would allow people enrolled in federal health programs to take vouchers and use them to buy coverage from private insurers.
On June 17, the Chamber also announced a campaign against the president’s health plan, asking its members to “push back” against Democratic bills emerging on Capitol Hill. Within three days, the Chamber’s member organizations had sent 36,000 letters, e-mails, and faxes to the Senate health and finance committees, expressing their opposition. More will be coming. “It’s just beginning because you ramp up. If done well and done quickly we’re adding some political leverage,” the Chamber’s executive vice president, Bruce Josten, told Bloomberg News.
The Chamber also plans a “sustained national media, education, and grassroots advocacy campaign to defend and advance America’s free enterprise values in the face of rapid government growth and attacks by anti-business activists.” The campaign begins in the fall, right when Congress is supposed to vote on health reform. It’s a safe bet that the Chamber will have health care in mind as it revs up its Free Enterprise Campaign.
- 1
- 2
Whatsoever bill emerges, it will be of no use to the citizens who need heal;th coverage.
It will, however, be assured, comport with the desires of the BIG MONEY.
Can you say kahz-met-ick? There is NO WAY any bill that is acceptable to the commercial interests--Health Insurance Parasites, AMA, PhRma, CoC, Business Rountable, etc--will do anything to actually HELP people.
There is just no way all those anti-democratic, pro-kapital groups will permit anything that actually reduces the reliance of the Proles upon their 'generosity.'
Nagahapun...
#1 Posted by Woody, CJR on Tue 23 Jun 2009 at 03:48 PM
Looking ahead ten of fifteen years, the question of employment will be a moot point, machines will do almost everything and people wont need to work there for a business to function. 24/7 even.
Moore's Law means computers double in power for any given cost every 18 months.
Machines and software never need vacations, they don't ask for raises, and they don't need health insurance.
Hallalujah!
#2 Posted by thinker, CJR on Wed 24 Jun 2009 at 03:55 AM
Unlike private insurers or health care providers, non-health-sector businesses are likely to office good advice in a certain way. Businesses, which of course provide most jobs, need to stay in business, and that isn't easy right now. If the horse balks, the rider needs to pay attention.
If businesses say they can't afford something, in many or most concrete instances that will be entirely true. But fortunately this is no obstacle to the best reform.
Obama has mentioned incentives for outcomes several times. This is one of the best ideas anywhere.
But even more, this kind of incentive principle can actually structure a Public Plan (which is the challenge).
It's the only way to get much better health care reforms. The biggest issue is costs. Solving the other issues without solving the cost issue would guarantee failure in time.
Incentives for outcomes.
Surprisingly, this kind of incentive can solve more than one fundamental problem.
Details:
http://findingourdream.blogspot.com/
#3 Posted by Hal Horvath, CJR on Fri 26 Jun 2009 at 01:05 PM