Olympia Business Watch

Brunell: What happens in Seattle should stay in Seattle

Seattle officials had a bad idea a couple of years ago, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

Now some lawmakers want to take that idea -- mandatory paid sick leave -- and apply it statewide.

One of the problems with Seattle's sick leave ordinance is how confusing it is. Employers must keep track of every minute their employees are within the city limits of Seattle, no matter where the company is based.

Seattle officials see nothing wrong with this, but what if the tables were turned? What if a neighboring city passed an ordinance exempting Seattle companies from their paid sick leave obligations while their employees were working in that neighboring city?

Seattle officials would likely see such a policy as an outrageous intrusion, Brunell writes.

Exactly.

Brunell: Association health plans work

They weren't part of his original plan, but association health plans -- which came about as a result of Gov. Mike Lowry's failed first attempt -- have turned out to be a huge success, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

They cover an estimated 500,000 people in Washington, nearly half of whom were previously uninsured because their employer could not afford coverage, he writes.

And yet the plans are now in jeopardy, Brunell writes, because state Insurance Commissioner Mike Keridler insists on imposing restrictions that go far beyond those called for in the federal health care law -- even though his agency admits it has no authority to do so.

"Rather than eliminate (association health plans) because they don't net as much premium tax revenue, we should keep them so small businesses can afford to grow and hire people," Brunell writes. "In the end, the state will net far more revenue that way."

How the Legislature can help Obama keep his health insurance pledge

There's still plenty of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but President Obama was crystal clear about one point: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

The president repeated the line many times during the debate leading up to passage of his controversial health care law, and now the Washington Legislature can help him keep the promise by passing a bill aimed at preserving association health plans.

Substitute Senate Bill 5605, sponsored by a bipartisan group of four senators, proposes simply to allow association health plans to continue operating under existing rules while their operators work with the U.S. Department of Labor to confirm that they continue to meet certain criteria.

As AWB's Matt Canedy explained Tuesday during testimony before the Senate Health Care Committee, association health plans have historically been regulated as large groups. Operating under those rules, the plans have grown over the years and become an important part of the state's health insurance market.

The Association of Washington Business operates one such plan, HealthChoice, that now extends coverage to 4,000 employers and covers approximately 40,000 people, many of whom lacked coverage before.

But the ability to continue providing coverage is now in jeopardy because of the way the state insurance commissioner's office is interpreting the law.

Video Rewind: Democratic Caucus leaders deliver Valentine's Lobby Lunch remarks

Our Valentine's edition of Lobby Lunch featured guests from the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses: Sens. David Frockt, D-Seattle, and Nick Harper, D-Everett, and Reps. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, Tami Green, D-Lakewood, and Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim.

Our blog post on the meeting focused on Moeller's comments regarding transportation, a subject that will be in the news this week if Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, releases a funding proposal on Wednesday as expected.

But the legislators also touched on education, health care, and Gov. Jay Inslee's jobs plan.

Check out the full video below:

2013 Lobby Lunch Series: House and Senate Democratic Caucuses. from Association of WA Business on Vimeo.

Lobby Lunch: No need to fight over transportation dollars

Rep. Jim Moeller, D - Vancouver, addresses the crowd at AWB's Feb. 14 Lobby Lunch as Sen. Nick Harper, D - Everett, looks on. Photo: Dan Brunell / AWB

State Rep. Judy Clibborn, chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, will be rolling out a major transportation tax package next week -- or possibly the following week -- Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, said Thursday at AWB's weekly Lobby Lunch meeting.

And once it's out there, Moeller made it clear that he wants lawmakers line up to support it, rather than bickering about which parts of the state stand to benefit the most from it.

"There's no need to fight over who gets what," Moeller said, adding that the future of Washington's economy depends on a vibrant transportation network.

Joining Moeller at the luncheon were Sens. David Frockt, D-Seattle, and Nick Harper, D-Everett, and fellow Reps. Tami Green, D-Lakewood, and Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim.

One of Moeller's main interests with regard to transportation is the planned replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge over the Columbia River.

The so-called Columbia River Crossing project is expected to be one of several "mega projects" included in Clibborn's tax package, along with money for a new Highway 520 floating bridge, Spokane's north-south freeway and Highway 167 in Pierce County.

The proposal is expected to come out next Wednesday, although Moeller hinted at a possible delay, saying it would come "next week or the week following."

ICYMI: New AWB Health Care Report

If you haven't seen it yet, don't miss AWB's latest issue report focusing on health care and the impact of new reforms on businesses in Washington state.

The report was issued last week during AWB's health care forum in Bellevue. About 200 AWB members representing small, medium and large businesses from around the state gathered to hear health care policy experts discuss the early implications of both the new federal health care law and Washington state's new Health Benefit Exchange.

The report, “The State of Health Care in Washington State,” reveals an industry that’s vital to the state’s economy and yet one that’s facing numerous challenges, including a thicket of regulation, skyrocketing costs and a looming workforce shortage.

It’s the second in a series of reports from AWB and its nonprofit affiliate, the AWB Institute, examining the health of various Washington industry sectors. It is the result of a two-month listening tour conducted this spring with health care-related employers throughout the state.

Key trends identified in the report include:

• Over-regulation is driving health-care employers to dedicate staff to regulatory compliance, detracting from patient care.
• Costs are out of control for a variety of reasons, including inadequate reimbursement from federal programs, an increase in uncompensated care, fraudulent billing practices, defensive medicine, and a lack of knowledge on the part of consumers.
• A workforce shortage — postponed by the weak economy — is looming as the aging of the baby boomer generation leads to more retirements and an increase in demand for health care services.

 Additional coverage of the Oct. 23 AWB Health Care Forum is available here, here and here.

Best way for WA employers to affect health care change? Vote!

AWB's Gary Chandler discusses employer's role in health care reform

A lot is on the line next month in the general election. For the state, one of the main costs for employers is that of health care. Depending on who is voted into office can have a big impact on the direction of the state’s new health benefit exchange and implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act.

That’s why it’s so important for businesses to vote legislators into office who keep the interests of business in mind when it comes to health care costs.

At Tuesday’s AWB Health Care Forum in Bellevue, which attracted more than 200 AWB members, a panel discussed employer’s role in health care reform. Panelists included: AWB VP, government affairs, Gary Chandler; Don Conant, general manager, Valley Nut & Bolt Company; Mike Bolander, VP of operations, Columbia Colstor, Inc.; and Paul Brown, benefits services manager, Brown and Brown Insurance.

Valley Nut & Bolt and Columbia Colstor pay for employee health care coverage. Both Conant and Bolander believe that when the exchange is implemented, employee insurance through the exchange will be the most cost effective for most of their employees. This is due to a tax credit for families of four that make less than $92,000 per year.

Unfortunately, the cost of funding the exchange will directly impact taxpayers at an estimated cost of $50 million per year. The ACA also places restrictions on the types of coverage available to small businesses, gives unprecedented authority to the insurance commissioner instead of the Legislature, and will impact large employer and group health plans.

“Many small employers are skeptical of the exchange and the changes it brings,” said Brown. “Washington state has some of the best association health plans in the country and we are in jeopardy of losing these.”

Chandler says the implementation of the exchange is going too fast and needs to be slowed down to look at all the costs involved. He believes that Congress will be going back to make some changes to the ACA. He also encouraged members to reach out to their legislators to express their concerns about health care costs and their impact on businesses.

“The only way we’re going to be able to change course is through the election,” said Chandler. “That’s why it’s so important for employers and employees to vote next month.”

What kind of animal is the state Health Benefit Exchange?

Exchange Panel (Left to Right): Steve Neighbors, Terra Staffing; Don Conant, Valley Nut & Bolt Company; Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R - 12th District); and Rep. Eileen Cody (D - 34th District.) Not pictured: Phil Dyer, Kibble & Prentice and Jeff Gingold, Gingold Law Firm PLLC.

At least they know what to call it.

This week, officials unveiled the new name for Washington's nascent Health Benefit Exchange -- Washington Healthplanfinder -- along with a blue and green logo and the tagline "click.compare.covered."

But judging by the conversation Tuesday at AWB's 2012 Health Care Forum, there is still a fair amount of confusion about what, exactly, the entity is.

Technically, it's a quasi-public organization, not quite a government agency but not exactly private.

The exchange receives government funding and its first employees came from the state Health Care Authority, moderator Jeff Gingold noted during a panel discussion with state legislators, members of the exchange board and small-business owners.

Others pointed out that the exchange receives legal counsel from the state Attorney General's Office and employees receive health and retirement benefits from state programs.

"It looks to me like a government agency," said Gingold, managing partner at Gingold Law Firm.

If it's unclear exactly what the exchange is, it was even less clear to panelists how it will receive funding and whether it will ever be self-sustaining.

Employers face challenges in implementing Affordable Care Act requirements

Neil Trautwein, VP and employee benefits policy counsel with the National Retail Federation.

Neil Trautwein, VP and employee benefits policy counsel with the National Retail Federation, said employers face multiple challenges and will need to figure out how to adapt to requirements in the Affordable Care Act. Trautwein was one of several speakers today at the AWB Health Care Forum in Bellevue.

Trautwein says it’s a tough law to like and understand. The NRF is fiercely opposed to the law and believes it’s punitive, will hurt job creation and be too complex to administer. Regardless, since provisions are quickly coming to bear, employers need to be prepared to implement them.

“While this is the law of the land, we need to do our best to navigate the law,” said Trautwein.

Health care reform law adds cost, bureaucracy

 

Hadley Heath, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum, speaks Tuesday at AWB's 2012 Health Forum.

The federal health care reform law will cost $1.7 trillion over 10 years, create approximately 50 new agencies, offices or commissions and make it more expensive for businesses to employ workers.

That was part of the message Hadley Heath, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum, delivered Tuesday during the opening address at AWB's 2012 Health Care Forum.

A sold-out crowd of 200-plus employers attended the forum at the Hilton Bellevue hotel to find out more about how the law will impact their businesses.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has been one of the most politically charged subjects over the last few years, but Heath -- who is obviously not a big fan -- largely attempted to steer clear of politics and provide a clear-eyed overview of the law and where it's headed.

So far, 16 states -- including Washington -- are moving forward with the creation of health benefit exchanges, which are a centerpiece of the reform, she said. Eight states have said they won't establish an exchange, another eight have made no significant progress toward creating one, and 16 states say they're studying their options.

How can business help change federal health care law? Speak out

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute and an outspoken opponent of President Obama's health care law, was blunt: "This law is going to be changed," Turner said Wednesday during AWB's Policy Summit. "It can't work."

The question for business leaders, she added, is figuring out what they can to make sure the changes end up helping employers and their workers.

The best thing employers can do is speak out to anyone and everyone about what the law is going to do to their business, said Turner. When they passed the law two-and-a-half years ago, Congressional leaders didn't know what was in the law and they still don't know how it will affect businesses, she said.

"A lot of members of Congress just don't have that information," Turner said.

 Some of the things that congressional leaders should know:

AWB Institute starts Health Care Listening Tour

The AWB Institute started a statewide listening tour in Vancouver today.

Focusing on businesses in the health care industry, this tour will research economic, regulatory and workforce challenges facing the industry. Input from these listening sessions will be used to guide the Institute’s work in support of the health care industry.

"Last year's manufacturing tour provided us with great insights into the manufacturing economy," said Amy Johnson with the AWB Institute. "We hope that this statewide tour of health care industry leaders provides similar insights into the future of the industry, how we can support it, and how we can train the next generation of health care workers."

A final report detailing the session findings will be published in October, similar to the Institute’s 2012 manufacturing report, “Challenges and Opportunities for Manufacturers in Washington State.”

Vancouver is the first stop of a one month tour around the state which includes stops in Seattle, Spokane, Tri-Cities, Moses Lake, Mount Vernon, and Snohomish. For more information about these upcoming events, contact Amy Johnson at 360.943.1600.

Pictured: AWB Institute's Amy Johnson with (L to R) Greg Seifert, Biggs Insurance Services; David Horowitz, CPA; David Bennett, Rebound Orthopedics and Neurosurgery; and Paul Baker, Wells Fargo Insurance Services.

Gregoire calls on business to help stop spread of whooping cough

Tom Hosea, chairman of the board of AWB, receives a whooping cough booster vaccine. (Screen grab from KING 5 news report.)

In response to a request from Gov. Chris Gregoire, the Association of Washington Business is urging employers throughout the state to join the fight to stop the spread of whooping cough.

More than 1,200 cases of whooping cough, or pertussis, were reported as of Monday, and the state Department of Health has declared an epidemic. Last year at this time, there were 117 reported cases.

Employers can help stop the spread of the highly contagious bacterial infection by informing their workers about the need to get vaccinated. Teens and adults who have already been vaccinated should get a booster, officials said, because the vaccine wears off over time.

Whooping cough usually starts with mild cold symptoms or a cough but can turn into severe coughing spells followed by gagging or vomiting. It's particularly dangerous for infants and can lead to complications that require hospitalization or even cause death.

Infants are the most at risk, but they are too young to be protected by the vaccine.

"So, it's up to families, caregivers and communities to protect them by getting vaccinated," Gregoire said.

The Tdap (tetanus diphtheria and accelluarl pertussis) booster vaccine is widely available at doctor's offices, pharmacies, healthcare offices and clinics.

In Olympia, the vaccine was available from the Safeway pharmacy for $59.95 without insurance. With insurance, the cost may be less.

More information:

Pertussis fact sheet from the Washington State Department of Health

Brunell: Washington's Health Insurance Exchange - Paying More for Less

Washington's state health insurance exchange may not be the most exciting subject, but it's important to pay attention to what's going on with it, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

Right now, state bureaucrats are making decisions about the exchange that will affect the cost and availability of your health care benefits, regardless of whether your insurance company is taking part in the exchange.

All around the country, states are going through similar exercises. Some are creating open market exchanges, such as Utah, that gives more control to consumers, while others are following the Massachusetts model and opting for active purchaser exchanges, which emphasize state control.

Washington is moving in the direction of the active purchaser model, setting up a scenario in which some insurers may choose to leave the state, further reducing choice and competition.

That's why Gov. Chris Gregoire must heed the call to veto parts of the health insurance exchange legislation.

"Without that veto, Washington's health insurance exchange will mean loss of coverage, fewer choices, less competition and higher prices," Brunell writes.

 

Brunell: Our state health care exchange should preserve choice

Washington's Health Care Authority is moving forward with creating a health insurance exchange, even as the federal health care law heads for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are plenty of questions that will need to be answered as part of the process, but AWB President Don Brunell writes about a fundamental one in his weekly column: Will the state exchange protect choice or reduce it?

The decisions the authority makes will either protect the private insurance market or reduce choice and put private insurers out of business, Brunell writes.

If the Health Care Authority members limits the insurance carriers can participate in the exchange, that will reduce choice. If they limit the types of health plans those companies can offer, that will restrict choice. If they compel insurers to participate in the exchange as a condition of operating in Washington state, that will reduce choice.

"These are all options under consideration," Brunell writes.

Make your voice heard -- send comments and suggestions to the Health Care Authority in Olympia, and tell your state legislator how you want Washington's exchange crafted.

Rago: Health care reform has launched period of 'convulsive change'

As he travels around the country talking about health care reform, it's common to hear expressions of frustration and even depression, Joseph Rago said Tuesday during the keynote address at our Health Care Forum in Seattle.

And yet Rago, who won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for his series of Wall Street Journal editorials challenging the federal health care bill that eventually became law, said there are some good things that have come from the debate.

If nothing else, it has focused attention on an issue that has dogged businesses and the economy for a long time, Rago said during an informal keynote discussion with Jeff Gingold, a partner with Lane Powell and moderator for the forum.

Rising health care costs have wiped out any wage growth above inflation, and until America fixes the problem the country will not fully recover from the recession, he said.

Unlike some opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Rago said he believes states would be smart to move ahead with establishing their own health insurance exchanges. If nothing else, they will collect federal money.

Panels look at state exchanges, soaring costs stemming from health law

Does it make sense for Washington to press ahead with development of a state health insurance exchange, or would it make sense to slow down and learn from the experiences other states encounter?

Jeff Gingold, moderator for AWB's Health Care Forum, put that question to a panel made up of state Sens. Randi Becker, R-Eatonville, and Karen Keiser, D-Kent, and Molly Voris, health benefit exchange project manager for the state Health Care Authority.

The answers offered a glimpse of the differences that exist among the lawmakers and officials responsible for implementing Washington's health insurance exchange.

"Why wait?" responded Keiser. "I don't see why we would hang back," she said, adding that Washington has made mistakes but officials have learned from them.

Voris likewise argued for moving forward, saying the state has a better chance of crafting its own exchange and influencing the federal goverment.

AWB Health Care Forum underway

James Capretta, a fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, kicked off AWB's forum on health care reform today with an overview that described the numerous questions that remain unanswered about how federal health care reform will actually work, and how the government will pay for it.

Most people won't notice any impact as a result of the law until 2014, and the long delay between its passage and implementation carries important political and substantive implications, Capretta said.

Already, the Obama administration has pulled the plug on a long-term care provision of the law known as as the CLASS Act that was supposed to save $70 billion, he said.

Other elements that were supposed to help pay for the law are failing to meet expectations or are under threat, including planned taxes on medical devices and rich benefit plans known as "Cadillac" plans.

Medical device manufacturers are fighting the planned tax on their products, and labor unions want to repeal the Cadillac tax, which isn't scheduled to take effect until 2018.

Brunell: Broken promises carry unwelcome consequences

Raiding dedicated accounts is nothing new in Olympia, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

It's what lawmakers do when they get desperate.

In 2009, they were desperate to close a $9 billion budget gap, so they agreed to an innovative deal proposed by the Washington State Hospital Association in which hospitals volunteered to tax themselves. The state could use the tax collections to qualify for federal matching funds, keep some of the money for the state's general fund and return the rest to the hospitals in the form of higher Medicaid payments.

But just a year later, state officials passed a law that diverts more of the federal funds into the state coffers, prompting the hospitals to sue the state.

It's similar to what happened to Crown Zellerbach in the 1980s. The company was halfway through with construction on a modernization of its old Camas pulp and papermaking facility when state lawmakers wiped out an account that the company was relying on for the project.

The project was eventually grandfathered, but it cost an extra $25 million.

Now the hospitals are in for a bruising court battle that will cost money that would otherwise be going to patient care, Brunell writes. And there are important principles at stake -- "namely that elected officials should follow the law and keep their promises."

Romney health plan's skyrocketing costs harbinger of what's to come under Obama plan

One of the pillars of the sweeping federal health-care reform jammed through Congress last year by President Obama, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was establishing state-run health exchanges similar to the exchange in Massachusetts, The Health Connector. The Connector was pushed through the Bay State's legislature in 2006 by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.

Massachusetts enacted landmark health-care reform legislation that promised to extend health-care coverage to all citizens while significantly lowering costs. The law imposes mandates on residents to obtain health insurance and on employers with 11 or more employees to provide health insurance for their employees. It also expands Medicaid coverage and establishes a health insurance subsidy program. Additionally, it creates an insurance exchange, the Massachusetts Health Insurance Connector, which helps individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid purchase competitively priced health plans.  

The law did not bring about a promised reduction in health care expenditures. Rather, it permitted the state legislature and governor to expand health insurance coverage to almost all residents, while imposing more than $8 billion in new health care costs to the federal government and on state residents and businesses. The impacts have been particularly hard on small business.

Recently, Boston's own Suffolk University Beacon Hill Institute released a report on the high price for Massachusetts' health reforms. The study finds that over a five-year period the following has resulted:

• The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts;
• Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion over the period;
• State health care expenditures have risen by $414 million over the period;
• Over this period, Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion
• For a total cumulative cost of $8.569 billion over the period; and
• The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government.

At a time when the United States has exhausted its credit limits, the federal government cannot bail out every state's health exchange. It's time to change the federal law.

Don C. Brunell, President (DonB@awb.org)

Brunell: Lawmakers should tread carefully on state health exchange

When state lawmakers begin talking later this month about implementing a health-care exchange, they should tread carefully, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

That's because experience has shown how perilous the undertaking can be.

State health-care exchanges were originally characterized as open-air markets where health-insurance providers would compete side-by-side so that consumers could easily compare coverage and cost. But some states are using them to introduce single-payer systems, squeezing out private insurers and dramatically increasing the cost for consumers.

Will that happen here in Washington? Hopefully not, but the outlook is not promising, Brunell writes. The legislation creating the exchange was approved quickly and signed into law with a lot of questions unanswered, including what it will cost, where the money will come from, what it will look like and who it will serve.

Over the next six months, lawmakers and the state Health Care Authority will "put some meat on the bones" of the health exchange, Brunell writes. Before they get too far long -- and commit taxpayers to a program that affects the health care of every citizen of the state -- they need to answer some important questions.

Ideally, they would have been asked and answered before lawmakers created the exchange.

Brunell: National health care battle moving to the states

The idea behind health insurance exchanges was a good one, but early indications show that states are using them to create their own versions of health-care reform, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

That means they include everything from cross-state competition to single payer, government-run health care.

Talk of single payer health-care systems has already surfaced at the state level in Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut, and 13 states have proposed state compacts allowing residents to shop for health care in other states.

Here in Washington state, lawmakers rushed to adopted legislation this year that establishes an exchange, even though it doesn't have to be in place until 2014. The vote was eerily like the one in which federal lawmakers adopted the national health-care law, Brunell writes.

"This situation bears watching," he says. "While no one knows for sure what our state exchange will look like or what it will cost, one thing is certain: The decisions made in the Legislature over the next two years will affect the health care of every man, woman and child in Washington state."

Brunell: Congress helps business dig out from health-care law before IRS digs in

Before passage of the 2,700-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care of Act of 2010 -- commonly known as Obamacare -- then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."

More than a year after it became law, we are still finding out what's in it -- and what needs to be fixed or repealed, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

Congress managed, with considerable effort, to repeal a part of the bill that required all businesses to file a 1099 form to the Internal Revenue Service for purchases or payments of more than $600. But there are plenty more problems with Obamacare, and judging by the difficulty lawmakers had fixing something so obviously flawed as the 1099 requirement, it raises questions about future fixes.

"Hopefully," Brunell writes, "fixing the problems will be a little easier and more timely than what has happened with the 1099 repeal."

Brunell: Fixing the federal health reform law

One year into Obamacare, the costs are soaring, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column. The 10-year-cost now stands at $1.45 trillion, a $40 billion increase over the last 12 months.

If history is any guide, the real cost will be much higher, he says.

The price tag isn't the only cause for concern, either. Ironically, a law that was intended to increase access to health insurance actually elminates many existing programs that have proved successful in providing affordable coverage.

For example, the law's regulations mandating what constitutes "acceptable" health insurance coverage would eliminate popular Health Savings Accounts. Another casualty: Highly successful association health plans.

Gov. Mike Lowry and a bipartisan majority of state legislators introduced the plans to Washington in 1995 to cut the number of uninsured, and 15 years later they're wildly successful. Some 37 percent of enrollees in AWB's plan did not have health insurance previously.

Some opponents of the health law in Congress want to use the power of the purse to defund Obamacare entirely. It's easy to see why. "By eliminating successful programs that are providing affordable health coverage for tens of thousands of people," Brunell writes, the federal alw isn't expanding choice -- it's reducing it."

Rewind: Video of AG McKenna's remarks on health care, gang violence

Attorney General Rob McKenna was the guest at Thursday's Lobby Lunch meeting, which just happened to be the day that the Florida judge ruling on one of the health-care law challenges issued a new ruling. Listen to McKenna explain the judge's decision, and why he agrees with it.

McKenna also spoke about Washington's growing gang violence problem, and his plan to address it. In the first video, he describes the problem in detail, offering some alarming statistics: Washington ranks fourth in the nation in drive-by shootings, and has experienced a 45 percent increase in gang-related shootings in the last 12 months.

In this video, McKenna outlined how House Bill 1126 would address the problem.

McKenna praises health-care ruling that prods Obama administration

Attorney General Rob McKenna agrees with today's order from U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson to temorarily stay his his earlier ruling declaring the federal health-care law unconstitutional, saying the case needs to get before the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

Vinson issued a temporary stay of his own ruling Thursday, provided that the administration file an appeal requesting an expedited review of the case. In other words, Vinson granted a stay on the condition that the Department of Justice stop stalling, McKenna told AWB's Lobby Lunch.

"I agree with him," said McKenna, who joined the 26-state suit challenging the health-are law on behalf of the state of Washington. "I have been astounded that they have not filed an appeal."

Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is at sharp odds with McKenna over the health-care law, also agreed with Vinson's decision, saying in a statement that it will allow implementation of the law to go forward while his decision is reviewed.

Gov. Gregoire's Keynote Remarks at AWB's 2011 Legislative Day

(Recorded: Feb. 03, 2011) Gov. Chris Gregoire’s keynote remarks at AWB's annual Legislative Day luncheon. Topics include unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, state employee pensions and education.

Livestream: Health Care Panel

Video chat rooms at Ustream

Federal judge rules health-care law unconstitutional

A federal judge in Florida ruled today that key components of the Obama administration's health-care overhaul are unconstitutional and the entire law must be declared void.

The 78-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Robert Vinson sides with 26 states, including Washington. Attorney General Rob McKenna, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of Washington residents, issued a statement calling the ruling a victory for individual and state rights.

"While we recognize the vital need to access health care services in our country, forcing all U.S. citizens to buy a commercial product in the private market with their own money is an unprecedented and unconstitutional move by the federal government," McKenna said. "Americans value their constitutional rights. They want a health care law that respects those rights and actually reduces the financial burdens on their families. That is why more than half of the states in America are challenging the law."

The states are suing to block the law over its mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. 

Gov. Chris Gregoire said she was disappointed by the ruling, which she said is "not good for Washingtonians."

The case now goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals, but will likely end up ultimately in the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly next year.  

Want to reduce joblessness? Boost the private sector

The best way to reduce the nation's troubling jobless rate is for federal officials to stop adding costly new programs such as health care and cap-and-trade and allow tax cuts put in place during the previous administration to continue, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

The president and congress should forget about massaging the small business tax incentives because they don't come close to matching the new costs imposed by Congress and the president over the last two years.

At the state level, tax incentives work - and they have for a long time," Brunell writes. The Economic Assistance Authority, passed by the Legislature after the Boeing crash 40 years, worked well and the 1995 sales tax exemption for new machinery and equipment has proven to be a success, as well.

"The point is taxes and costs matter," Brunell writes. "Without a vital private sector, there is no hope of reversing the current trend toward long-term unemployment with no jobs in sight."

Is there time to avert a national healthcare trainwreck?

It will be a while until the new national health-care law takes full effect, but already there are warning signs that a national train wreck is looming unless Congress and the Obama administration take steps to avert it, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

In Massachusetts, which served as the national model for the law, citizens are increasingly realizing that it's cheaper to pay small fines than carry insurance, he writes. The number of people gaming the system there has quadrupled from 2006 to 2008.

"The situation in Massachusetts has been called a train wreck," Brunell writes. "If the same thing happens nationwide, the private insurance industry will go bankrupt and cease to exist."

Already, large insurance companeis are seeking rate increases to cover the cost of the new health-care reform benefits and employers - including McDonald's and 3M - have announced plans to scale back or drop coverage in the face of rising expenses.

"Is repeal the only answer or can the law be fixed? I'm not sure anyone knows at this point," he writes.

Policy Summit on TVW

We were fortunate to again partner with TVW on this year's  Policy Summit. The public affairs network will be airing several of events from the 2010 Policy Summit, including:

• Monday, Sept. 27 @ 7 p.m. and 10p.m. (2011 Legislative Update)
• Tuesday, Sept. 28 @ 2 a.m., 5 a.m. and 4 p.m. (2011 Legislative Update);  8 p.m. and 11 p.m. (Health Care - What Next?)
• Wednesday, Sept 29 @ 8 a.m., 7:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m.  (Health Care - What Next?)
• Thursday, Sept. 30 @ 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. (Health Care - What Next?)
• Friday, Oct. 1 @ 4:30 a.m., 4:30 p.m.  (Education Panel)
• Saturday, Oct. 2 @ 4:30 p.m. (Education Panel); 10 p.m. (Dinner program with Gary Langer)
• Sunday, Oct. 3 @ 11 a.m. (2011 Legislative Update); 1:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. (Gary Langer)

Turner: Health-care reform is law, not settled policy

Congress passed the mammoth health-care reform law in March, but its future is more uncertain than ever.

"This is the law," Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, told attendees at today's Policy Summit at Semiahmoo. "None of us have any option but to comply. But it is not settled policy. There is a lot that's already happening and a lot that will be done in the future to alter this legislation."

Changes to the law are certain, especially if one or both houses of the U.S. Congress regain Republican majorities in the November election.

"One thing I can guarantee is that this legislation will be changed," said Turner. "It may be changed a lot. It may be changed a little. It may happen sooner. It may happen later, but it's going to be changed."

Turner, a noted advocate for market-based health-care solutions, recalled her involvement in fighting a similar health-care reform law championed by Insurance Commissioner Debra Senn and enacted by the Washington State Legislature in 1993. The law had numerous unintended consequence including nearly wiping out the individual health insurance market. Turner lamented the fact that the federal government ignored Washington's experience when it cobbled together the current health-care law.

"If Washington, D.C., had just learned from your experiences, we wouldn't be in this mess because you know what happens when you had an incredible series of market-distorting mandates that really crippled your health sector," Turner said.

AWB Institute: Manufacturing and Distribution Summit (Part Two)(Video)

Greg Weeks, Ph.D. (Director of Labor Market & Economic Analysis, Employment Security Department)

Health-care reform: Big, expensive, complex, under fire

Federal health-care reform was the focus today at AWB's Health Care Committee.

The meeting included presentations from Hunter Goodman, from the Washington State Office of the Attorney General; Renee Radcliff Sinclair, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, who joined the discussion by phone. U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, was originally scheduled for the meeting, but was unable to participate due to his voting schedule in Congress.

Goodman kicked off the session with a summary of the lawsuit brought against the portion of the health-care bill that mandates that individuals must buy health insurance by 2014. Currently, 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business are litigants. Washington Attorney Gen. Rob McKenna joined this action shortly after the health-care reform bill became law in March.

"The implementation of a trillion dollar health-care program is far too important to build on an unconstitutional foundation," said Goodman, who believes the measure has such deep "constitutional infirmities" that it may require dismantling after the states bear much expense in implementing the new law.

Specifically, the suit focuses on unprecedented expansion of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause to mandate individuals to purchase insurance, massive expansion of state Medicaid programs and assaults on state sovereignty in violation of the 10th Amendment. The suit does not affect other parts bill, including measures like allowing adult children to remain on their parents' health insurance policies up to age 27.  

Many details still unknown in health-care reform law

Health-care reform is the law, but many of its details are still unclear.

In order to help employers understand the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in March, AWB presented a health-care discussion at its spring meeting in Spokane. Jeff Gingold and Jeff Knapp, of Lane Powell; Steve Hill, former administrator of the Washington State Health Care Authority and current member of the Governor's Health Care Cabinet; Trent Erickson, tax expert at Deloitte; and Jane Rozina, benefits consultant at Mercer, gave the details on where health care-reform stands today and what to expect in the future.

"[Health-care reform] is likely the most significant social legislation that has occurred in our lifetime," said Hill. "You might like it, you might hate it, but it's the law."

The health-care reform law is also very much a work-in-progress, according to Hill. Because the bill has numerous instances where the secretary of Health and Human Services or the secretary of Labor are directed to determine the details of various provisions of the measure, there will be an enormous amount of federal rule-making before the details of the law will actually be carved in stone.

"This is the law, but it is impossible to predict how the details of the law will develop," said Gingold.

Brunell: Health-care reform law riddled with economic landmines

As legislators and others begin to comb through the 2,000-plus pages that make up the new health-care reform law, they are beginning to find little-known provisions, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

Economic landmines, such as a 3.8 percent federal tax on the proceeds from the sale of your home.

Or the government take-over of the nation's student loan program. it has led to the announced layoff of 2,500 people from Sallie Mae, the company that processes student loan applications.

And the provision that requires businesses to fill out 1099 forms for any expenditure over $600, a requirement that will result in mountains of new paperwork and impose a costly new burden on employers.

These small provisions, tucked into the massive federal legislation, have real-life consequences for struggling Americans, Brunell writes.

"When legislative landmines are uncovered," he writes, "lawmakers should act quickly to defuse them."

Read the full column here.

Surprise! New rest break requirement in federal health care law

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasn't kidding when she said "[w]e have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Tucked away among the various new tax provisions and insurance industry regulations is an important, but seemingly unrelated, new employment law.  Covered employers will want to take note, and take steps to ensure compliance. 

Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers provide rest breaks and facilities for nursing mothers to express breast milk.  The new provision reads:

(1) An employer shall provide--
   `(A) a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express the milk; and
  `(B) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.
    `(2) An employer shall not be required to compensate an employee receiving reasonable break time under paragraph (1) for any work time spent for such purpose.
    `(3) An employer that employs less than 50 employees shall not be subject to the requirements of this subsection, if such requirements would impose an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the employer's business.
    `(4) Nothing in this subsection shall preempt a State law that provides greater protections to employees than the protections provided for under this subsection.'.

Note that smaller businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, are not as such exempted from the provision.  Such an employer may still be covered unless it can demonstrate an "undue hardship" complying with the law. 

What's the true impact of health-care reform? No one knows

The real problem with the health-care reform law -- and the overall increase in government intervention and attendant federal debt -- is that no one knows the true impact, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

The indications are troubling, however, including the possibility that as many as 35,000 private-sector jobs could be lost due to the federal takeover of the student loan program -- a little-known provision of the health-care bill.

"We will not emerge from the Great Recession until private investors have the confidence to take risks," Brunell writes. "But the expanding role of government and growing federal intervention into private businesses have piled up massive debt and created uncertainty that keeps private investment capital on the sidelines."

Read the full column here.

 

Voters will see right through 'deem and pass'

If Americans have a low tolerance for Congressional shenanigans now, wait until they get a load of "deem and pass."

Even more so if Congress actually uses it. And that's a distinct possibility according to this morning's news. (The Washington Policy Center also blogs on it here.)

In today's Washington Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is quoted as saying she's prepared to pass the Senate health-care reform bill without a vote using the obscure but apparently oft-used legislative procedure. Instead of voting on the Senate version of the bill, House members would vote on a measure that includes fixes to the main legislation. Acceptance of that bill would signify that lawmakers "deem" the omnibus health-care bill to be passed.

According to the Post: 

The tactic — known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care measure. It is one of three options Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the bill.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a round-table discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

It's hard to know where to start on this exchange. Lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support a measure altering an industry that affects one-sixth of our country's economy should be protected and not held accountable to the people they serve?

State workers should pay more -- not taxpayers

The "low fuel" light on the state's dashboard has lit up once again, and this time, it's the public employee health-care program's tank that's running on empty. 

Over the weekend, lawmakers worked on a plan to cover a $220 million shortfall in the public employees health-care program, managed by the Public Employees Benefits Board. The problem was kicked forward last session when legislators, faced with emerging budget woes, chose to fund only 3 percent of the estimated 9 percent increase in health coverage costs. To address that shortfall, the Legislature charged the PEEB with adjusting state employee premiums and co-payments, but the minimal increases brought forward by the board fell short of the revenue needed to pay for these rich benefits. 

To get by this year, legislators are proposing to take funds from a variety of sources, including the dwindling state general fund. But they're also tapping two state treasury accounts to help cover the deficit:

• $13 million from the Public Works Assistance Account -- the pot of money used for loans to local governments for public works projects
• $30 million from the Data Processing Revolving  Fund, which is used for everything from equipment and software to salaries within the state's technology agency, the Department of Information Services. 

That's the preferred method by legislators, rather than asking state employees to shoulder a greater percentage of their health-care costs. The amendment, offered by Rep. Mark Ericks, D-Bothell, can be seen here.

The Olympian's Brad Shannon wrote about the shortfall this week in his Politics Blog:

The health contribution is one of several sticking points in budget talks, and lawmakers are facing a deadline of Thursday to finish work and go home at the end of their regular session. The dispute is not small money -- $134 million more spending in the House alternative, just under $40 million in the Senate plan, and about half of the funds in either scenario come out of the state's general fund.

The governor, according to Shannon, has suggested raising the state contribution to $830/month per worker, about $35 more than proposed by the Senate and $33 less than offered by the House.

Under any of these scenarios, it's worth noting that state workers would still only pay 12 percent of their health-insurance premiums; the state would cover the remaining 88 percent. Most business owners would say those figures are largely out of balance with what the private-sector employees are facing today.

Instead, state taxpayers will be footing the bill.  

Brunell: Starting over on health care is not code for stonewalling

President Obama and Democrats in Congress say that calls to start over on health-care reform is tantamount to stonewalling, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

They are wrong, Brunell says. Just as wrong as those who want to do nothing.

Brunell explores Massachusetts' health-care reform as an example of what not to do, and Indiana's success with Health Savings Account as an example of what's needed.

There are good ideas out there, Brunell says. One problem is that there is too much testosterone in the nation's capitol -- too many egos invested in the outcome.

"It's time to give them all an ice cold shower and send them back to work," he writes.

Read the full column here.

WSJ: Massachusetts a lesson (if only anyone would pay attention)

With last week's failed health-care reform summit fading in the rear-view mirror, the White House today announced the president will unveil a new health-care bill Wednesday. It's reportedly smaller than the legislation proposed by the House, but the 10-year, $1 trillion price-tag remains intact. 

The president has largely taken charge of the issue since the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are at odds over both the legislation and the process for approving it.

In "Back to the ObamaCare Future," editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal today reflect on not on the messy sausage-making process of legislation, but on what the Democrats' proposal would do. Exhibit A is the state of Massachusetts' universal health plan, the basis for the Democrats' health-care reform effort.

Last month, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick proposed price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. According to the Journal, for FY 2010, taxpayer costs in the Bay State are $47 million over budget (due in part to the recession) and spending has grown, on average, 6.7% per year:

Meanwhile, average Massachusetts insurance premiums are now the highest in the nation. Since 2006, they've climbed at an annual rate of 30% in the individual market. Small business costs have increased by 5.8%. Per capita health spending in Massachusetts is now 27% higher than the national average, and 15% higher even after adjusting for local wages and academic research grants. The growth rate is faster too.

The cost increases, the paper writes, are the result of several forces. First, the state has forced insurers to charge everyone the same rate regardless of their age or quality of health. Massachusetts has also merged the individual and small-group markets -- and that transfers costs onto small businesses. The state has also mandated that insurance coverage be greater than the rest of the country. As a result, cost is not as much of a factor to patients seeking care -- one of the biggest issues we currently face under the existing system.The Massachusetts model would only make things worse. 

Concludes the Journal:

All of this is merely a preview of what the entire country will face if Democrats succeed with their plan to pound ObamaCare into law in anything like its current form. Massachusetts is teaching the country a valuable lesson in how not to reform health care, if only anyone would pay attention.

Hello? Is anybody in Washington (DC) listening?

Well, the president"s nationally televised Health Care Summit is over. Now what?

Frank Luntz, who has spoken to AWB's Policy Summit and is nationally recognized for the focus groups he conducts with real people on TV to get their views, predicts that President Obama and the Democrats will use the so-called "nuclear option" to pass their trillion dollar health-care reforms. Today, Luntz appeared on the Imus Show. Watch the first 1:15 of the interview here. 

Wall Street Journal Columnist Peggy Noonan summarized the path forward this way:

 "What the meeting made clear is what the Democrats are going to do -- not step back and save the moderates of their party but attempt to bully a bill through Congress."

Then there is the cost of Obama Care:

"Mr. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, posed the fundamental question: 'Should people in Washington decide exactly how this works and what you can and cannot buy?' We thought the GOP acquitted itself fairly well, noting the irresponsibility of using Medicare cuts to float a new entitlement when the status quo has $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. They also focused on smaller, incremental reforms that might do some modest good."

What about our health insurance premiums, the Wall Street Journal asks?

"One fact is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums in the individual market would jump by 10% to 13% in 2016 because the government will mandate that consumers buy richer benefits than they otherwise would. Mr. Obama eventually conceded that point but said these mandates are simple consumer protections, 'Yes, I am paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I'm getting an orange,' Mr. Obama said. "We want competition, we just want some minimum standards."

Back to Luntz to wrap this up. Luntz had 26 people from Philadelphia in a focus group to discuss the summit. It was equally split between Democrats and Republicans and balanced for all of the relvant factors needed to have a fair cross-sample. Here is what they collectively said, loud and clear:

1. They all knew what reconciliation was, and universally said: DON'T DO IT!
2. President Obama and Congress: START LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM!
3. Start over and make changes we can afford that will make a difference.

Given what the president and Democrats in Congress may do -- jam their version of health care down people's throats -- you really have to wonder if they are listening. They will in November. That's what people universally told Luntz and that's what they're saying in the public opinion polls.

Hello? Is anyone listening inside the Beltway?

Don C. Brunell, President (DonB@awb.org)

Ericksen wants more choices, fewer mandates, lower costs in health care

Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, made a strong pitch for market-oriented health care reform at AWB's Legislative Day. Ericksen, the ranking minority member of the House Health Care and Wellness Committee, was initially slated to share the forum with Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Issaquah, and Rep. John Driscoll, D-Spokane, but the other two legislators were unable to attend due to commitments in the Legislature.

"The more we can encourage competition, reduce prices and increase access to health care, the more employees will have the kind of health care they want and the kind of health care their employers want to give them," said Ericksen.

Ericksen emphasized 10 steps, each reflected in legislation to enact them, that are needed to be reform Washington's health-care system:

• Purchasing health-care plans approved in other states

• Providing new choices for small employers (small group reform)

• Offering young adult plans (19-34 year olds)

• Allowing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for state employees 

Cross-border competition will lower cost of health insurance

AWB members and small business owners Jim Spady, Ross Irwin and Lonnie Yates pleaded with lawmakers Thursday to support a bill that would allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.

House Bill 3015 would open up the market to competition, which would in turn lower cost and increase quality, business owners told the House Health Care & Wellness Committee.

"I need more choice," said Dean Hartman, president of Capital Business Machines in Olympia. "Right now, it's a monopoly and I don't have that choice," he said, noting that it gets harder every year to continue providing health-care benefits.

Karen Evans, accounting manager at Aptech Systems, a Black Diamond-based software company, said her company has experienced significant rate increases over the last five years. Unless something changes, she worries the day will come when the company will no longer be able to afford to provide health insurance benefits.

"It's just killing us to be able to provide health insurance," Evans said. "I would really like to see, when our broker goes out to bid, that we have the option to look at other states. We do not have that option right now."

HB 3015 would authorize the state Insurance Commissioner to enter into a compact with other states to allow for the sale of health benefits across state lines. Carriers offering qualifying plans would need to comply with state laws, including those dealing with consumer protection, market conduct and unfair trade practices.

Brunell: On health care, Obama needs the patience of Eisenhower, grandma

Hopefully, President Obama and the leadership in Congress will listen now that their health care reform effort suffered a major setback with the Massachusetts senate election, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

Rather than throw out our entire health care system, they need to embrace what is working and fix what is not, Brunell writes.

Big ideas take time to perfect -- like grandma's soup or President Eisenhower's vision for a 47,000-mile highway system.

"Like health care, the interstate system would be hugely expensive. But Ike was patient, and it took three years for Congress to pass the legislation and another 35 years before construction was finished," Brunell writes. "It ended in 1991 with the removal of the last stoplight on Interstate 90 in Wallace, Idaho."

Read the full column here.

Will health-care plan break the Treasury like it broke Detroit?

Congressional Democrats have reached agreement on a proposal to tax "Cadillac" health plans, removing one stumbling block in the negotiations to reform the U.S. health care system.

The Cadillac metaphor is particularly apt in light of this troubling prediction from David E. Davis, Jr. (at right), the longtime editor of Car & Driver magazine and founder of Automobile magazine.

Davis says the health care package Congress is considering will break the U.S. Treasury exactly the way the United Auto Workers' series of sweeter, more comprehensive health- care deals broke the U.S. automobile industry.

A keen observer of the Detroit automakers, Davis said the health insurance given to the workers at Ford, Chrysler and General Motors even took care of surviving family members after the breadwinner died, leading some to wonder how the business could support such lavish coverage.

The answer is simple, Davis said.

It couldn't.

The health-care debate is already dragging down President Obama's approval rating, according to a CBS News poll.

But it's not too late to stop it from dragging down the economy.

There is still time to slow down or even halt the process, AWB President Don Brunell wrote recently.

There are better ways to expand access to health care and reduce costs.

Brunell: Still time to exchange health care "gift"

It's not too late to exchange the health care "gift" that Senate Democrats gave the nation, AWB President Don Brunell writes in his weekly column.

The bill approved on Christmas Eve is a lump of coal that will greatly expand Medicaid and create a massive unfunded mandate for cash-strapped states, Brunell writes.

It only received the needed 60 votes from Democrats after a Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began handing out billions of dollars like a "tawdry episode of The Price is Right," he writes.

The good news is that lawmakers still need to reconcile the Senate bill with the one approved earlier by the House of Representative, Brunell writes.

That means it's not too late to slow down or even stop the process.

There are better ways to expand access to health care and reduce costs.

Read the full column here.

Time to stop, take a deep breath and start over

With voter confidence dropping like a rock in a pond, it is time Congress stopped this runaway train called health-care reform. It is time to take a break, take a deep breath and look at the right-of-way ahead to make sure they are not running the taxpayers, and our nation, over a cliff. 

A  couple of trillion for health reform, a trillion or so for climate change and trillions added to our national debt is REAL MONEY. They need to stop this juggernaut before we saddle our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren with so much debt they can't pay their bills, feed their families or save for retirement.

Our nation is just showing signs of the long awaited recovery, but families and businesses can't take higher taxes or more costs.  It really is time for President Obama and Congress to banish the self-imposed deadline of passing a trillion dollar health reform bill through the Senate by Christmas and have it signed into law so the President can trumpet it at his state of the union address early next year.

The Seattle Times said it best in yesterday's lead editorial:

"The health-care dance in Washington, D.C., has gone on long enough. Congress needs to focus on the economy and set health care aside.This is a change of position for us. This page supported Barack Obama for president, enthusiastically. We have supported the health-care effort until now.

The economy is wounded. Employers are hurting. The time to think about loading employers with new burdens is when they are strong. Not now.

Right now, Congress needs to focus on the economy."

It's time that citizens insist that President Obama and senators and representatives stop, recess and go home for a Christmas and New Years for a reality check. 

Don C. Brunell, President (DonB@awb.org)