Secure free market competition and consumer choice in the healthcare reform debate

On October 19, the Committee for Economic Development sent a letter to the Business Roundtable concerning Sen. Ron Wyden's "Free Choice Amendment."  On October 23, the Business Roundtable responded.  Here are excerpts from the letter the Business Roundtable sent to the CED:

Business Roundtable CEOs agree with you on many points. As you know, we are taking a leadership role in the health care reform debate and are deeply committed to public policy changes that will improve our nation’s health care system.

Patchwork measures will not suffice and a market based system with competition and choice is imperative. Consumers must have health insurance options. We believe insuring members of society is the right thing to do, which is why our companies offer health coverage to our employees now, although there is no legislated obligation or mandated requirement to do so. However, we disagree with you as to the proper approach to existing problems and concerns.

While significant and substantial health care reform is critical, we continue to support employer based health care and find Senator Wyden’s approach to be contrary to competition, free market and choice. Although Senator Wyden’s amendment includes the words “free choice,” it imposes new government control on private business negotiations and decisions.

While significant and substantial health care reform is critical, we continue to support employer based health care and find Senator Wyden’s approach to be contrary to competition, free market and choice. Although Senator Wyden’s amendment includes the words “free choice,” it imposes new government control on private business negotiations and decisions.

Legislating a requirement that employers contribute toward health care coverage for their employees introduces the government into the employer-employee relationship in a new unprecedented way. Although Senator Wyden’s amendment offers three options to employers - two “choices” should the employer decide to continue offering coverage and one “choice” should the employer decide not to - the proposal places a new mandate on employers to pay for coverage. It is hard to imagine how this “inject(s) the market forces of choice and competition into the health care system” as Senator Wyden asserts, when it places new mandates on employers.

We do not want to erode ERISA - this law permits employers to voluntarily offer benefits to their employees -- benefits that meets their employees’ needs. Over 130 million Americans receive health benefits through their employer. We do not want to dismantle that system or make it too cumbersome.

All of our companies offer and contribute toward health insurance coverage for our workers and we will continue to do so because we, like you, believe that it is the right thing to do. However, in offering and contributing towards this coverage, we are currently able to respond to the needs of our workers - who are also our consumers. We are able to modify benefits, develop and innovate new programs with the input of our employees. Imposing a requirement that defines and circumscribes this coverage and contribution amount is contrary to the very philosophy you have highlighted: it allows government to control consumer behavior.

As health care reform efforts reach a crescendo, we as business leaders look forward to advancing the solution based on our common philosophies and goals: competition, free market, and choice while expanding coverage. While we hope to work with you to reach meaningful reform, we cannot support your efforts on Senator Wyden’s legislation.