Big U.S. companies balk at healthcare public option

[kaydee457 13]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the nation's largest companies pushed back against U.S. Democrats' plans to deliver a government-run insurance option in a healthcare overhaul, decrying it as a step backward that would drive up costs for employers and their workers.

The Business Roundtable, comprised of chief executives at Verizon Communications (VZ.N), JPMorgan (JPM.N), General Electric (GE.N), Wal-Mart (WMT.N) and other companies that together employ more than 12 million people, said the federal government is inefficient and would underpay providers. That would result in providers boosting prices for private insurers and employers, the group said on Wednesday.

"A public plan would neither manage cost nor encourage innovation," said Antonio Perez, chief executive of Eastman Kodak Co (EK.N) and head of the Business Roundtable's health initiative. "We believe it is the wrong direction for fixing our health care system."

On Monday, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said his bill would include a so-called "public option" as an alternative to those sold by private insurers. Individual states could "opt out" against offering the plan.

President Barack Obama, who has made health reform his top priority this year, has said a government alternative will force private insurers to be more competitive.

The U.S. House of Representatives' proposals also contain a public insurance option.

Although an earlier congressional analysis found that about 9 million to 10 million people, most uninsured, would opt for the public plan, the Business Roundtable fears that number will jump as people see their private plan premiums climb.

"The costs for all of us in the system will continue to go up and again put pressure on employers to get out of the healthcare system," John Castellani, president of Business Roundtable, told reporters at a news conference.

Other business groups also oppose a public insurance option and are pushing for alternative cooperative exchanges. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched television ads on national cable stations and in seven states on Wednesday to fight the government option.

'ORBITZ' FOR HEALTH PLANS?

The United States is the only developed nation that pays for the bulk of its health care through private employers rather than the government, and studies have shown premiums for workers and their companies continue to rise each year.

Health insurers earlier said they would back some reforms as long as a bill included a strong requirement for people to buy health insurance policies, a move they said would spread risk among a wider pool of people and disperse costs. Insurers also vowed to pass through additional taxes and costs onto purchasers.

While details from the final Senate and House bills have yet to emerge, so far the proposals differ somewhat on what penalties either individuals or companies would face for not buying or providing health insurance.

Companies want to offer employees health care to recruit and retain talented workers, said Bruce Josten, a vice president at the Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber backs an national exchange "with an Orbitz-like website," Josten told Reuters, referring to a popular travel site that compares deals among various providers.

Even if companies were to drop their health care coverage, employers would likely face higher costs elsewhere in the form of higher taxes and other charges to help the government cover the costs, the Business Roundtable's Perez said.

The group stopped short of dropping its support for healthcare reform but said members would work to press their case to lawmakers.

source

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Politicians love stale cliches, and clearly so does Corporate America.

[rebeccajo 14]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Some people add value to society. Some don't. It makes perfect sense to require you add value before spending money on your health.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

It isn't. The insurance is what is mostly tied to employment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

It is - but the McCain plan of individual tax breaks seemed pretty nutty too.

If anything, the problem is in how the insurance industry gets to dictate who has access and how much they pay.

I'm trying to find a specialist atm, and its a nightmare navigating the insurance site trying to figure out if the provider is in network (its on the list, but as the lists are out of date there's no guarantee that the information is current) and how much its likely to cost me.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

[kaydee457 13]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet many of those countries do a better job of healthcare than the US.

Apparently there's nothing whatsoever that can be learned from our business and political partners.

[Nina~ 431]

Your source link is broken!

[rebeccajo 14]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

Oh it's not a function of the Federal government at all - other than the giant tax breaks employers earn for providing insurance instead of wages.

http://www.randcompare.org/options/mechani..._tax_incentives

The health insurance tax deduction for employers is unlimited meaning the size of the deduction could increase indefinitely relative to the value of the health insurance offered, the level of employer contributions, and the take-up rate among employees. Although employers should be indifferent between providing employee wages versus health insurance because they are treated the same with regards to tax policy, employers receive a larger tax break for health insurance in that in that they do not have to include the value of their health insurance contributions in calculating their contributed share of Social Security and Medicare payments. As a result, employers saved an estimated $73 billion in 2006 by avoiding Social Security and Medicare contributions that they otherwise would have had to pay if they provided compensation in the form of cash wages rather than health insurance.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

I don't hear anyone trying to justify that specific situation. However, most of us do not believe a government takeover will result in something better.

Perhaps some protections are in order, but a government takeover is the answer to nothing.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

and car and house ownership too!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

I don't hear anyone trying to justify that specific situation. However, most of us do not believe a government takeover will result in something better.

Perhaps some protections are in order, but a government takeover is the answer to nothing.

A public insurance option is a far cry from a nationalised healthcare system.