Earlier last month, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) — a conservative group aligned with Republican interests — surprised other business organizations when it joined a state-based lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care reform. Having successfully lobbied against the employer mandate and in favor of a so-called SHOP exchange that would allow small businesses to purchase coverage in large pools, the NFIB’s members — most of which employ six or fewer staff — stood to gain a lot for the new law. They would be exempt from the free-rider provisions (those only applied to employers with more than 50 employees) and could qualify for a small business tax credit.

Immediately after the announcement, business groups of various sizes and ideological persuasions distanced themselves from the lawsuit. “At this time, we have no plans to do so,” a representative of the National Association of Manufacturers told The Hill. The Chamber of Commerce also said it would not join the suit and would instead pursue an “aggressive strategy of battling the regulations” of reform.

The NFIB is having a hard time persuading smaller, state-based business groups to join their effort. As one article from New Jersey notes, small business groups seem are weary of the lawsuit:

“We’re not at a point in time where we are prepared to jump on board,” said Jim Kirkos, president/chief executive officer, “because so far, the reviews have been mixed” on the law. Two committees are debating whether to join, he added. Kirkos said about 78 percent of members employ 50 or fewer people and 60 percent have 10 or fewer. “So under those circumstances, those businesses may not necessarily be against the current health-reform legislation,” he said.

Because of that, the chamber will stick to providing seminars, such as the law’s impact on businesses, said Kirkos, and he will talk to more members before taking a position on the lawsuit. Kirkos said the health care issue is further down on his priority list after economic development, the workforce, education, transportation and tourism. [...]

The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the health care measure, serves 1,600 businesses. The chamber “is not involved in the suit,” said Scott Goldstein, manager of communications.

Small businesses may not be overly enthusiastic about the new law — given the misinformation about the law and the complexity of the measure, that’s not surprising — but they would be foolish to join a frivolous lawsuit that cuts them out of negotiations with HHS about any new regulations.

NFIB President Dan Danner

In particular, an employer that receives such a state tax credit or subsidy will also receive the full federal credit based on its entire contribution so long as the federal credit does not exceed the employer’s net contribution…. The guidance clarifies that small businesses can receive the credit not only for traditional health insurance coverage but also for add-on dental, vision, and other limited-scope coverage. The employer must meet the requirements for limited-scope coverage that are similar to those that apply for single coverage: the employer must offer to pay at least 50% of the premium…. The new guidance allows employers to choose among 3 different methods of determining hours to minimize their bookkeeping duties while receiving the maximum tax credit for which they are eligible. Employers can look at actual hours of service, or can use simple rules of convenience to estimate hours based on total days or weeks of service.

Despite the benefits, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation’s largest small business lobby, announced last week that it is joining a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of health care reform:

NFIB joined this lawsuit to further its mission to protect the rights of small business owners to own, operate, and grow their business…The federal government has really simply gone too far with this law. The individual and employer mandates in the law, the onslaught of new taxes, the paper requirements and the new rules are dramatically going to increase the cost of doing business…Small businesses deserve better than the health care law that was rushed through the legislative process, ignores the constitution, and ultimately will destroy jobs and could force some small business owners to close their doors.

If the rhetoric sounds like recycled GOP soundbite, that’s because it is. In fact, the federation and its leaders have long-standing ties with Republican party, leading the Washington Post and the Washington Times to describe the group as “a bastion of Republicanism.” According to CQ MoneyLine, “Since 1980, the NFIB has donated $9,004,517 in campaign contributions, 91.6% of which went to Republican candidates” and many leaders have ties tot he Republican party.

The group my have legitimate problems with the law, despite its conservative leanings, but joining a frivolous lawsuit certainly won’t help address their concerns. For one, the rhetoric is completely overblown. The group has to know that the law does not include an employer mandate — only a free rider requirement for large employers — or taxes that would “force some small businesses owners to close their doors.” Aside from the tax credits, the law provides a whole host of benefits: businesses will be able to pool risk through SHOP exchanges (a long time NFIB goal), receive grants for wellness programs, and expect insurers to spend 85% of their premium dollars on claims.

Sure more can be done to improve the bill, but by aligning itself with the Congressional Republican election efforts rather than try and shape the law through the regulatory process, the federation betrays itself as a purely political operation. Had it chosen quiet advocacy, the group could have actually addressed some of its concerns about increased paperwork and the like. By supporting the lawsuits, they’re undermining the success of their future lobbying efforts and invalidating the legitimacy of the federation. In fact, some business groups are already distancing themselves from NFIB’s theatrics.

Today, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — the insurance industry’s lobbying arm — is hosting a health care policy forum in Washington D.C. This is the first of a series of posts from inside the conference.

AHIP bills its National Policy Forum as “the nation’s premier conference for health industry executives, health policy analysts and experts for in-depth discussions and a diversity of perspectives on the most challenging health care policy issues facing our nation.”

But when ThinkProgress asked National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) President Dan Danner — whose organization opposes Obama’s employer mandate — where he’s willing to compromise with the President to pass comprehensive health care reform, Danner couldn’t answer this “challenging health care policy” question. After several seconds of silence, Danner simply reiterated his support for reform:

I mean, we’re anxious to get a solution. Compromise on what? I think that’s the — one of the challenges, if you’re talking about comprehensive health care, it’s a very complex puzzle, and how you fit all of the pieces together. You know? I don’t think that you can take any part of comprehensive health care in isolation. You have to talk about how’s all this fit together?

Watch it:

While all of the different stakeholders argue have claimed that they’re willing to compromise, few have specified specific points of concession. As Time Magazine reporter Karen Tumulty pointed out, “I think we’re all going to learn over the next few months, how and whether the environment really has changed all that much since 1994.”

Transcript: Read more

During President Clinton’s failed effort to reform the health care system, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) misrepresented Clinton’s employer mandate as a crushing financial burden that would cost thousands of jobs. The organization dispatched a constant stream of “Fax Alerts” and “Action Alerts” to its tens of thousands of small-business owners and published hundreds of anti-mandate editorials in local newspapers.

Fifteen years later, as this President prepares his own health care initiatives, the NFIB is back to its old play book. Last week, the group released two studies showing that an employer health insurance mandate would “cause 1.6 million jobs to disappear (66% from small businesses) and would cause U.S. real GDP to contract by approximately $200 billion“:

Employer mandates, the paper explains, ultimately reduce the number of jobs and pass costs along to the employees who are the alleged beneficiaries of the mandates. The mandates also impede business investment and effectively impose regressive taxes on both employees and owners of small businesses.

Progressives see the employer mandate as one way of building comprehensive reform and moving the country towards universal coverage — without fundamentally disrupting the health system. Since some 60 percent of Americans already receive health insurance from their employers, requiring all large firms to insure their employees could significantly reduce the number of uninsured, guarantee continuity of coverage, and spread the cost of insurance across different payers (the government, employers, and the individual).

In April 2006, this theory of “shared responsibility” was put to the test. Massachusetts adopted comprehensive health care reform and required employers with more than ten employees to either set up a Section 125 plan and offer a “fair and reasonable” contribution for their employees’ coverage, or “pay an annual ‘fair share’ contribution of $295 per employee.”

Now, if we’re to believe the NFIB studies, employers should have passed the costs of health insurance to consumers, reduced wages, or fired lots of people. Instead, the great majority of Massachusetts businesses embraced health reform:

- Few firms reported making changes as a result of health reform.

- Firms reported making few changes in cost sharing or in offering more plans are a result of the mandate.

- Employer coverage increased by five percentage points.

- Massachusetts employers were less likely than employers nationally to terminate or restrict eligibility for health benefits.

These most recent NFIB studies, like their historical counterparts, have already made their way into local newspapers. And while their conclusions are predictable, their methodologies are suspect. The NFIB model assumes the mandate applies to small businesses despite Obama’s campaign promise to the contrary, inflates the employer contribution to 50 percent of the cost of insurance (compared to the Massachusetts mandate of $300), and relies on faulty premium growth projections (premiums are expected to slow as a result of universal coverage).

All of this is a cautionary tale. NFIB is going for a repeat performance of 1993 and it’s up to us to call them on it.