BillHobbs.com - Blogging about politics and media from Nashville.

U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, a first-term Democrat representing Tennessee's J-shaped Fourth Congressional District, likes to posture as a friend of small business, but when it came time to vote to allow small businesses to band together to lower health insurance costs for their employees, Davis voted no.

On June 19, 2003, Davis voted against bringing to a floor vote House Resolution 660, which allows small businesses to band together to purchase health plans for their employees.

If you would like to help defeat Lincoln Davis, and replace him with a real conservative who will vote to help small businesses combat rising health insurance premiums and continue offering health insurance benefits to their employyes, Click Here

UPDATE: Here's more on the legislation Davis fought against - legislation to allow the creation of Association Health Plans.

The Assocation Health Plan legislation now pending before the U.S. Senate - it passed the House despite Davis' vote to kill it - is supported by more then 150 business organizations representing moer than 12 million employers and 80 million American workers. It is supported by President Bush.

AHPs would allow small businesses to band together across state lines, through their membership in an association, to purchase more affordable health insurance - something which unions and large corporations may already do.

And, by giving workers new sources of health coverage through trade and professional associations, it will enable many Americans to continue their health coverage even when when changing jobs, especially if they change jobs within the same industry.

According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's largest association of small business, small business owners have been experiencing double-digit premium increases over the last 3 to 4 years.

Also, the U.S. Census Bureau recently reported that the number of uninsured Americans increased to 43.5 million in 2002, up from 2.3 million in 2001, and more than 62 percent of owners and workers in businesses that have 100 or fewer employees are uninsured.

Other data: Small business employees who do have health insurance coverage pay about 18 percent more for similar benefits than do employees in large firms.

A study by the CONSAD Research Corporation estimates that as many as 8.5 million of those currently uninsured would gain access to private sector health insurance through AHPs.

8.5 million currently uninsured people could gain access to private-sector health insurance of AHPs are allowed.

Why did Rep. Davis fight against that? Why would you want to leave him in office to vote against the interests of small business and small-business employees again?

In the interest of helping Bill remain Fair and Balanced, you may also want to know that the CBO estimates that HR 660 would decrease federal tax revenue by "3 million in 2004, by $80 million over the 2004-2008 period, and by $280 million over the 2004-2013 period".

It would also involve cost for adminstration and regulation by the department of labor in the order of "$3 million in 2004, $54 million over the 2004-2008 period, and $138 million over the 2004-2013".

It would also increase rates for firms that remain in the state-regulated market:

As relatively low-cost firms are attracted to the new AHP market, the average costs and thus the premiums facing firms in the state-regulated market would increase. In general, firms that remained in the state-regulated market would spend more on health benefits under the proposal while firms that dropped coverage in response to those premium increases would spend less on health coverage. Since AHPs would offer lower premiums, on average, than did state-regulated insurers, some otherwise uninsured firms would become covered through AHPs. For those firms, spending on tax-excluded health benefits would increase (since they would have spent nothing on health insurance in the absence of AHPs).

See the CBO's report on this, as well as a good page at the debate in general.

Posted by: Chris Wage at March 19, 2004 10:38 AM

Those costs in lost revenue and increased regulatory/oversight costs are minimal - rounding errors in the gargantuan federal budget. Small price to pay to allow small businesses to more effectively offer health insurance to their workers.

Bottom line: Rep Davis voted against the interests of small business and their employees.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 19, 2004 10:50 AM

--It would also increase rates for firms that remain in the state-regulated market:--

So, everyone has to suffer?

Those firms can't leave?

Now where have I heard that argument before? If we let people choose, we're going to be left w/the dregs????

Of course, if enough leave, it might force changes in the program for the better.

Posted by: Sandy P. at March 19, 2004 11:45 AM

It would seem to me that the AHP runs counter to states rights as its a mechanism to avoid state regulation in favour of federal regulation. And as Chris said, it would increase the costs on the businesses that could least afford it. I hardly see how that is pro-small business.

Posted by: Manish at March 19, 2004 01:38 PM

It's important to note that participation in an AHP by a small biz would be voluntary. And participating in an AHP does not increase costs on business, it lowers them. The AHP legislation provides for more choice and increases market competitive forces, which will lead to higher quality and lower costs - and health coverage for as many as 8.5 million more Americans.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 19, 2004 02:09 PM

March 19, 2004

Tennessee's Faux Conservative, Part 1