In mid-August, after weeks of public debate around national healthcare reform, one such organization, the National Association of Home Builders, weighed in by sending an email message to selected members outlining the current status of proposed healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate as well as an explanation of the possibility of the use of a mechanism known as "reconciliation" by members in those legislative bodies to expedite passage of the reform bills. In the case of the Senate, it would only require a simple majority (51 votes) to bring about passage of the final bill.
The message assured recipients that the trade group will "stand firm against employer mandates, as well as changes to the current treatment of housing incentives in tax code to help pay for healthcare reform." This was followed by a declaration that the association "supports reforms that improve quality and lower costs, introduce fair regulation of the insurance market, and build a robust marketplace for consumers through market-based approaches, not government mandates."
That sounds like they are putting words in the mouths of everyone in the home building sector. They are asserting that we are all for healthcare reform as long as it helps improve conditions for us to do business, focuses any additional regulation on other stakeholders, doesn't cost the members of the industry anything or force them to participate in something they have not endorsed, and most important, won't dare trample the sacred ground of mortgage tax credits and other government programs aimed at encouraging home ownership.
Let me get this straight, more government regulations are alright as long as they are aimed at other industries, and government financial incentives are encouraged, even jealously protected, as long as they benefit our industry and our bottom lines. We support better healthcare for our citizens, maybe even for our employees, but we will oppose anything that would require us to put more skin in the game.
The message reiterates association policy that has been on the books since the last time national healthcare reform was making headlines in the 1990s. That policy has periodically been reaffirmed, most recently in 2006. To hear the industry tell it, apparently nothing about the nation's healthcare system or the coverage needs of our fellow citizens has changed in the last decade and a half. This is certainly not an accurate portrayal of my position.
Curiously, this also comes at a time when the industry is enthusiastically calling on Congress to extend the $8,000 housing tax credit for first-time buyers, a federal government program designed to boost home sales across the country, which is currently set to expire on December 1. The industry is also lobbying hard for expanded Net Operating Loss provisions now that we have fallen on harder times, which would broaden the ability of builders and developers to recoup taxes that were paid on sometimes gaudy profits in recent years when the gravy train was overflowing.
Is anyone else a little bothered by these mixed messages? For as long as I have been active in the industry and an association member I have heard over and over again that all we are looking for is fairness in the development and enforcement of regulations and a level playing field on which to operate. It might be hard to say that with a straight face while delivering this current set of signals.
By pure coincidence, last week I heard from a former colleague who told me that she is feeling much better after finally undergoing much-dreaded back surgery to insert a rod and fuse multiple discs to relieve chronic pain that had dominated her waking hours for years. She explained that the procedure and her two-day hospital stay came to more than $100,000 and went on to write, "If I didn't have good insurance, or had no insurance, I would have ended up crippled and living on pain killers. 'Public option' anyone?"
Hearing her story, I couldn't help thinking about a former employee whom I hired back in the late 1990s. This man had worked in home building all of his adult life and until he came to work for me had never received a single day of paid vacation or health care coverage provided through an employer. He was in his early fifties at the time and was not only a remarkable craftsman but a competent, experienced superintendent as well.
Armed with health coverage that my company paid for as part of his compensation package he underwent his first physical examination in decades. He learned that he suffered from high cholesterol that was almost off the charts. Within days of beginning a regimen of prescription medication and a strict diet, he began to feel like a new person. He later confided in me that he had been wandering around for years "in a clouded daze" believing that he was feeling normal because he simply didn't know the difference. He also relayed the message from his doctor that his life expectancy had most likely just been extended by fifteen years or more.
So, after receiving the policy message from the association I wrote back to the President and CEO as well as the Chairman of the Board asking why the communication was strictly one-way with no convenient mechanism for sharing an opinion on this matter, and I asserted that the existing policy does not necessarily represent the position of all members, perhaps not even a majority, and certainly not the industry at large. I did not hear back from the Chairman but the President/CEO did respond, explaining that the message was in response to inquiries from several members and was simply intended to serve as an analysis of pending legislation in comparison to the current policy on this subject.
For too long the majority of professionals in the home building industry have taken the path of least resistance and allowed others to voice opinions on their behalf. I believe that a level playing field and a fair set of evenly applied rules are all that the average building professional is asking for, not a chance to beat the system, or to eat their cake and have it too.
Year after year, surveys of the industry have indicated that the continuing erosion of a quality workforce is among the top five concerns of building companies across the country, and yet competitive compensation and benefits like healthcare insurance, which would undoubtedly attract employees with better skills and greater potential to careers in the industry, are casualties to the desire for cost avoidance.
Is it possible that all trade associations would better serve their members by applying their efforts toward finding ways to make it possible for business owners to provide better employment opportunities, including compensation packages with common benefits such as affordable group healthcare insurance, to the workforce to ensure that we can attract quality employees who will help us to deliver quality homes to our customers, rather than continuing to defend the status quo?
I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is not a contentious issue or that the federal government has offered a perfect solution. Nor do I believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will solve the problem. Many professionals in the industry, whether they are trade association members or not, will undoubtedly feel differently about how to deal with this topic, but it is definitely time for all of us to put the issue on the table and update our position regardless of where we stand rather than continuing to allow others to speak on our behalf.