Comments on: The business lobby takes on healthcare reform http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: lambertstrether http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23205 Sun, 16 Jan 2011 03:09:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23205 Executives don’t always lobby for what is best for their company, they lobby for what is best for themselves

Shocker!

]]>
By: ARJTurgot2 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23143 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:41:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23143 Lots of posturing, little content. They are already maneuvering for 2012, and by then this won’t be an issue. The Dems won on health care, though the result is a incomprehensible kludge. It will be fought now on the edges, but changing the core will take the same super-majority that the Dems had and lost, and I don’t think that’s in the cards for either party.

Sadr’s return to Iraq is going to put the country into play, and the winner is going to be Iran. We are going to be arguing over who lost Iraq. The answer is Gertrude Bell, and she didn’t have any choice, but that won’t matter.

]]>
By: willid3 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23142 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:37:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23142 most likely its the fact that we tried to keep the health financing system we have (employer funded). they have been over time dropping the benefit all together. which is really where they want to be headed. as it is they will cover their employee, but charge full rate for dependents. but they really want to drop it. otherwise it make no sense as the plan was to reduce the cost of health care by stabilizing the financing of it. and to try and keep that in the private sector. but that ended up meaning there had to be a mandate, otherwise requiring the insurance companies to provide coverage without pre-existing condition exclusion, ends up with no health insurance companies at ll as they would all go broke over night. as it is, we have monopolies controlling the insurance and provider markets for each state and city, and they have no need to control the cost of care. they just won’t pay for it, either by recession or rejecting claims. death panels the private way!

]]>
By: REDruin http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23138 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:04:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23138 I think Wal-Mart’s logic was more along the lines of: Wait, we can employ full time workers, not pay their health insurance, and only fork over $85 a month? That’s saving us like $400/person a month…sign us up!

]]>
By: OnTheTimes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23128 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:17:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23128 Executives don’t always lobby for what is best for their company, they lobby for what is best for themselves. They don’t make decisions based on what is best for their company in the long term, they make decisions based on what will maximize their short term compensation. Bonuses today, big losses when they are gone – heard that story before?

So why would business execs be against a bill that provides health insurance for their employees for much less than they could pay for it? Because a) they want to pay lower individual income taxes, and b) they want to help Republicans get elected, so they can a) pay lower income taxes.

I’m not sure how it actually ended up, but at one point, the bill included a provision where the government would charge employers $85 per month for each worker who didn’t get health insurance. Wal-Mart was in favor of it, and they were chastised by other CofC members for their stance, but I’m guessing Wal-Mart was thinking “where else can we insure our workers health for $85 per month?”. Cuba, maybe, but not in these here United States.

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23126 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:13:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23126 My guess is that business sees either higher costs or an expanded mandate (which would lead to higher costs). Certainly one of the likely casualties in the coming years is the deductability of benefits by companies.

Despite the rhetoric about the healthcare bill lowering costs, it came out toward the end of the debate that the initial thrust was actually expanded care, with cost control to come at some point down the road. That’s a dubious proposition for a number of reasons, and if the individual mandate is shot down (anyone’s guess), cost control is probably impossible.

Expanded care is an important and laudable goal, but I think business is assuming they are going to be stuck with permanently higher costs.

]]>
By: pumpkin3142 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/13/the-business-lobby-takes-on-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23120 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:42:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=6930#comment-23120 “What he doesn’t explain is how the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business became party-political hack machines, lobbying for whatever’s good for Republicans politically rather than whatever’s good for businesses on a policy basis. Is this something new, something related to the increasingly-partisan nature of Washington? Or were they ever thus?”

Read Kim Phillips-Fein’s Invisible Hands. The partnership between right wing ideologue William Mullendorf & Leonard Read of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce led to the transformation of the Chamber into an institution devoted to fighting the social changes brought on by the New Deal. It’s not new, but the Chamber’s stance grows out of a relationship formed in the 1930s.

]]>