Small businesses in Oregon need health care reform
by Nancie Koerber of Central Point. Koerber started her career in sales more than 30 years ago. She has owned and operated a successful insurance agency, real estate brokerage and currently runs Champions Realtime Training in Central Point.
I've just returned from a three day trip to Washington DC with 134 other small business owners from 25 states. We represented the Main Street Alliance—more locally the Oregon Small Business Council—and were there specifically for one reason: "To be heard" by our lawmakers on the issue of reforming our runaway health insurance industry.
We wanted the following:
1. Costs that are affordable (tax credits, subsidies for employees)
2. Effective cost controls that promote quality, lower administrative costs, and long term financial sustainability
3. Coverage we can count on (Insurance market reforms)
4. Choice and competition (national exchange, public option)
5. Commitment that's shared (shared responsibility, larger employers pay their fair share)
Small businesses in America now make up at least 60 percent of jobs. Every small business should be able to afford quality health coverage. We're willing to contribute, but we can't do it alone. We need real choice and real competition.
We started the day (Nov 2) with a press conference at the Senate, then moved to the White House for an event with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Small Business Administration head Karen Hill to have a question and answer session. In the afternoon, we met with our respective senators and representatives. The three of us from Oregon lobbied Reps. Schrader and Walden. Then we moved onto the Senate to spend some time with Sens. Wyden and Merkley.
The most important thing I learned from the trip is that Capitol Hill is like an anthill crawling with little worker ants. Most of them were very high paid lobbyists. They get their voice heard by constantly being there and offering campaign contributions and fact-impaired data to persuade our leaders. It is imperative that we continue to have our voices heard.
If you have called your congressperson 10 times on health insurance reform, it is not enough. Your stories and your voice matter and make a major difference. Keep calling, writing and showing up at events. Those who oppose our values need to hear from us the most. It is our America, so lets not let them forget it.
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on reform.
Congressman Kurt Schrader
Phone: (202) 225-5711
Congressman Greg Walden
Phone: (202) 225-6730
Congressman David Wu
Phone: (202) 225-0855
Congressman Peter DeFazio
Phone: (202) 225-6416
Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Phone: (202) 225-4811
|
November 7, 2009 |
guest column | Comments (17 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Judy | Nov 7, 2009 9:45:16 AM
Yes, I'm watching the events unfold today as well to see what happens with the vote and the state of healthcare in this country. Bills normally stifle once their passed and sent to the Sentate. Let's just hope this bill doesn't. comcast bill pay
Posted by: Sharon | Nov 7, 2009 12:55:27 PM
I'm a constituent and I was able to get through to Rep. Schrader's DC office to tell him I support the bill a few minutes ago. They are definitely in the office taking calls today, so keep trying!
Posted by: Jim Houser | Nov 7, 2009 5:53:55 PM
Nancie, Thanks for taking the time to go to DC on the behalf of small businesses like mine. I just got word the final vote should occur about 11PM tonight and the measure should pass with 220 or more votes. Next, the Senate.
Posted by: Tom Vail | Nov 7, 2009 5:57:55 PM
Watch the video HERE
Then tell me if you support the current Bill in the House that protects trial lawyers, not patients.
It is an interview with renowned neurosurgeon, Ben Carson. It is worth your time no matter what your view of the current health care debate.
There is also a link at my blog - http://ttoes.wordpress.com
Posted by: duplicate photo finder | Nov 8, 2009 3:17:08 AM
under today's system, a majority of Americans who try to obtain health insurance in the individual market are denied coverage because of pre-existing
conditions or because plans are simply unaffordable.Current
policies allow insurers to place limitations on coverage, essentially forcing
patients to pay for their health care services on their own, often leaving
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 8, 2009 8:34:59 AM
Well Nacie, be careful what you ask for. You now are facing an 8% payroll tax to pay for your share of supporting the bill. Either that or you may provide insurance for your employees and families as long as you do not charge them over 12% of their take home pay or 35% of the premium, whichever is lower.
Posted by: Jim Houser | Nov 8, 2009 12:27:22 PM
Kurt C.: "...be careful what you ask for. You now are facing an 8% payroll tax to pay for your share of supporting the bill. Either that or you may provide insurance for your employees and families as long as you do not charge them over 12% of their take home pay or 35% of the premium, whichever is lower." The health care premiums I pay for my employees are currently over 18% of payroll. In what world would 8% be a burden for my company? If the cost of my premiums is reduced to 8% I could afford to hire more staff. In what world would increasing employment be a problem?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 8, 2009 1:50:46 PM
Jim, great question. I agree with you. Assumiong that you have no employees represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement, you are correct. You WILL jettison (sp?) your current expensive group health plan and tell your employees to go out on the "Exchange" and find their own coverage.
You may even be generous and give your employees the actual amount saved (12% of your payroll) so that they can obtain their own coverage. Of course you will have fewer tax offsets, so your actual net revenue will go down assuming sales and COGS remain the same. Some employees will obtain coverage, some will not.
Under the Law of Unintended Consquences, the rnks of those employees seeking the Exchange will grow dramatically beyond what the government has estimated because other smart employers will do EXACTLY what you and I agree is best for your growing company. Then a few years later, administrators will look shame faced when, like Oregons BETC, the costs are way over what was originally forcast.
But yes, you are correct. A payroll tax in lieu of current costs, administrative burden and taking away from your business core competencies would be preferable. that is why you and many, many other busniess owners will take the option.
Posted by: Jim Houser | Nov 8, 2009 3:43:59 PM
Curt,
Why do you assume I will change our health care provider? If I have kept the same provider for the last 26 years when I wasn't required to have any coverage why would I cancel coverage now that I am required to cover my employees? That makes no sense to me. If I maintain good health coverage so as to retain good people, why would I jeopardize my business by cutting them loose from a benefit they rely on? Sure, if the new public insurance plan is as good as our current coverage, if we qualify, and if my staff concurs, I'd make the switch. But I'd be a fool to ask my staff to take less than they already have. What I am looking forward to is my current provider, as a result of the competition provided by the public plan, lowering their prices on the coverage we have through them. I don't know if you have any business experience (I suspect not), but I suggest you examine the worker's compensation insurance model provided by Oregon's SAIF. SAIF has private insurance competitors in this state but, according to business associates of mine in other states, these private insurance provider's rates are considerably less in Oregon than they are in other states without an SAIF model. When my health insurance costs decline I will then have the resources to hire additional staff. Simple business economics.
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 8, 2009 9:59:12 PM
Kill the talk about coupling small business coverage to percent of full-timers! Small businesses cut MAJOR costs by keeping everybody under 30 hours. That's the "opt out" they will use. They need it.
If you tie it to something like 75% have to be FTE, you'll end up with every employer providing benefits, whether they want to or not. That isn't competitive. Competitors exist now on the 'net from Pakistan, China, Africa, etc. They get a few bucks a day and a poke up the bum, IF they're lucky. You don't have a clue how much they compete against your little businesses already.
Go to any restaurant. Is there art on the walls? Bought off a Chinese website. Furnishings? eBay. Kitchen help? Every 3rd world country you can name. Every one of those things is available locally. Those mom and pops are going under. You cannot ask them to pay a dime more in any kind of overhead. That your public officials decide to make a career of their pandering, and charge those hard working folks for it, is beyond contempt. You want to send you elected offical a message that is good for Oregon business? Spit in their faces. They've been crapping on yours for years.
Posted by: Matt Marulla | Nov 8, 2009 10:03:00 PM
But, if Oregon SAIF buys enough commercial time on PBS, Joe Q. Stoopid will conclude they're progressive! Once you haven't/can't notice that PBS is commercial TV, you can be sold a lot of things.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 9, 2009 7:02:09 PM
Jim, some interesting comments indeed. actually I have over 30 years business experience and am VERY well versed in Benefits, Labor Relations and Workers' Comp. I OR don't know what your business is or does, but at 18% of payroll I can tell you that your health insurance is either:
1. Gold plated and costs borned pretty much totally by the company. Look out because health care reform may hit you w/a 40% excise tax. OR
2. Your company has an extremely high experience rating; in which case some very specific containment and high cost strategies should be in play OR
3. Your insurance carrier of the past 26 years is hosing you. They probably should have suggested a HDHOOP plan layered over an HRA funded entirely by your company that would have given excellent coverage wile dramatically lowering your costs AND allowing no high usage employees to save for futre high medical costs in retirement.
I do agree that SAIF is an excellent wc carrier. They have some of the best actuaries and service people I have ever dealt with, and I've done wc in 15 different states over the past 30 years. However, their rate structure is not what has lowed the rates in Oregon charges by Liberty, Wausau, The Travelers and others, no it is the excellent WC regulations passed by our legislature in 1988, 1995, 1997 and 2001. In fact the other carriers have tried twice, unsuccessfully to force SAIF to charge more via the legislative and/or initiative process.
If you wish to address your insurance issues I would recommend Jeff Jones in Eugene; tell him I recommended him.
Posted by: Jim Houser | Nov 9, 2009 7:52:12 PM
Kurt, (I apologize for misspelling your name.) I see you do have HR knowledge and experience so I fail to understand how you think I would suddenly cut off my long term employees' benefits. Is that the kind of advice you give your clients? And we don't have any kind of "gold plated" coverage, we have good old Kaiser P. (about the third level down the list). We cover employees and their families. We do have 6 employees over 50 (one over 60). One has had three hip replacements, a heart valve and aorta replacement, and numerous other maladies. Such is life. And your comment about Travlers, et al attempting to engineer a rate increase, an increase not required by SAIF, eloquently makes my point about the value of a public product like SAIF functioning as designed to keep health insurance rates under control. Would you care to guess the reaction of Oregon businesses if the leg. attemtped to "privatize" SAIF? We obviously need a strong SAIF model in our national health insurance mix.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Nov 10, 2009 8:53:17 AM
Jim, I think that we agree more than we disagree. I'm not advocating cutting off long term employee's access to health care benefits. I am suggesting that a good many employers (especially those with fewer than 100 employees) will seriously consider this. I'll bet that you have fewer than 100 employees and therefor do not even get census and experience date for your firm.
A recent study released by Providence Healthcare suggests that on average, Oregon employers face employee healthcare experience where 5% of their employees generate over 45% of the Plan costs each year. That is in line with your brief description of use on the Kaiser Plan. Again, there are innovative ways out there for you as a company owner to utilize self funding,partial self-funding and other mechanisms to hold down health premiums and still provide for your employees and families.
at present rates and demographic trends, healthcare insurance costs for Oregon are projected to double again in the next 5.4 years.
And SAIF is not a public entity. It is a quasi public/private entity operaing as a private entity.
Posted by: NewHorizon | Nov 10, 2009 10:03:38 PM
what is the future like with the new health care reform?... http://www.typobounty.com/Funny/Health_Care_Reform.htm
Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 11, 2009 9:33:16 AM
I'm completely for universal, public option health care, just to make an up front disclaimer. I also projectile vomit at the sound of right wing radio.
Oregon employers face employee healthcare experience where 5% of their employees generate over 45% of the Plan costs each year.
So forgetting the crazies love to bash the point- does that mean you can't consider it?- how long do you think the behaviors that generate those expenses will be legal? White sugar, triglycerides, smoking...there's 50% of your inflated coverage costs. It's legit to consider how a Gov that has shown only contempt for our rights would deal with that.
Rather than saying "dump it", I say that explicit protections should be built in now. That isn't happening. Really fits the theory that Dems are behind conservative talk radio. When there's a real prob. with leg., get them to jump on the point so that no one takes it seriously. Meanwhile, Dems aren't crafting a proper bill. Coincidence?
Wake up. This is a very dysfunctional, two-faced, one party system.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | Nov 7, 2009 8:55:34 AM
Thank you for your contribution and advocacy. The vote is today and offices are closed so a phone call is a bit late. The one blue dog from Oregon, Kurt Schrader, as of yesterday was still threatening to vote with the Republicans to kill the bill. As of this morning the abortion issue has been taken care of, and the American Catholic Bishops had endorsed the bill, including a letter affirming the right of universal health care for all Americans. Looks like the House bill will pass. So the focus will be on the Senate next week and after that the Conference bill.