As you all are aware, the debate regarding the future of our nation’s health care system is raging in Congress right now.
On behalf of our agency, we have dedicated extensive time to educate ourselves and our clients about the most effective ways to improve the health care system. We strongly feel that a public plan will not increase competition in the health insurance industry because it can never occur on an equal playing field. We also feel that the role of the agent is critical, and that to overlook the services that agents provide is a mistake. Our clients have enjoyed over thirty years of superior customer support from our agency, and to take that away would be detrimental.
Nonetheless, recently introduced legislation includes a public plan option and Insurance Exchanges (Gateways) that are devised in a manner that could effectively eliminate the role of the agent. Please take part in our effort to make certain that your Congressman and Senators know your opinions on health reform and the invaluable role of insurance agents.
All you need to do is refer below for our sample letter
I am writing to you today as a concerned constituent. As Congress considers comprehensive health reform, I am very concerned about a proposed employer mandate to provide health insurance coverage. A legal mandate to force employers to provide health insurance to their employees, while well-intentioned, would actually hurt American workers and health insurance coverage by placing a significant burden on American businesses and in turn decreasing jobs and economic growth while doing little to help reach currently uninsured Americans.
While I believe we should build on the successful employer-based system through which most Americans receive quality and affordable health insurance coverage, the employer-based system is not suited for everyone’s health insurance needs. There are obvious problems and questions that would arise were the government to force the employer system on populations that do not naturally belong to it. How do we deal with part-time workers, workers who change jobs frequently, low-wage workers and workers in small firms?
Small businesses and companies are not social experiments. Most employers voluntarily offer health coverage for a somewhat simple reason: a healthy workforce is directly linked to healthy productivity. Thus, employers’ ability to offer incentives to differentiate nonwage-related benefits helps them to attract the best workers and remain competitive. We should be looking to craft policies that encourage more employers to offer coverage, though not mandate it.
Throughout the years, numerous organizations have conducted studies that indicate an employer mandate for health care expenditures will only prove to have a negative impact on wages, job creation and general economic growth. A study conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) concluded that an employer mandate would cause the economy to lose 1.6 million jobs within the first five years and that smaller business would be disproportionately affected because of the increase cost associated with an employer mandate. The cost burden that an employer mandate would place on small businesses would impact their ability to stay in business in the future and disproportionately affect them as they would account for 66% of the lost jobs. When America is faced with a tough economic growth and a historically high unemployment rate why would you create a mandate that would only further perpetuate that problem and in turn force more individuals out of employer-sponsored coverage.
- An employer mandate would not only increase unemployment, but also do little to reach the currently uninsured. In 2007, Richard Burkauser and Kosali Simon of Cornell University examined who would benefit from an employer mandate and found that among workers making $15 per hour or less, the mandate would still leave over half of them without insurance, while 46% of workers earning below the federal poverty level would still be uninsured.
- A recent Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study found that mandated employer-provided health insurance in Hawaii increased coverage while employers responded by shifting to more part-time workers who are exempt. Economists looked at employer-based coverage in Hawaii (mandated since 1974) from 1979 through 2005 during which coverage rates rose for workers who were unlikely to be covered absent the law. But the report concluded that an employer mandate to increase coverage may not be an effective means to achieve universal coverage in part because of labor distortions, such as employers expanding the use of part-timers. Hawaii’s law does not cover workers employed fewer than 20 hours weekly.
Imposing an employer mandate, although well-intentioned, would severely hurt American business and the economy and cause countless unintended consequences. While we should encourage more employers to offer health insurance coverage, it would be misguided to mandate such coverage. Once we go down the path of some government mandate on employers for coverage, it will be forever consumed by the political whims and budgetary picture of the day. I urge you to oppose the creation of an employer mandate for health insurance coverage, and look forward to hearing your views on the matter.
and the necessary link to identify and contact your federal elected officials. We urge you to call their offices, e-mail or fax a letter. These are the quickest ways to reach members of Congress. If you e-mail or fax a letter, please be sure to change the sample letter into your own words, as form letters have less credibility. Please be sure to send the letter under your own signature and on your letterhead.
Thank you for your continued support!
