I rise today to oppose H.R. 660, the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003.'' This bill is badly misnamed. Rather than make the cost of health insurance for small businesses more fair, this bill would have the perverse effect of increasing the cost of health insurance for many people and increase the number of people without health insurance altogether. This bill would allow these new entities, called Association Health Plans (AHPs), to bypass State regulation and offer bare-bones health insurance policies. Small businesses that don't choose to offer these inadequate policies would see their premiums increase by 23 percent on average. This premium hike would occur because AHPs, which would offer only skeletal coverage, would attract the healthiest individuals, leaving traditional health insurance plans with the sickest and most expensive patients. This shift would penalize businesses with sicker employees, and make health insurance for those who need it the most even more unaffordable. Further, this legislation would swell the ranks of the uninsured by over one million more individuals.
Pete Stark: “I rise today to oppose H.R. 660, the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003.'' This bill is badly misnamed. Rather…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Pete Stark
$8.6 trillion. Do you have any idea what the two wars we are fighting and not paying for costs over the same period of time?
the Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the major coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act will terminate coverage for--sorry, not 30, but 32 million people.
I am concerned about the proposals or any proposals that would shift costs to beneficiaries. Doing so I think would devastate them.
The home health copayment, for instance, I think is largely ascribed to be used by old, sick, poor widows, and raising the price that they have to pay is just one more Republican effort to deny equal rights to women.





