Washblog

Senator Kaiser remarks that fundamentally this is a labor and market issue. Does the health care situation, especially among large corporations, create a competitive disadvantage for smaller employers?

Insurance Commissioner Kriedler testifies that there is continued reduction in employee benefits, and employers who are trying to be responsible with paying their share of health care costs, and are being punished for it. HB6356 slows the erosion and frees up more revenue for the state to provide other needed services.

There are about 600,000 citizens of Washington State without health insurance.

Senator Parlette – says the bill sounds like double talk; Sen. Kohl-Wells jumps in and says the Insurance Commissioner didn’t write the bill. On to the staff report on the bill....

Staff reports on the bill, basically states that large employers of over 5000 employees must spend 9% of their payroll costs on health care (currently 90% of all large employers already do)

Sen Kaiser comments, this is not a mandated plan but a labor standard for employers to even out the playing field.

Sen. Franklin asks if this bill is similar to the Maryland bill, Sen. Kohl-Wells mentions that it is similar, but not exactly the same.

Moving to public testimony now....

Update [2006-1-19 12:12:24 by Brian]: First up: Community Health Networks representative. They are testifying in favor of SB6356. Showing a chart of the effects of costs when underfunding and more un-insured come into the system. Uninsured show up in the emergency room, the most expensive health care, which is passed on by the hospital to those who are insured.

Family Doctor from Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, speaking in favor of SB6356 – says he sees people every day, people who work full-time and do not have health insurance. They are coming in after delaying their care and are in worse health conditions than they would be if they could get care with insurance. Health care should be supported by the indivudial, the government, and employers.

David (missed who the speaker is) but he is submitting a memo by Wal-Mart executives regarding their policy on health care insurance (try to discourage workers from enrolling in the employer provided plan, and have them enroll in the basic health plan).

Sen. Honeyford mentions that SB6536 will affect about 30 employers in the state. David refutes that.

Next panel: Paul Johnson of the Washington retail association; here to oppose this bill, and also wanted to mention that they oppose any mandates related to family leave as well. Calls it bad policy, and that it will eventually move down from the large corporations to small business. Says that this bill is nothing more than a 'new payroll tax', and will lead to higher costs for health care.

Amy Hill of Wal-Mart testifies to oppose SB6536 - mentions that Wal-Mart is proud to offer a 'myriad' of benefits to their employees, they have over 23 health care benefits. Mentioned from her personal experience, she gets great coverage - she had over $300,000 in health care costs due to her pregnancy and Wal-Mart paid for 100% of it!

Calls the bill politics, not policy. This type of legislation is being introduced around the country and Wal-Mart will be aggressively opposing it everywhere.

Sen. Kohl-Wells brings up the internal memo, that states that only 40% of Wal-Mart employees (and only 46% of employee's children) have health coverage - says it is great that you got coverage, but what about everyone else?

Wal-Mart spokesman says that 74% of their employees have some sort of health insurance (doesn't mention the percentage of which are employees on the basic health plan). Also mentions that they have a plan for children and are making 'tremendous progress'. Sen. Kohl-Wells would like to know what their premiums are.

Sen. Kaiser asks what is Wal-Mart's cost of business in other countries where healh care is not 'on the table'?

Wal-Mart says that it is a remarkable story that Wal-Mart has been so good to its employees. Many of the people (over 30% according to the spokeswoman) who come to work for Wal-Mart did not have any insurance at all, and were living in cars, etc. Huh?

Sen. Franklin says 'isn't it better to provide the insurance with preventative measures, because it helps the company overall'?

Wal-Mart says that they do provide preventative care for mamograms, pre-natal care. They have 'great programs'.

Update [2006-1-19 12:50:13 by Brian]:I drank too much tea, be back in a few...

OK, back. now onto public comment.

A representative with the AWB is saying she feels 'lonely' because she didn't bring enough supporters. (Apparently there are many bill supporters in the room) Starts out saying she hasn't seen a government program that works, only makes things worse. Starts parroting the typical talking points. Says it is a slippery slope the bills will take, and will force them to leave the state. Doesn't realize that this bill will not affect them as they don't employ over 5000 people.

Paul Henry testifies in favor - member of UFCW and shares his personal experiences. His health care coverage helps him financially and helps him be a better employee. Small problems don't turn into large ones - his daughter needed $20k in surgery, and could not have afforded it without health care coverage. Doesn't believe that our tax money should subsidize the largest corporations health care coverage.

Spokane Alliance representative speaks in favor of SB6356 as a way to pragmatically providing access to affordable health care for low income citizens. For a company with $10 billion in profits to say they cannot afford to provide health care is simply false.

Washington State Senior Citizen's Lobby speaks in favor of SB6356 stongly. A growing number of seniors in the state are under 65 and struggling to pay for health benefits, retirement benefits rarely cover sufficiently.

Chair of Washington Health Care Coalition testifies in favor, says facing many good meaning employers are being put at a competitive disadvantage because of some of the largest employers 'not stepping up'. There has never been a standard that government has set that business has not opposed. Those companies need to pay their fare share.

Executive director of Independent Businesses opposes this bill, says it will cost small businesses money in worker's comp, and increase health care costs too. It's going to hurt small business (uh, no it wont).

Washington Restaurant Association opposes because they believe the definition of 'employer' is vague. Scared that the 5000 employee threshold will go down, that it is part of a national plan to make business pay...

Sen. Franklin says that all she hears is that business will leave the state if this is enacted, whenever there is a mandate, business always threaten that they will leave. It's a scare tactic.