Real Obamacare small business story

Today’s blog finishes up a week of my comments about Obamacare.  To end the week, I’m featuring one small business owner who shares my appreciation of the healthcare reform and what it has done and will do for small businesses. 

Unlike the small business that contacted me yesterday asking to be removed from the S.C. Small Business Chamber’s membership “due to the positions taken by the organization”, Betsy Burton writes about how the health insurance tax credits under Obamacare stopped her from closing her bookstore. 

As we wait the Supreme Court’s ruling possibly as early as this coming Monday, we should be listening to real life small business owners like Ms. Burton who have actual experience with Obamacare.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloomberg Businessweek
June 6, 2012

This Bookstore Owner Isn't Bashing Health-Care Tax Credits

By Betsy Burton

The airwaves have been buzzing lately over whether the small business health insurance tax credit is all it’s cracked up to be. But here’s a question: When is free money not all it’s cracked up to be? Maybe when that money is made possible by a health-care reform law that some politicos are waging an ideological war against.

Encompassing many measures that positively affect millions of people, the Affordable Care Act helps small business owners like me better afford health coverage for our families and our employees. As the mother of a son who needs ongoing medical care due to a preexisting condition, and as an entrepreneur who takes pride in offering employer-sponsored health insurance to the eight employees who qualify and to their families, I am doubly thankful for the law.

By taking advantage of the reform law’s health insurance tax credit, my Salt Lake City business saved $11,000 on our premium contributions in 2010 and slightly less in 2011 since two insured employees moved away. The savings afforded by the tax credit both years has allowed me to continue offering benefits to deserving employees who’ve been with me for years at the King’s English Bookshop. We’ve recently added an employee and expect our tax credit to grow again—especially in 2014, when it increases to 50 percent.

Just a few years ago, our health-care premiums grew so high (well more than $70,000 a year, an amount that increased our payroll to an unsustainable 30 percent of our gross) that I seriously considered closing up shop. Bookstores are at a competitive disadvantage with the Internet right now, and after 35 years in business it would have been a shame if we were forced out the way so many booksellers already have been. Our health-care savings have put those worries on hold. We have other worries, of course, Internet sales chief among them, but with the support of our community and our staff, an active event calendar (authors, who support independent booksellers, visit from all over the country), and our growing technological abilities, we are surviving.

That’s why I’m so surprised—and disappointed—by all the negativity surrounding the tax credit. The economy is still on shaky ground, and I know I’m not the only one struggling to turn a profit. Because I fit so exactly into the parameters of the act, I qualified for more money than some others are getting back, but I still believe any business owner would welcome extra cash. There’s also been a lot of hubbub over the complexity of claiming the credit, but our accountant told me she didn’t have trouble with it.

In fact, it was through my accountant that I first heard about this opportunity. Like any thorough professional working to help businesses and other customers save money, she checks frequently for new developments in the tax world. Last year, the health-care credit was one of them. Able to calculate our savings without difficulty, she charged no extra fee for doing so. Tax laws change every year, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s an accountant’s job to keep up with those changes. The tax credit is no different.

Except for the fact that it carries political weight—right now, especially. With the Supreme Court set to decide the Affordable Care Act’s fate this month, opponents are using every opportunity to aim at its moving parts. There’s so much misinformation circulating about the legislation in general, and unfortunately, some of it is even coming from people who claim to represent the interests of small business.

But I’m a real small business owner, and I can tell you that one of my biggest interests is maintaining a healthy bottom line. The Affordable Care Act is helping me do that. By spreading the word, I hope I can encourage even more entrepreneurs to find out if they’re eligible for the kind of relief I received. I’m a member of the advocacy group Small Business Majority, and I saw a January 2011 survey it commissioned that showed more than half of the 619 small business owners who responded had never even heard of the health-care tax credit. Considering this, along with efforts by some of the law’s opponents to discourage small employers from looking into its benefits, the lack of uptake being blown up in the media isn’t entirely surprising.

Again, I strongly encourage all my fellow small employers to look into the credit—or at least ask their accountants to. It’s not a waste of time. Take my word for it as an entrepreneur with more than three decades of experience who puts business before politics.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-06/this-bookstore-owner-isnt-bashing-healthcare-tax-credits

Supreme Court loses more public trust after partisan comments during “Obamacare” hearing

The following is an excerpt from an opinion editorial by Juan Williams that appears in today’s The Hill.

A Pew poll from last week found that 21 percent of Americans have a less favorable view of the Court after oral arguments in the healthcare case. Only 7 percent report a more favorable view. . .

According to polls, the overall level of public respect for the court is fading fast as it becomes just another venue for the polarized tug of war between liberals and conservatives. A January 2012 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75 percent of Americans believe Supreme Court justices let their own ideological views influence their decisions while only 17 percent think the justices decide cases based on legal analysis. The Gallup poll finds that public trust in the high court has declined from 50 percent 10 years ago to 37 percent today.

Starting with its unprecedented decision in Bush v. Gore -- where the Court effectively decided a presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush -- and followed by the Citizens United case opening the door to big money dominating campaigns, the Court is increasingly seen as just another manifestation of the right-left polarization that characterizes American politics in the 21st century. The image of the justices rising above politics is close to a historical artifact. 

The reason is clear: The frequency of 5-4 decisions on hot-button political issues in recent years has caused many people to believe that justice is not blind to politics or the influence of money. . . .

Read more

“Obamacare” repeal a disaster for small businesses

The Hill's Congress Blog
April 2, 2012

By Frank Knapp, Jr., vice-chair, American Sustainable Business Council

The Supreme Court has now completed its three days of hearing on provisions within the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or “Obamacare” as even the president’s reelection campaign is now calling it. Opponents of the ACA will continue their public relations campaign to influence public opinion with hopes that their efforts will even shape the eventual decision by individual Justices.

Therefore it is important that ACA supporters like the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) continue to educate the public, and possibly other interested parties, on the negative consequences to small businesses of a successful repeal effort by organizations like the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which joined 26 states in filing the court case against the ACA.

While the ACA is only two years old, the benefits to small businesses, as well as citizens in general, have been very sizable. While “repeal” business groups like the NFIB say that they are representing business interests in their efforts, it is clear that those interests are not those of small businesses.

While the ACA has no mandate for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (about 97% of all businesses) to offer health insurance, the ACA benefits already in place and to come for small businesses include:

· Giving tax credits of up to 35% that literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses offering health insurance to employees are receiving today;

· Providing affordable health insurance today for tens of thousands of self-employed and other citizens who, without the ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, are otherwise uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions;

· Keeping insurance premiums down today by requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases over 10% and top use 80% of small group premiums on actual medical coverage;

· Establishing an insurance exchange that will create more competition between health insurance companies to drive down premiums and end small businesses paying up to 18% higher insurance premiums simply because they are small;

· Dramatically increasing the number of Americans with insurance thus eliminating the hidden tax of $1,000 a year on every family health insurance policy small businesses and other policyholders pay to provide for the uncompensated care of the uninsured;

· Stopping the practice of small businesses paying higher premiums for all employees when they have a worker with a pre-existing condition;

· Providing low-income employees (family income of up to 133% of poverty) with Medicaid thus making private health insurance more affordable for the small-business owner to offer coverage to the other workers;

· Cutting the healthcare chord that keeps an entrepreneur tethered to an employer’s health insurance plan thus encouraging new small business start-ups.

The “repeal” groups seek to take away all the above benefits for small businesses while offering no effective or comprehensive alternative. For the “repeal” groups it is simply a matter of saying NO to these benefits that will make health insurance more affordable for small businesses compared to the healthcare system without the ACA.

While the ASBC is supporting the ACA, we are also promoting other ideas to improve our healthcare system and control healthcare costs including price transparency and integrative healthcare.

Transparency in all healthcare pricing is essential. A legislative proposal by former Congressman Steve Kagen enables consumers to be more effective shoppers for services by providing accurate pricing for all medical services and goods. This will increase competition between medical providers and thus help restrain costs increases.

Patients should be empowered to pursue a full range of healthcare services and products utilizing conventional and alternative treatments for health and wellness. Insurance plans offering access to integrative healthcare expands options, personal choice and potentially less costly yet satisfactory healthcare.

ASBC will continue to resist efforts to turn the clock back on beneficial healthcare reforms and advocate for changes that will lead to affordable and accessible healthcare for all Americans.

Frank Knapp, Jr. is vice-chair of the American Sustainable Business Council, and the president/CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/219491-obamacare-repeal-a-disaster-for-small-businesses

Commentary: Small-business owners say the future looks bleak if health care law overturned

The Washington Post
April 1, 2012

By Jamal Lee

Last week, the nation’s attention was riveted to the Supreme Court, where oral arguments were being made over the constitutionality of the health care reform law, also known as the Affordable Care Act.

Pundits have been making one prediction after another as to how the high court will rule. But what we haven’t heard are predictions about what will happen to small businesses if the law is overturned.

As a group of long-standing small-business owners who have been suffering for decades under ever-rising health-care costs, it’s frightening to think the safeguards put in place by the law could be undone with the drop of a gavel.

The new law has already reined in costs through provisions such as the medical loss ratio, which requires at least 80 percent of small groups’ premium dollars be spent on patient care instead of administrative costs. Just a couple years ago, a member of our group — small-business owner Walt Rowen in Columbia, Pa. — was quoted a 130 percent increase to his premium. This year, because of the MLR provision, Walt’s premium increased by just 4 percent — the smallest increase he’s seen to his premiums in 10 years.

Numerous others in our group have benefitted from the small-business tax credits in the law. This year, at my recording studio in Laurel, I expect to receive money back from the credits that I’ll use not only to better afford insurance for my employees and myself, but to help grow my business. A lot has been said about the tax credits not being robust enough to help small-business owners, but as small employers constantly watching our bottom lines, we can say without hesitation that no small-business owner will ever turn down a tax credit — whether they think it’s robust or not. Free money is always welcome.

And in two more years, we’ll see even more help through state health insurance exchanges. We’ll be able to pool our buying power with our fellow small-business owners and enjoy the same kind of buying power large companies currently have. Not only would that lower our costs overall, but it would put us on a level playing field with big companies in recruiting and retaining talented employees.

For decades, we’ve listened to elected officials, insurance companies, the media and small-business organizations — including the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the plaintiffs in the suit — lament the high cost of health insurance for small-business owners. Double-digit and even triple-digit increases were the norm.

The Affordable Care Act is the first significant break small businesses have had regarding our health insurance costs. Without it, we’d be mired once again in a system that drains our coffers and hampers our growth. An economic analysis commissioned by the Small Business Majority found that without reform, our health care costs would more than double to $2.4 trillion by 2018 and 178,000 small-business jobs would be lost as a result.

Overturning the law would not help us. It would hurt us.

While the NFIB says it’s bringing this suit on behalf of small businesses, with all due respect to the owners who are members, most of the nation’s mom-and-pop businesses aren’t. Hundreds of thousands of us are benefitting from the Affordable Care Act in multiple ways.

We hope the Supreme Court justices are aware of that fact as they deliberate on this historic piece of legislation.

Jamal Lee is owner of Breasia Studios in Laurel. He co-wrote the piece with other members of the Network Council of the Small Business Majority, a Sausalito, Calif.-based organization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/small-business-owners-say-the-future-looks-bleak-if-health-care-law-overturned/2012/03/30/gIQA1gVnpS_print.html

Round three...reality sets in

Now the waiting begins…Oh, and the PR efforts continue in an effort to influence the final decision.

The Supreme Court had its hearings, all sides had their say, and the reality sets in.

But it’s not the reality for all Americans that the Affordable Care Act come July might be intact, altered or gone entirely. 

No, the reality setting in is the one on the Justices themselves.  The consequences of their decision are weighing very heavily on them.  Yesterday’s flippant comment by Paul Clement, attorney for the plaintiff states, surely raised the Justices anxiety over their decision.   “It won’t be a big deal”, said Clement, for Congress to simply re-pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) minus the parts the Court might rule to be unconstitutional causing the whole law to be thrown out.

This polarized Congress is not going to easily fix anything. 

If the ACA goes, there is no hope for ever having affordable health care for individuals or small businesses.  Americans with pre-existing conditions will never be able to have individual coverage.  Policyholders who get very ill will continue to have healthcare coverage cancelled or their premiums skyrocket.  More small businesses will drop this employee benefit.  Seniors will again start paying more when they hit the donut hole.  Young adults will be thrown off their parents healthcare policies.  No healthcare CO-OPs will be created to compete with private health insurance companies.  They’ll be more and more uninsured Americans shifting healthcare costs to those who do have insurance until the system implodes completely.

Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia is absolutely correct.  If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, “you go back to the law of the jungle in America.”

That is the reality weighing heavily on the Justices.  They can let the work of Congress stand or return the country to the jungle ruled by the insurance industry.  There are no other options.

Round two

The media reported that the government’s attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., had a tough day yesterday arguing in front of the Supreme Court that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate was constitutional.  His opening remarks were apparently not as coherent as they should have been and he consequently sustained some very negative questions from the Justices.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the 26 plaintiff states against the mandate, is reported to have done quite well in his arguments.  However, predicting the outcome based on questions from the Justices is apparently not a science experts caution.

But there was another attorney presenting to the Court yesterday who news reports have barely mentioned if at all—Michael Carvin who is representing the National Federation of Independent Business.  How did he do?

Here is how Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, who was in the Chamber described Mr. Carvin’s performance in a radio interview with me yesterday afternoon.

“He was very bombastic almost to the point where I think it was not really your typical Supreme Court behavior.   There is a sense of decorum there.  This isn’t Bill O’Reilly.  This is the Supreme Court of the United States.  I think that might have actually have turned off some of the Justices like Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.”

We can only hope.

You can hear yesterday’s entire interview with Ms. Wydra here.  She will again be my radio guest today at 5:25 EST and you can hear it live here.

NFIB continues the fraud

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is basking in the media attention as being one of the plaintiffs against the Affordable Care Act.  The Supreme Court starts hearing the case today.  (Yesterday the New York Times did an excellent short summary of what will happen during each of the three days.)

Today I received a press release from the NFIB listing their individual plaintiff’s in this case.  These include 2 small business owners, an unemployed worker and a retired person.  Since the NFIB purports to be the nation’s leading small-business association, I thought it would be interesting to learn more about the 2 small-business owners they secured for their lawsuit.

One is David Klemencic, who owns Ellenboro Floors in Ellenboro, West Virginia.  I called his business number and got to talk to his mother.  According to her, Ellenboro Floors doesn’t have any employees.

I also called Dana Grimes, who owns Premier Renovations in Greenwich, New York, but only got his answering machine.  His business does not have a website but I found a Better Business Bureau report that shows that the company is a sole proprietorship that does roofing and light carpentry.  There was no mention of how many employees Mr. Grimes has if any.

The NFIB claims to have hundreds of thousands of members yet these are the only business-owner plaintiffs they could find for the lawsuit???

Maybe the NFIB, as I have said before, isn’t really representing the interests of small businesses.  Certainly they aren’t representing the interests of Mike Roach.

Mike Roach, owner of Paloma Clothing in Portland, Ore, and a 36-year member of the NFIB, said he welcomes healthcare reform to help shoulder the costs of healthcare. "The costs have been crushing us. If nothing was done about healthcare costs, we’d either have to cut benefits or lay off some of our employees — neither of which we want to do. The fact of the matter is the new law has already started helping us. We'll likely get more than $7,000 back this year from the small business tax credits.”  CNBC (March 26, 2012)

I bet the NFIB never asked Mike Roach to join the lawsuit.

Why campaign spending rules hurt small business

CNN Opinion
January, 26, 2012

By David Brodwin, Special to CNN

(CNN) -- Two years ago, the Supreme Court upended the rules for campaign finance, unleashing a tsunami of unregulated, unrestricted and undisclosed spending that has, in effect, allowed donors to buy elections. The full impact of this decision is just now becoming clear, and it's bad both for America's businesses and for our democracy.

By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court affirmed that money is essentially speech -- a notion first addressed in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 -- and it outlawed nearly all restrictions on independent spending by corporations or other groups, including unions, to influence elections. Such restrictions are unconstitutional violations of free speech, the court said, and are prohibited by the First Amendment.

You might expect business owners to welcome the elimination of these restrictions, but if so, you're about to be surprised. A recent poll conducted by Lake Research found that 66% of a random sample of 500 small-business owners believe the Citizens United decision was "mostly bad" or "somewhat bad" for small business. Since small businesses create 70% of new jobs in the private sector, according to the Small Business Administration, their view should matter a lot.

The poll was commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council, the Main Street Alliance, and Small Business Majority -- three groups that represent the views of small business and which have a combined membership of more than 100,000 small businesses nationwide. The poll tapped the views of 500 small-business owners nationwide, most of whom are not members of the organizations conducting the survey.

In addition to taking a dim view of Citizens United, 88% of the small-business owners in the poll had a negative view of the role money plays in politics. (The margin of error in the poll is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.)

Small-business owners believe in our market-based, capitalist system, which depends on open and robust competition.

Unlimited campaign spending undermines this competition, in three crucial ways.

First, allowing unlimited money into politics allows the past to hold the future hostage. Companies (and individuals who own them) with sufficient resources to sway elections often represent the industries and companies of the past, rather than the industries and companies that are creating the future.

The evidence on this is indirect, because since Citizens United was announced less than a year before the last federal election, its impact has not yet been fully felt or measured. However, we can gauge its future impact by looking at lobbying expenditures, for which multiyear data is widely available. For the period 2008-2011, the computer and Internet industry -- a wellspring of innovation -- spent $458 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while the energy and natural resources industry spent more than three times as much: $1.55 billion. The ratio for election-related spending, post Citizens United, will likely be similar.

Second, allowing unlimited money in politics allows the big to achieve an unfair advantage over the small. This is ironic in light of the huge role small business plays in creating private sector jobs in America, even as some large corporations act as net destroyers of American jobs, when outsourcing and offshoring are factored in.

For example, this kind of money in politics gives power to the push by big companies to repatriate offshore profits, giving some big and profitable multinational corporations lower effective tax rates than the grocer on Main Street.

Moreover, unlimited contributions give major Wall Street firms the edge over community banks, because the big banks can win loan guarantees, taxpayer bailouts and deeply discounted borrowing rates that smaller banks can't touch.

Third, allowing unlimited money in politics allows companies to collect IOUs for special favors from presidential candidates -- particularly as a result of contributions made early in the election season, when a few million dollars can swing the result in a small state like New Hampshire.

America's small-business owners embrace competition -- but they demand the competition be open, robust and vigorous. They don't want to be whipped by big corporations that bought an unfair advantage from senators, congressional representatives and other elected officials. When that happens, it's bad for business and America. Many solutions have been proposed, ranging from the Supreme Court reversing its decision, to legislation, to a constitutional amendment.

Momentum for change is growing, as candidates from both political parties learn what it's like to have a campaign with broad public support crushed by a single individual with deep pockets who steps in to help the other side.

Citizens United is an assault on our economy, which is supposed to be based on vigorous, free and open competition. It's time for us to reinvigorate our economy by getting government out of the protection racket, and preventing industries and companies from buying special favors. We must undo the damage wrought by Citizens United.

David Brodwin is a co-founder and board member of the American Sustainable Business Council, a liberal-leaning, nonprofit national business coalition that advocates for public policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global economy.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/opinion/brodwin-citizens-united/index.html?hpt=op_t1