Valerie Acres, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group 

Well, for those who prefer a state-based health insurance exchange rather than one that is federally-controlled, one-to-one advocacy will have to take place sooner rather than later, and in the Senate rather than the House, now that Senate Bill 163 has been tabled.

As reported last week, Senator Ray White (R-Bedford) has been working with a growing list of business groups throughout the state of New Hampshire for several months to craft a proposal for a state-based exchange. An amended version of his bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee and was expected to pass the full Senate this week. At the last minute, the bill was tabled to allow members more time to consider its implications. It is expected to be taken off the table and subjected to an up or down vote during a future Senate session. If you have an interest in this issue, NOW is the time to call or e-mail your senator. Contact information is available online (select your city or town, then click on the name of the senator and scroll down to contact information at the bottom).

The SB 163 controversy isn't really about a state versus federal exchange. Rather, it is about federal healthcare reform in general. Opponents of a state-based exchange argue that it is bad public policy because it signifies support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the PPACA), sometimes called "Obamacare." This simply isn't true. Support for a state-based exchange can be rooted in support for the PPACA. But, it can - and does, for many - result from pragmatism and a desire for less federal control, rather than more, should the federal law stay in place. Indeed, many supporters of SB 163 strongly oppose the PPACA.

The issue is an important one. A state-based health insurance exchange will likely cost less to operate than the cost of mandatory participation in a federal exchange should SB 163 fail and the PPACA stand. A state-based exchange will provide more flexibility to tailor the exchange and products offered through it to the needs of New Hampshire employers and citizens. And, it will provide easier access for domestic and regional insurers thus keeping those businesses, the taxes they pay, the charitable and community contributions they make, and the jobs they provide closer to home.

Nobody will be forced to purchase insurance through the state-based health insurance exchange. In fact, its "purpose and intent" is to meet federal requirements while preserving the existing commercial health insurance market in New Hampshire. It is a minimalist approach that complies with the PPACA while retaining as much state control as possible. And, if the PPACA is found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court or is repealed by Congress, the New Hampshire Legislature can revisit the decision to establish a state-based exchange. Indeed, the bill requires a recommendation for action by the Joint Health Care Reform Oversight Committee in that circumstance.

Again, some senators are still on the fence regarding SB 163 and they are looking for additional input and information from their constituents. If you care about this issue, you should contact your senator now.

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

When compared to other bills dealing with issues like health care, guns, abortion and unions, Senate Bill 203, relative to limited liability companies, and Senate Bill 205, revising the New Hampshire Business Corporation Act, aren't exactly the most dramatic bills being taken up by the General Court this year.

But that's not to say they're not important. Indeed, the bills will probably be more relevant to Chamber members than many, if not most, of the bills being debated this year. For this reason the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee recommends the organization support these two important bills.

In short, the bills seek to modernize the state's LLC and corporations laws, which haven't been touched since the '90s. Overall, the bills keep most of the provisions governing LLCs and corporations currently in place. The bills do, however, seek to make the existing laws governing business entities easier to understand.

(Ironically, the bills themselves aren't quick, easy reads. SB 203, for example, is some 75 pages long. SB 205 tops out at 136 pages.)

For starters, the bills seek to make better use of plain English. At a Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire-sponsored press conference held in the lobby of the Legislative Office Building Tuesday morning, it was noted that the majority of LLCs, by far the state's most popular business entity choice, formed in New Hampshire are done so without the assistance of legal counsel. The use of plain English in favor of legal jargon will help make business formation and governance easier to understand for new and existing entrepreneurs.

SB 203 also defines a number of technical terms in the current LLC laws that aren't spelled out. These terms include "allocation," "distribution," "dissociation" and "dissolution." Left undefined in the current statute, these terms have been a source of confusion, particularly when business partnerships dissolve.

The bill updating the Business Corporations Act, SB 205, would offer such modernizing aspects such as allowing for electronic notification with regard to corporate governance and meetings. The bill also increases the ability for entities to convert to a corporation, among other provisions.