CEOs like universal health insurance

By Robert Gavin, Globe Staff | November 2, 2005



Chief executives of some of Massachusetts' biggest employers said yesterday that they support universal health insurance, but rejected requiring businesses to foot the bill as damaging to job growth in the state.



Instead, said Charles ''Ed" Haldeman Jr., chief executive of the mutual fund company Putnam Investments, providing health insurance to all should be financed through an increase in individual income taxes, which he described as the fairest and broadest way to share the costs.



Haldeman, tapped two years ago to rebuild Putnam's credibility and operations after the mutual fund market-timing scandal, made the suggestion during a panel discussion among leading Massachusetts chief executives. The discussion, tackling a range of issues on the state's economic competitiveness, airs tonight at 8 on New England Cable News.



In an interview after the show was taped in NECN's studio, Haldeman said employer mandates put the burden on narrow segments of society -- businesses and their customers -- without regard for ability to pay. The income tax, he said, is not only broad-based but progressive, in that those with higher incomes pay more.



Access to healthcare, he said, ''is the responsibility of us all."



Both Governor Mitt Romney and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, through spokeswomen, rejected the idea of a broad-based tax increase to finance universal coverage. Romney wants to require individuals to have health insurance and has proposed covering the uninsured by taking the roughly $1 billion the state currently spends on free care and reallocating it to a subsidized health insurance product, for which everyone would pay based on what they could afford.



DiMasi this week proposed requiring businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide health insurance to pay a payroll tax of 5 to 7 percent to expand coverage. His plan would also create a subsidized health insurance program, based on ability to pay, and require all to carry insurance. Kimberly Haberlin, DiMasi's spokeswoman, said, ''The House plan at its core is about shared responsibility -- individuals, business, and government all pulling together."



Paul Guzzi, president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, agreed an income tax increase would be a hard sell. But, he added, ''an additional mandate on employers would not strengthen our competitiveness."



Employer groups have criticized proposals to require companies to provide company-paid health insurance, or pay higher taxes, as adding to some of the highest labor, energy, and real estate costs in the country.



In a recent survey of 100 CEOs of Massachusetts firms, 55 percent said mandating universal healthcare through employer insurance programs would make the state less competitive. Nearly 40 percent said such a mandate would improve competitiveness. The poll was commissioned by NECN and the Greater Boston Chamber.



The key issue remains how to pay for expanding healthcare coverage. Ultimately, Massachusetts chief executives said, the federal government would have to play a major role. But in the meantime, said James Mongan, CEO of Partners HealthCare System, there's a ''real role for certain states to assume a leadership position."