How many times have Republicans lectured us that we shouldn’t be imposing unreasonable burdens on small businesses who, they tell us, create 80 percent of the new jobs in America? A zillion?
So what do you think Olympia Snowe thought when representatives of Maine’s small business community told their Senator they opposed a mandate on business to purchase insurance for their employees unless there is a public option? HuffPo’s Ryan Grim reports:
Snowe met with Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition; Clifford Mohr, president of Group Dynamic Inc.; Greg Dugal, executive director of the Maine Innkeepers Association; Tarren Bragdon, CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center; Dean Powers, director of the Maine Small Business Coalition; Richard Grotton, CEO of the Maine Restaurant Association; David Spellman, President of the Pratt Financial Group; and several other lobbyists.
She quizzed the bunch on what they thought of the proposal to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. She added that she was considering requiring business with more than 50 employees to pay 100 percent of the cost of subsidies for their employees’ health insurance.
Small business representatives told Snowe that they were opposed to any mandates that came without a public option and that such an alternative was desperately needed for small business, which can’t afford the rising cost of health insurance for their employees. The costs make them unable to compete on a level playing field with bigger companies, which can use their size to leverage lower prices. Lobbyists representing larger corporations took the opposite position.
So, the businesses that Republicans believe create 80 percent of new jobs are against a mandate without a public option, because, it would seem, those businesses believe a public option will give them a more affordable means to meet the mandate. Makes perfect sense.
But their larger competitors don’t want their smaller competitors to have a more affordable means to provide health insurance to their employees, because they want to maintain a competitive advantage over the small businesses that create 80 percent of the jobs.
So why isn’t Maine’s Senator insisting on a public option? Someone needs to ask Snowe whether she supports small businesses and job creation in Maine or, instead, thinks Maine’s job-creating businesses should remain at a competitive disadvantage? And she’s going to need a better answer than "Chuck Grassley and my party told me it’s off the table."
Related:
Anima/Seminal, State by state chart shows Maine premiums rising 4.59 times faster than average wages.
43 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Nice. Do you know of any polls in Maine that deal with the PO?
No, but it would be interesting to see how this story is/isn’t reported in Maine papers/tv.
No mention about the business group here
Maine’s Congressional Delegation Divided on Health Care Reform Maine’s Public Broadcasting Network.
Portland Daily Sun
Snowe remains opposed to public care option
I’m not sure if this was the same meeting, there is no date posted on this article.
I maintain that the only reason this issue had been brought back in after 15 years in exile is precisely because rising healthcare costs are hitting businesses hard, and small businesses even harder (speaking from personal experience).
The perverse market that is exploited by health insurance companies creates conditions that heavily favor megacorps. It’s very, very hard to keep quality employees working for small businesses once their life includes a spouse and children. Suddenly healthcare benefits begin to heavily outweigh competitive salaries and engaging work.
Yes, and speaking also from experience, it just sucks energy to have to worry about having enough coverage. To say nothing of watching premiums soar.
And that’s aside from the fact that I don’t get a nickel in tax breaks for my health club payments in order to try and keep at least modestly ‘fit’ and supposedly benefit my health.
FWIW, I was once invited to sit on a ‘national small biz advisory group’ for the GOP, supposedly involving monthly phone meetings with some top-dog GOPers in Congress. I declined, partly because it seemed like a waste of my time — but in retrospect, maybe I should have participated just to start tossing some statistics in to try and get some of the nearly brain-dead GOPers to get a fookin’ clue about trying to pay for health care in this nation as a small biz.
My usually-unreliable source was telling me that at least one health-insurance
scammercompany is trying to get the regulators (such as they may be) to allow 35% profit margins instead of their current 25%.I think they ought to be regulated exactly like public utilities – which are usually limited to 10 to 15% profit margins, and are doing fine. Of course, most utility executives don’t get multi-million-dollar salaries and eight-or-nine-figure stock options, which would put a crimp in the style of the insurance
scammersexecs.Excellent find, Scarecrow. And good point, NA.
In any honest public debate, health care / health insurance reform would have to be in large part a class discussion. So sad that acknowledgement of class distinctions and unequal treatment is untenable — triggers the “class warfare!” strawman too fast.
Yes, I checked several local news stories on her meetings this week (e.g. for the 17th), and none of them seems to confirm the exact point in Grim’s report. And of course, Friday, she repeated that the Gang of Six was not considering a public option but was focused on cutting costs and determining the scope and coverage in subsidies for private plans to be offered in the exchange.
I don’t think the request is for 35% profit margins. The issue, I believe is how much of the total cost of coverage should be born by the individual and how much by the insurer. A typical policy might agree to cover 75% and leave no more than 25% to the patient/policy holder. I read a few days ago that the insurance companies were asking to lower their share to 65%, which would leave 35% to be covered by you and me. Setting those terms is one of the items under consideration in the Finance Committee — which means the industry is well aware of the negotiations, but the public is generally note — all this is done in behind closed doors, in the new era of transparency.
Wendell Potter had an appearance on PBS recently, in which he discussed this issue, and I’ll try to put up a post on it over the weekend.
in my experience I learned that a firm with high pay grade execs who have had medical events (like heart attack, etc) will be locked into a particular insurance co, that then can increase their premiums in complete confidence they will not lose the firm as a customer, because that would mean losing coverage. the premiums are passed on to the employees, and by that process, lots of businesses are in a lot of trouble keeping insurance – so are looking for a way out. Of course, having the vision to get over the fear of losing coverage for the old guard requires more intelligence than most operate with.
This is huge and should be pushed more, in other locations. We need to break the united front of “business” on this issue. Politicians are always hyping small business. Well, small business NEEDS the public option.
Interesting. I’d never even considered that. Guess you have to have a certain kind of mind to think that way.
It hits my husband’s business hard. We are in competition with not only American businesses that don’t pay health insurnace, but Canadian businesses that don’t carry the health insurnace costs. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that Republicans turned off their brains a long time ago and won’t listen.
Lady…these are special interest coalitions. Try going to the Kaufman foundation, there you will see what small businesses want and need. The Kaufman foundation doesn’t care whether we are waving a rose in the air or the color of our ties, they just care about real small businesses and the potential of entrepreneurship.
And they should. No PO is nothing but a bailout.
I just went to the Kauffman Foundation and searched “health care reform”. Nothing came up.
Snowe (my senator) has consistently taken this position. The best she’ll do is PO with a trigger. “We have to be fair to the insurance industry” is her refrain. So unless she is still angling to change parties (there were some hints of that a few month ago, when Snarlin Arlen made the move, but I’ve heard nothing since), or Obama has some other leverage with her (he keeps mentioning her in this context), it doesn’t look so good. That said, the other day the Bangor paper (which is very pro Snowe) had a front pager on how local people were pushing her to support PO. Pessimistic view: to prove that she’s been listening, Optimistic view: to help give her an opening to jump ship, at least on health care. She’s very popular here overall, but health care is clearly a big issue, especially since this is a poor state.
I guess this is essentially OT but I couldn’t resist an opportunity to poke a hole in this:
An interesting statistic. IIRC, something like 80% of small businesses fail within a fairly short period of time (don’t recall the exact time frame). So small businesses both create and destroy a large number of jobs, but the last part is always left out; means there is essentially a lot of job churn as a result of small business activity with a relatively small net increase in a good economy. It stands to reason that small businesses have been failing more than succeeding in this economy.
Why? When has the insurance industry been fair to us?
It’s up to us to get the attention of our elected officials , the press and the public. We can have our voices heard , on September 13 there are marches taking place in cities all over this country.
Those of us who support our president ,and those of us who want the PO need to be there. Large turnouts in cities and towns all over the country will show our elected officials what the American public really wants.
We already know, a healthcare bill with no PO is a give away to the insurance industry.
Let’s not let this happen !
Of course FDL’s own fundraising effort can act as an object lesson for Snowe and other foot-draggers:
In five days, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly $400,000 for the 60 progressive members of Congress who have agreed to draw a line in the sand over a public plan.
You, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians (and an object lesson to the others) at ACT Blue:
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge
I do no understand her thinking. If I open a store that sells widgets down the street from another store that sells widgets, do I have to be “fair” – whatever that is. Businesses are in competition and it amazes me that anyone would think that the insurance companies should not have to compete.
There is no mystery about how this saga will end– The government is going to end up providing healthcare for the most expensive, high-risk portion of our national demographic (the elderly, the very young, and the poor.) The private insurers will inherit the most desirable slice of the market— those who are least likely to require expensive diagnosis and treatment.
The industry term is ‘medical loss ratio’ which includes not just profits, but also administration costs and definitely what is at issue here, executive compensation. Out side of Wall Street itself some of the biggest paychecks out there go to top execs of companies and institutions that are legally incorporated as non-profits. Ginormous parts of the medical delivery and insurance sector is handled by ‘non-profits’. Which doesn’t mean their leadership iives in third-story walkup apartments or travels economy class.
A couple of decades ago the typical medical loss ratio was 95%, meaning insurance companies had to bay 95 cents out of every premium dollar (and I guess investment income) out on actual care. Now that ratio is down to 80% and it looks like they want to push it lower. Note that NONE of this comes from higher costs from providers, that all falls on the other side of the equation, nope we are all on average paying 4X what we used to just to have access to paid medical care, right in front of the actual dollars actually spent on it.
it wont affect her or her idealogies
reagan economics is still alive and well with these folks even through it has brought this country almost to its knees.
but not quite yet we have much more to lose in wealth before americans awaken to the destruction of capitalism left unchecked
the end result bye bye middle class hello third world status of haves and have nots
think it cannot happen here think again and look at history
we will become the new india of haves and have nots
many lessons to learn in america
now lets invade iran and get their oil it is the american way
call them evil and terrorists and invade americans love a good quick war for profits
it is the long wars for profits they dislike
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty which are embodied in one maxim: the fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate” Bertrand Russell.
Only if the insurance companies get Sec 116 of the House Bill stripped out of the combined bill at final. Two sentences that if enforced gut the entire model that extracts huge profits from ensuring only healthy people unlikely to make claims.
I first talked about Sec 116 at Angry Bear on July 28. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/…..oking.html and then again this morning. It is I think the single most important yet mostly overlooked piece of legislation in the bill. In my mind a bill without PO but with Sec 116 is much weaker than a bill that retains both, but would be acceptable in the interim.
Basically the argument for taking the Medical Loss Ratio to 65% is an argument for a lax enforcement of Sec 116 or perhaps for its abolition, its inclusion or not is critical to the success of the bill in controlling cost. The subject of my post from today http://angrybear.blogspot.com/…..n-why.html
It’s insane to me that we should take it for granted that employers should even be in the business of providing health insurance, making serfs tied to health insurance out of productive employees and reinforcing a connection between being an employee and being deserving of healthcare. It’s a totally illogical and outdated connection and to think that it’s the Republicans who are now leading the charge for employer mandates is topsy-turvy. Why doesn’t someone point this out? Single payer is the only sane way.
I want to start a pledge that says: any congressperson that is opposed to a public option will commit to giving up the right to Medicare upon eligibility.Furthermore, if a public option is passed, any who vote no are automatically ineligible for the public option insurance.
True…and one of the major criteria cited by failing businesses is escalating health-insurance costs (related issues like injury liability and occupational health-care costs are other major factors).
She just says that, no further explanation given. A neat way for her to play along with the ins. cos. and appear to be evenhanded at the same time. Ditto for the “bipartisan” meme, which she also spouts frequently. I have the sense (but only that) that these may be wearing a bit thin, however.
At the end of the day you’ll get the patented Snowe Straddle™ — yes on cloture, no on the ultimate bill.
Right. Around here she is referred to as Sen. Snowe (R-INS)
Yeah, what’s up with that? Those are the sliding-scale purchase subsidies based on percent of the federal poverty line, as per HR 3200, right? And she wants them paid, in the case of all but the smallest firms, by the firms, and not from the government via taxation? That’s not exactly big-(or biggish-) business-friendly.
Scarecrow Great Catch! Can we get the MSM to ask Senator Snowe about that on tape? Or maybe even a net reporter just the sight of Senator Snowe ducking the question would be great net tv.
Just the reports on the net that the Senator’s office still won’t comment about what was discussed at her lobbyist meeting should embarrass her if we give it repeated net coverage.
I mean Pro Business GOP Senator Snowe ignoring the needs of the small business community in her state?
Senator Snowe killing small business in favor of the insurance and drug companies profits?
How many Maine jobs do you think go to Canada because they have cheaper health care and cheaper drugs up there?
Snowe is a swing vote lets inform the voters of Maine what the real issues on health care are.
I keep wondering why businesses and corporations arent screamin to get of the burden of health care off their backs. Seems to me any business would welcome a system where they were no longer responsible for employees health care. But it is very rare when you hear business make any comment. And we all know why…the corporations know that keeping control of employees health care keeps the employees enslaved to them. Small business knows the cost and cant afford it and doesnt want to have to deal with it. But the corporations…you never hear a peep out of them.
The fact that corporations ended up controlling our health care is yet more clear proof that this government is run by the corporations. The real reason the republicans dont want to change a thing about our health care is because it is a form of enslavement to business. Its not about capitalism or choice or competition. Its about enslavement. The corps know that as soon as we no longer need this benefit we can and walk if they start fucking us over.
The only reason a corporation is willing to swallow the cost of providing health care is because they KNOW it keeps the average American enslaved to their system. Once thats gone we are far more likely to seek other employment or decide to start a business of our own. That scares the hell of out of these bastards.
As the post above suggest, businesses of all sizes should be at the forefront of this. I work part-time for an airline and my premiums keep rising so fast, it eats-up almost all of one of my bi-weekly checks.
When is it time for Olympia to be off the table?
Within 5 years from the time they are started.
profit margin for united health care
Profitability _______Company _Industry_Sector__ S&P 500
Profit Margin (5 Y Ave)_1.67 %_ 6.09___ 15.70_ 12.60
http://clearstation.etrade.com…..mbol%3dunh
Why, oh why is this never yelled loudly in the healthcare reform debate? Are we so afraid of offending the insurance industry that we can’t point out the obvious?
The reason that no attention is paid to preventive health care by the insurance industry is that Medicare pays for the lack of prevention, they don’t.
Just so you all know….this was mentioned on WGAN560 AM radio (very popular political station), so there was coverage of it. Heard it myself. I have no idea if it was reported on the television news here since I don’t get the local channels on my satellite cable thanks to the ’lovely’ tree in the backyard! They come in great during the Fall/Winter when there’s no leaves on it, though. LOL
She is a United States Senator, and because of that she thinks She knows it all. People just can’t get the fact that these people don’t care what anyone wants, and decide things on what they think. These one hundred people are the most pompous fools in the Country, yet we treat them as if they are our great leaders. The Constitution says these people including Senators are to represent the people. We have let them tell us they are our deciders, and get away with it. Untill the people wake up we are doomed to what these people think, and not what we need or want.
Once you start down the subsidies road health policy will become more and more like our agricultural policy with small businesses the emotional focal point in the same way that family-owned farms are the focus for the emotional rhetoric that simply serves as window dressing necessary to give cover to the federal government to subsidize huge agribusinesses.
The Gang of Six is taking farm policy and bending it around into a health policy because they are determined to save the wildly inefficient free market for health insurance at whatever cost to those Americans who need affordable and universal high quality health care. It is these very Americans who should be the sole focus of the Group of Six in the first instance but, instead, their focus is entirely ass backwards with insurance companies first and Americans second. This is why their policy sucks, but this is also why they can get away with it because useless morons like Olympia Stowe insist to their constituents that they just can’t buck their party’s leaders. Essentially, Stowe is telling her small business constituents in Maine to go fuck themselves because big business in America counts more, and pays better, than small businesses.
What outstanding leadership on an issue of vital interest to every American from Senator Stowe. What’s the recall procedure in Maine and why isn’t it being utilized after Senator Stowe tells her constituents in no uncertain terms that it is Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (R-Ethanol) and not Senator Stowe who determines health policy for all Mainers without so much as a peep from Senator Stowe?