Bill hurts small construction businesses
Editor, The Times:
In their zeal to deliver a health-care bill by Christmas, Senate Democrats have inserted an 11th-hour jobs-killing provision that unfairly singles out the construction industry and threatens the viability of area small-home building firms and other businesses across the nation [“Final health-care bill may skip usual path, News, Jan. 5].
The provision stipulates that small construction-industry companies with five or more workers must offer health-care coverage to their workers — the same mandate required for big businesses with multimillion-dollar payrolls — or face stiff fines. Meanwhile, the mandatory health-care threshold for companies in all other industries is 50 or more workers.
To say that this provision is patently unfair is greatly understating the matter — it is also economically dangerous. With the construction industry currently charting an unemployment rate exceeding 18 percent and more than $200 billion in economic activity already lost in the past year, the additional impact of such a requirement would be extremely detrimental to communities like ours. Keep in mind that a majority of home-building firms in our local area and across America are small “mom-and-pop” operations that employ fewer than a dozen workers and are struggling to stay solvent amid the worst housing downturn in decades.
“Do no harm” is the guiding principle that all doctors abide by. In crafting health-care legislation, Congress must understand this concept also applies to America’s small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy.
If this provision targeting the construction industry is enacted into law, many small construction firms in our community and across the nation could be forced to shutter their doors, placing the housing industry on life-support. The consequences for housing and the economy are incalculable.
— Samuel L. Anderson, Bellevue
Why is America’s health so poor?
In the wake of recent national health-care debates, and as a current medical-student at UW, I find myself asking: “What factors contribute most to a healthy society?”
Though the U.S. spends more money on health care than any other nation, we consistently rank near-last among rich countries for most health indicators. We have higher rates of infant mortality, obesity and mental-health problems. Why is America’s health so poor compared with other industrialized countries?
The largest threat to our nation’s health may be income inequality. In the new book “The Spirit Level,” Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett document the correlation between income inequality and social problems like violence, teenage births, higher imprisonment rates and longer working hours. Sound familiar?
Those who enjoy social privilege also suffer from the diseases of inequality. For example, 25 percent of Americans from all class backgrounds suffer from mental illnesses. Wilkinson and Pickett suggest that almost every social problem in developed societies has inequality as its root cause. Let’s start talking about the consequences of living in an unhealthy, unequal society and push for reforms that move us toward greater equality.
— Libby Loft, Seattle
Competition across state lines would lower costs
To reform health care, one must make the system better, not just bigger. If you want to call it health-care reform, give us the right to buy insurance across state lines.
Since the days of “Hillarycare,” every Democrat and Republican alike told us that the ability to buy insurance across state lines would add competition and cut the cost of insurance. And they said they were going to get it for us! It was the one thing they all agreed on; a bipartisan solution to a real problem. Think of it! Real reform that wouldn’t cost the taxpayer one red cent and it would lower the cost of health insurance for every American. It’s a no-brainier! So, where is it?
Isn’t it a bit odd, that not one Republican nor Democrat, not one newspaper nor cable-news outlet is demanding the one real reform we all know will lower the cost of health insurance?
This so-called health-care bill is nothing more than an insurance company stimulus bill. Seriously, what else would you call a bill that will make another 30 million Americans buy health-care insurance, but only in the state they live in?
— Thomas Gassett, Everett
Handling of health care akin to that of the Christmas bomber
Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano says the “system worked,” referring to the TSA’s failure to prevent the suicide bomber from boarding the flight to Detroit. She is right. Everyone in the federal system performed exactly according to the rigidly detailed rules specified for their job — no more, no less.
They followed the rules, which is exactly how government systems work, with no room for judgment or imagination. This is exactly how the federal system of health-care commissions, agencies and bureaus will specify and rigidly apply defined rules in the federally regulated health-care system that Congress and the president are about to impose on America.
Will these bureaucrats make us as confident of the quality of our federally managed medical care as we now are of our TSA-managed safety on an airplane?
— Phil Scott, Maple Valley
