Access to Affordable Health Insurance

Retail Council position

Support legislation seeking to contain the cost of health care for businesses, government, and New York State residents alike.  Strongly oppose all bills that unfairly single out one company or industry in a misguided attempt to address health care cost and availability problems that affect many New Yorkers.  Strongly oppose all bills that would impose costly “play-or-pay” mandates on employers by requiring businesses to underwrite part or all of the health care coverage costs for their employees. 

Legislative action
           
A.165 (O’Donnell) / S.5004 (Oppenheimer), modeled after the overturned employer mandate law in Maryland.  The bill remained in the Assembly and Senate Labor committees at the close of the 2007 Legislative Session.

S.3409 (Savino), modeled after the ‘Suffolk County Fair Share for Health Care Act’, which was overturned in mid-2007 by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.  The bill was held in the Senate Labor Committee. 

S.1626 (Maziarz), would require the Commissioner of Labor to compile a ‘blacklist’ of businesses employing a certain number of employees enrolled in publicly-funded health insurance programs.

At a glance

• Attempts to force runaway health care costs on private employers will do nothing to attack the root of a shared national problem. These mandates would punish workers and their employers without ever rectifying the underlying problems related to rising health costs.
• State and local laws mandating employee health benefit plans have long been unlawful, pursuant to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) adopted more than 30 years ago.  The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld ERISA’s preempting authority.  In 2006, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), a national trade group, initiated a lawsuit against the Maryland state and Suffolk county legislatures, both of which passed health insurance mandates.  Based on ERISA preemptions, the court ruled in favor of RILA and in July 2006 and July 2007, respectively, both laws were overturned.
• Legislation mandating that employers spend a significant arbitrary percentage of their payroll on health care will do nothing to control skyrocketing costs or improve the quality of care.  Such mandates are thinly disguised payroll taxes that could jeopardize current employment levels, stifle future job growth, raise consumer prices, and force retailers to make a choice between laying off workers and raising prices.
• Retailers provide their workers with robust benefits that accommodate the unique dynamics of the retail workforce — one dominated by young people, those who are not the head-of-household, retirees, part-time, and seasonal employees. Many have coverage through sources other than their retail employer, a critically important reality that must be recognized and acknowledged.
• Special-interest legislation would make the retail industry less competitive by mandating inefficiencies and blocking free-market competition.
• States approving mandated health care legislation hostile to retailers and other  business will not only be subject to lawsuits similar to that in Maryland and Suffolk County, but also can expect job losses, higher prices, fewer new stores, limited store hours and services, and diminished tax revenues.