Senate Republicans appeared to make no progress Thursday in convincing more Democrats to join them in making a significant change to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by backing a bill redefining full-time employment as 40 hours per week instead of 30 hours, as the ACA does now.
Republicans need four more Democrats, in addition to the two they have already brought on board, to back a measure for changing the work-week definition so they can bring the bill to a Senate vote. The House already has passed its version of the measure by a 252-172 margin, with 12 Democrats joining all Republicans in voting in favor of the change.
Sixty votes are required in the Senate to force a vote on a bill when some senators want to continue debate or filibuster. That means Republicans, even with their new Senate majority, need at least six Democrat senators to back the Forty Hours Is Full Time Act of 2015, also known as S.30.
The full Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Thursday held hearings to garner support for S. 30, which was introduced Jan. 6 by Sen. Susan Collins(R-Maine). Prior to Thursday, only Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia supported the proposal.
“Republicans have talked a lot about wanting to repair the damage of Obamacare. We have also talked about wanting to get results,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate health committee said at the hearing. “This bipartisan bill should be an important step to doing both.”
Under the federal healthcare law, businesses with at least 100 employees must offer coverage this year to most full-time workers or face a financial penalty, typically $2,000 per worker. In 2016, the employer mandate will apply to businesses with 50 or more employees.
Proponents of the bill say the 30-hour standard diverges from the widely accepted definition of full-time work and so could be used as an incentive for employers to reduce hours, particularly for low-wage workers, to avoid offering healthcare coverage.
Those who oppose attempts to redefine the work week say it's an effort to derail funding for the ACA and raise the deficit. A recently released Congressional Budget Office report backs their arguments, they say.
Representatives from the Bangor (Maine) School Department, CKE Restaurants, which owns Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, and the conservative think tank American Action Forum spoke at the hearing about the dangers of the 30-hour provision and the incentive to cut hours for some of lowest-wage earners in the country.
Democrats were ultimately unmoved. “It makes no sense,” said Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) about the central argument that fewer employers would be tempted to cut employee hours if the standard were moved from 30 hours to 40 hours per week.
Because the majority of the US workforce logs in 40 hours or more per week, it would actually increase the incentive for employers to cut hours, he said. He and his fellow Democrats repeatedly cited the CBO analysis of the House bill for their unwillingness to change the hours standard.
The report found that changing the work week definition to 40 hours would increase the federal deficit by $53 billion over a decade, largely because fewer employers would pay penalties. It also determined that 1 million fewer individuals would be offered coverage through their jobs if the full-time threshold changed to 40 hours per week.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director under George W. Bush and president of the American Action Forum cast doubt on the CBO analysis.
“If you look at the score, the notion that there would be that many drops in employer coverage is a side show,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Since those employers already offered health coverage before the ACA, he couldn't imagine that many would suddenly stop doing so if the standard were changed to 40 hours, he said.
“You think the CBO made up the numbers?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked in response to his comment.
Holtz-Eakin replied that he wouldn't go that far, but rather, he was just unsure how his former office came up with the figure.
Even if the Senate ultimately succeeds in passing S.30, President Barack Obama already has announced that he would veto the legislation.
Follow Virgil Dickson on Twitter: @MHvdickson
