Progressive Breakfast: Largest Employer Backs Employer Mandate

Wal-Mart Gives Momentum to Employer Mandate

White House holds health care town hall [1] at 1:15 PM ET

Wal-Mart joins SEIU to back employer mandate to provide insurance. NYT: [2] "But Wal-Mart’s embrace of the employer mandate may come at a price. In its letter, the company says that if Congress imposes a requirement that employers offer insurance, it must also offer a guarantee to business that health care costs will in fact be contained, perhaps through a so-called trigger mechanism that would impose reductions if certain spending targets were not met."

The Treatment's Jonathan Cohn says the move has real political impact: [3] " By endorsing the idea of a employer mandate, Wal-Mart has made the idea more difficult to demonize. It has also--and I can't stress this enough--given some political cover to members of Congress who might be sympathetic to the idea of employer mandate but hesitate to take a vote that might be perceived as anti-business. "

Wonk Room's Igor Volsky adds: [4] "Wal-Mart’s support for an employer mandate is highly significant, but so is its rejection the ‘free rider provision’ — a likely component of the Senate Finance Committee’s bill ... As the nation’s largest employer of a predominately low-wage, low-skilled work force, Wal-Mart sees the free rider provision — requiring businesses to help finance coverage for workers who receive coverage through Medicaid or subsidized coverage in the soon-to-be-established Health Insurance Exchange — as a competitive disadvantage that raises costs. (The provision also discourages the hiring of lower income workers or workers with disabilities.) ... On the whole, this is a win-win for reformers."

Change.org's Tim Foley on the business split: [5] "Clearly the Chamber of Commerce, with a snippy statement denouncing Wal-Mart's move as '[using] the government as a weapon against their competition,' takes this defection seriously."

OURFUTURE.ORG FLASHBACK: [6] "Business Mandate Good For Business"

Reactions to Senate HELP Cmte Public Plan Option

AP on Senate HELP cmte draft of public plan option: [7] "...the House Democrats' proposal ... calls for a public plan that would pay doctors and hospitals using reimbursement rates keyed to Medicare's, which medical providers say are often too low. In an important distinction, the Senate HELP committee's plan would not use Medicare payment rates. Instead it would set fees to doctors and hospitals using an average of what private insurers pay in each local area, according to the summary. That seemingly technical difference could help neutralize opposition from medical providers, who are wary that a public plan will translate into a significant pay cut for them. The health panel's plan also stipulates that hospitals and doctors would be free to opt in or out."

Health Care for America Now's Jason Rosenbaum approves: [8] "This fulfills the broad requirements for a public option: Available everywhere and on day one, and accountable to Congress and the voters, as well as rate flexibility. Of course, things are still very much in flux and these details could all change, for better or for worse. But so far, so good."

Wonk Room Igor Volsky's agrees the HELP approach would lower costs: [9] "Some of the public plan’s inherent advantages — i.e. its ability to use Medicare rates and Medicare leverage — are intentionally dulled. Still, the national option would be able, in due time, to build a strong market presence and use its size and market presence to inject competition in the insurance markets and drive down costs."

GoozNews more skeptical: [10] "Volsky concludes it would still be able to drive down costs over time. Hard to see, given that it wouldn't be any different from any other non-profit insurer already in the marketplace, such Blue Cross Blue Shield, for instance."

Walker Reports awaits the CBO score: [11] "I think the CBO scoring will be the biggest single event in the whole reform debate. If the CBO says a specific public plan will reduce the cost of reform by hundreds of billions, I think it becomes politically unstoppable. If a public option is declared a massive expansion of government or found to do little to control cost, it will be in serious jeopardy. The CBO scoring could result in the debate over the public option shifting from an ideological battle to a fiscal one. "

"Propaganda War" Launched By Insurance Lobby

Change.org's Tim Foley says the insurance lobby has started the "propaganda war": [12] "Today, an email went out from a new Web site, GetHealthReformRight.org, warning in spooky terms that because of the current House bill, 'Many Americans would lose their current employer-sponsored coverage as millions of people are shifted into a government plan.' It urges, 'Congress should build on the current employer-sponsored healthcare system that is already working for more than 160 million Americans.' Presumably this means Congress should not follow the will of 72% of the American people and 50% of Republicans and create a public competitor to private insurance."

CQ on massive Pharma lobbying: [13] "The pharmaceutical industry, which has long invested heavily in federal lobbying, is now on course to smash its previous records as it tries to shape the health care overhaul pushed forward by Democrats ... Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent more than any other health care sector on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, shelling out almost $50 million to influence the federal policy making, 17 percent more than they did on average for each quarter of 2008, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosure statements by CQ Moneyline. The industry’s top trade organization, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), spent $6.9 million during the first three months of this year on lobbying expenses, a 37 percent jump from what it spent on average per quarter last year. Overall the pharmaceutical and drug products industry hired 1,309 lobbyists in the first quarter of this year including three dozen former members of Congress, the Center for Responsive Politics found in an analysis of lobbying disclosure filings."

Politico explores Big Pharma deal to cut $80B: [14] "But others are beginning to wonder just how much money the deal will actually save taxpayers ... There are also questions about how much goodwill PhRMA’s deal bought among Democrats, many of whom would like to see the industry contribute even more toward reform’s estimated $1-trillion price tag. Some Democrats, particularly in the House, have suggested using price controls and importation to rein in costs – ideas that are deal killers for drug makers."

Pharma lobby and Families USA join forces on ad campaign. Politico: [15] "The PhRMA/Families USA agreement includes expanding Medicaid eligibility to cover more of the nation’s low-income families, providing income-adjusted subsidies for middle-class families and capping out-of-pocket expenditures for people with insurance."

NYT profiles the underinsured: [16] "an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured."

Will Pecora Commission Have Teeth?

The Hill reports: [17] "House and Senate leaders, responsible for naming all 10 members of the panel, say an announcement could come as early as this week so that the panel, with broad subpoena power, can begin looking into the causes of the crisis ... But the panel ... is off to a slow start and may have a limited impact as the administration and Congress aim by the end of 2009 to complete the biggest overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression ... Former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) and former Republican Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (Calif.) are among those who have been considered ... On the Democratic side, there has been discussion about Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Clinton, and Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)."

Pushback against Consumer Financial Protection Agency. NYT: [18] "Banks and mortgage lenders are placing top priority on killing President Obama’s proposal to create a new consumer protection agency that would regulate home loans, credit card fees, payday loans and other forms of consumer finance."

CNN/Money.com rounds up congressional criticisms: [19] "Republicans openly blasted the idea. 'What's troubling is that ... a panel of consumer experts couldn't even agree amongst themselves what financial products rose to the level of being anti-consumer,' Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said in a statement Tuesday. "How then, do they propose to come to a consensus on what to regulate in the open market?" However, there will be some differences of opinions among Democrats, as well. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., suggested that he agreed with consumer advocates who don't like the proposal's plan to give the the new regulator power to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushes banks to make loans to low-income households. And Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., warned last week that he was concerned that Congress would cede some of its consumer law-making power to the executive branch if it established the agency."

Climate Fight Brews Anew

HuffPost's Sahil Kapur reports on the next stage of the global warming fight: [20] "With Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) unlikely to participate and moderate Democrats potentially on the fence, the party will have to turn to moderate Republicans to add a few votes. For this to happen, observers say they have two options: Either weaken the bill's restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions or ramp up internal lobbying efforts on fence-straddling senators."

Terrance Heath contributed to the making of this Breakfast