http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-health16may16,0,2097102.story?coll=la-home-local
From the Los Angeles Times
Democrats prescribe bigger health levy
By Jordan Rau
Times Staff
Writer
May 16, 2007
SACRAMENTO — Escalating the already tense
fight about what financial burden businesses should bear, the Democrats who
control the Legislature proposed Tuesday that most California employers be
required to spend the equivalent of at least 7.5% of their payrolls on
healthcare — nearly twice the amount Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has
proposed.
The mandate on employers would raise more than $5 billion and —
along with federal taxpayer money and worker contributions — allow California to
extend insurance to about 69% of the 4.9 million people who lack it at any given
moment. Among states, only Hawaii has a significant employer mandate. But the
Democratic proposals in California would go further by including dependent
coverage and more part-time workers.
The employer contribution was the
last outstanding detail the Democratic leaders of the California Senate and
Assembly needed for their two comparable plans, which — unlike Schwarzenegger's
plan — are advancing through the Legislature.
The Democratic proposals
further heightened opposition from much of the state's business lobby, which
already has come out against Schwarzenegger's proposal for employers to spend at
least 4% of their payroll on healthcare.
Jot Condie, president of the
California Restaurant Assn., called the Democrats' mandate "devastating" and
said that a broad-based tax, like those placed on income or sales, would be
"less burdensome and less punitive" than what the legislators want from
businesses.
Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said
Schwarzenegger "was encouraged that the healthcare debate was being taken on,"
although the Democrats' plan was not as extensive as the governor's.
Schwarzenegger has proposed requiring everyone in the state to obtain insurance,
and his proposal would cover about 500,000 more people than the Democrats' plans
would.
But several key players in the debate in Sacramento seem poised to
back the Democrats' approach over the governor's as closed-door negotiations
intensify. Both critics and backers said the chances of the Democrats' plans
were bolstered by an outside analysis of the plans that said they would raise
enough money to subsidize care for the poor and all low- and moderate-income
children in California.
Dustin Corcoran, the chief lobbyist for the
California Medical Assn., said his group was more likely to favor the Democratic
plan, which does not include a levy on doctors' incomes, unlike the
governor's.
"It's a solid construct and a very good foundation to build a
universal coverage proposal," Corcoran said.
Art Pulaski, the
secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, called the plans "the
first big step that makes health reform real."
And Anthony Wright,
executive director of Health Access California, one of the most prominent
consumer groups in the capital, said the Democratic plans were "an improvement"
over Schwarzenegger's because they did not require everyone to purchase
insurance.
"This shows that healthcare reform is achievable and that it
can be financed with a relatively modest contribution," Wright said.
The
Democratic proposal's political traction is also bolstered because so far
Schwarzenegger has been unable to win over Republican legislators for his
approach. Democratic leaders say Schwarzenegger's plan needs a two-thirds
backing from the Legislature because it includes assessments on doctors and
hospitals, while their own plans are written to pass with simple majority votes.
The business lobby is already bracing to challenge the final plan in court or at
the ballot box.
Republicans have shown no sign of supporting changes of
the scope Schwarzenegger and the Democrats want. If anything, their public
rhetoric has become less amenable: Dick Ackerman of Irvine, the Senate GOP
leader, issued a statement last week that called the proposals a "dangerous
experiment with the healthcare system for more than 30 million Californians and
the state's competitive and job-creating economy."
Like the governor's
plan, the two Democratic proposals require businesses to spend a set amount of
their payroll on healthcare or pay into a state-run fund that would negotiate
insurance for workers. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats estimate an average
premium of $224 a month per person. That figure is a third lower than the
average HMO premium in the state and has been greeted skeptically by the
nonpartisan legislative analyst's office.
"Four million people in a bulk
purchasing pool isn't going to drive down premiums," said Jamie Court, president
of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica advocacy
group that is pressing for insurance rates to be directly regulated by the
state.
More than 3 million Californians would obtain coverage through the
state's purchasing pool, according to an analysis of the plans by Jonathan
Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor.
The
Democrats argue that 7.5% of payroll is a reasonable amount. Employers that now
offer coverage spend 13.8% of their payroll on average for healthcare, and more
than half exceed 7.5%. Those firms would not have to pay any fees to the
state.
There are 233,000 firms that spend less than 7.5%; they employ 4.5
million workers. An additional 327,000 firms make no contribution; they employ
1.5 million workers.
Not all of those companies would have to ante up.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) wants to exempt the
self-employed from the mandate, while Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los
Angeles) wants to excuse companies with one employee as well as businesses less
than 3 years old and those with annual payrolls under $100,000.
But both
plans are more demanding than Schwarzenegger's, which exempts any company with
fewer than 10 employees.
The governor's plan anticipates raising $1
billion from employers who do not want to provide coverage on their own. The
Senate plan anticipates collecting $6.6 billion, and the Assembly plan projects
that the state pool would receive $5 billion from the fees.
Some allies
of the governor's plan have been privately predicting that the scale of the
Democratic plans would prod businesses to rally behind the governor's
proposal.
But many employer leaders and GOP lawmakers said they viewed
any mandate as unacceptable, because as healthcare costs continue to rise,
employers would be made to chip in more and more.
"For us it's not an
issue of 4% or 7.5%," said Michael Shaw, legislative director of the National
Federation of Independent Business, which has 25,000 members in California. "For
our members, a mandate is a mandate is a mandate."
*
jordan.rau@latimes.com
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Healthcare
proposals
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata
and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez each have proposed new requirements on
California's employers to help expand health insurance for workers and the
poor:
Requirements for employers
Governor:
All firms with 10 or more workers must spend the equivalent of 4% of their
payroll on healthcare or pay into a state fund that provides
coverage.
Senate: All firms must pay at least 7.5% of
payroll on healthcare or pay into a state fund that provides coverage.
Self-employed people are exempted.
Assembly: All firms
must pay at least 7.5% of payroll on healthcare or pay into a state fund that
provides coverage, except businesses operating for three years or less,
businesses with fewer than two workers or businesses with payrolls under
$100,000.
**
Requirements for
individuals
Governor: Everyone must obtain
insurance.
Senate: Everyone earning more than four times
the federal poverty level — $40,840 a year for an individual, $82,600 a year for
a family of four — must obtain insurance.
Assembly:
Individuals whose employers offer health insurance or pay a fee into the state
purchasing pool must take coverage and pay their
share.
*
Sources: California Senate and
Assembly