health-care bills being hammered out in Congress this week would place
onerous burdens on their businesses without doing enough to reduce their
swelling medical costs.
Small businesses were particularly vocal in decrying the emerging
legislation. They said they would be especially hard-hit by provisions
in a House bill introduced Tuesday that would place a surtax on those
earning over $350,000 and penalize companies that don't offer health
insurance to their employees with an 8% payroll tax. A key Senate bill
offered a softer version of that employer mandate but one many
businesses still found objectionable.
"It's going to cost jobs. It's pretty simple," said Bruce Josten,
executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which
represents three million employers and opposes both the House and the
Senate bills. Chamber members have sent at least 50,000 letters to
lawmakers, and the group has bought advertisements in seven states whose
congressional representatives hold key votes.
Many employer groups have spent months pushing for an overhaul, hoping
it would lower their health-care costs and make it easier for small
businesses to buy coverage. But with the release of the House bill,
employer groups ramped up criticism, saying employers can't afford new
mandates.
In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
passed its health-overhaul bill Wednesday, making it the first of three
key bills to pass through committee. The House, after unveiling its bill
Tuesday, plans to begin publicly fine-tuning that plan in the next few
days.
The Senate Finance Committee, the only committee trying to work out a
bipartisan measure, is still hashing out details of its first draft.
Congressional leaders plan to merge the three bills into one measure
they hope to deliver to President Barack Obama by the fall.
Under the bills unveiled so far, the biggest change employers would face
is that all but the smallest ones would be required to provide their
workers with health insurance or pay a penalty. The House plan would
require companies with more than $400,000 in annual payroll that don't
provide health insurance to pay a penalty equal to 8% of their payroll.
The bill passed Wednesday by the Senate health committee places less
responsibility on employers for providing coverage. That measure would
require employers to pay up to $750 annually per worker if they don't
provide coverage or if they cover less than 60% of employees' premiums.
It would exempt firms with 25 or fewer workers.
Many businesses see the Senate Finance Committee bill as their last hope
to enact measures that would cut their costs without driving up their
expenses. Business groups have voiced support for an individual mandate,
improved health-information technology and an overhauled payment system
for doctors and hospitals, but not an employer mandate.
Mr. Josten of the Chamber of Commerce said that requiring employers to
help pay for health insurance would cause them to lower wages and reduce
their work force.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation's largest employer, has broken with the
retail industry by supporting an employer mandate and is encouraged by
that requirement in both bills, says spokesman Greg Rossiter, but he
added that the retail giant isn't yet able to throw its support behind
any particular piece of legislation. "We don't see enough cost savings
in the bills," he said.
Rodger Roeser, owner of Eisen Marketing Group, a public-relations firm
in Cincinnati, doesn't buy health care for his employees, since he
figures it would cost him up to $3,000 per month. To afford that, he
said he would have to lay off at least two of his 20 employees and
eliminate his company's policy of matching 401(k) contributions.
"You are looking at an instantaneous overhead increase," he said. "I
don't believe that providing health insurance should be, in any way,
shape or form, the responsibility of the employer. I pay you a fair
salary, and you can choose whether to get health insurance."
Not all businesses are opposed to the proposed legislation. Carl Camden,
chief executive of global temporary-staffing firm Kelly Services, hailed
the broad outlines of the Senate and House bills. Kelly Services
employed 650,000 temporary workers world-wide and brought in $5.5
billion in 2008 sales.
"Ideologically, it's a no-brainer for us. We have a collective
society-wide health-care financing problem and it's going to take a
collective society-wide solution to fix it," Mr. Camden said. "But on
the details, it's not a no-brainer."
Ron Bullock, who runs gear maker Bison Gear & Engineering Corp., of St.
Charles, Ill., bristles at the House proposal to tax wealthy Americans,
since some small businesses like his pay taxes at the individual rate.
Mr. Bullock, who provides insurance for his 215 employees, says the levy
is unfair, even though he wants a solution to his health costs, which
are rising at a rate of 10% a year.
Opinion: The Wall Street Journal
By AVERY JOHNSON and JANET ADAMY
-Jonathan D. Rockoff, Colleen DeBaise and Vanessa Fuhrmans contributed
to this article.
Posted by Scott W. Yates, MD, MBA, MS, FACP
