Would the Health Plan Help Small Business?

(CBS)  President Obama tried to regain momentum on health care today by claiming in his weekly address that his plan would benefit small business owners.

He said small businesses now pay 18 percent more for health insurance than large businesses do. Just 48 percent of businesses with three to nine employees offer insurance, while nearly all businesses with 200 or more employees do.

But do small business owners think they'd benefit from a change?

---

Small business owner Tom Sawner runs an online education service in Arlington, Va.

He believes his employees deserve health care coverage. But he doesn't want the government telling him he has to provide it, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

"I think small business owners need to have the ability to make their own choices for their people and their company and their location," said Sawner, the CEO of Educational Options.

Mark Derbyshire runs a moving company in Aberdeen, Md. He also provides his people health care.

"It's the right thing to do," said Derbyshire, the president of Park Moving and Storage. "It's the moral thing to do."

But he wants other small businesses to provide it too, to save him money. He believes having more people insured means fewer end up making costly visits to emergency rooms that eventually get paid for by us - the taxpayers.

"So I would like to see everyone pay something into the pool," Derbyshire said. "So my premiums would not be subsidizing companies that don't."

Any change in the system, like the type now being debated in Congress, could alter the type of insurance either man will be able to offer.

All of the proposed plans call for some version of "pay or play" - businesses of a certain side would have to provide insurance, or pay a type of fee or tax.

Sawner pays 100 percent of individual coverage, but he offers no family coverage. Under the new system, he might end up with an 8 percent tax on his payroll, which would actually be cheaper than what he pays now to provide health care. But he still doesn't like it.

"I am very concerned about what might come down in a government program or how I'm going to be taxed an additional 8 percent of payroll if my plan doesn't fit with what Congress, in their infinite, wisdom says will be best for my business," Sawner said.

Mark Derbyshire pays 85 percent of individual coverage and 75 percent of family. But he recently stopped providing family coverage to new hires, so he may also get hit with that 8 percent tax. But he says he pays about 12 percent of his payroll now on healthcare, so he'd save money with the new plan.

"I would pay as much or less in health currently," Derbyshire said. "So from an economic point of view, it's a plus for me."

These are the kind of arguments Congress is grappling with on Capitol Hill - some feel forcing them to provide healthcare will break their business, but others say if everyone has to provide this, that levels the playing field, and reduces everyone's costs. One thing both men agreed on - this is happening way too fast.

[betsy_ross]

It's unconstitutional for the federal government to get involved in this. If anything, it is a state matter. The only power and right the federal government has is to "regulate" those large insurers and make sure that the policies which they sell they honor, and that the costs are the same if they are global or national markets which they provide coverage - "regulating" interstate commerce is their function, and it is their negligence in the past in doing so that has brought us to where we are today.

Health care COULD be affordable, if those insurers were viewed as the non-profit risk pools they were in prior generations - now they have been allowed to "unionize" and monopolize the marketplace, and also have been given privileges and immunities with the government getting into bed with them for political careers, and then also allowing them to "conglomerate" and branch out into the other financial sectors as a result. Thus, they are now "for profit" commercial corporations, and as such need regulation.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REGULATION OF THOSE GLOBAL AND NATINOAL INSURERS, which is why we now have bailed out one of the largest AIG, a London based global entity, not even a U.S. one, on the backs of the American people.

Washington is handing them more profit, with this now "looking like" it will be an affordable health care choice, sort of like the Patriot Act. They use great labels to hid the unconstitutional and Bill of Rights stripping provisions.

And Buffett and Gates are the ones behind this, don't you think any differently. And I wonder how much of AIG Buffett has bought now in that behind closed doors restructuring that Geithner is involved in. And Gates will be providing the software for that privacy invasion national health care database - when what is needed is a national complaint system for the citizens so that some of these concerns are stripped of their rights and licenses to market in the U.S. if they failed to honor those policies.

This is an ass backward approach, and all done for the profits of the politicos and the industries. And why DO you think the AARP is involved? Because they market those "supplemental" plans that they will now be able to expand to others, which with the government then the primary carrier, will NEVER HAVE TO PAY OFF ON so it is gravy for AARP and their contractor carriers.

What a scam. And what a ripoff. And just think of the political weapon this could be on citizens that the government views as "terrorists" we disagree with governmental policies.

Just imagine.

[BenONC]

A global health care plan may not be the best solution for anyone. A better solution may be to apply a dirty word to the insurance business, "regulation". If the insurance business was only allowed to charge a maximum of 10% of a persons Gross pay and make this the equivalent of the maximum coverage then have, the government spell out what maximum coverage is, the insurance companies would have no choice but to adjust or go out of business.

I have one of the best insurance coverages around and it still only covers about 60% to 70% of my regular preventative visits which is great in todays market. My employer and I are paying about 40% of my gross for this. If my employer did not help i would not be able to afford this, and i have a 6 figure income.

You do not hear much about bonuses for insurance company execs. Why are we not looking at their profit statements the way we are looking at banks and the auto industry. There is another financial crisis looming and it is just an earthquake, flood, or pandemic away.

[jsd330]

searingtruth is another one looking for a free government hand out,let somebody else pay your way. That's the LIB mentality.

[imprisoncheney]

The weepublican healthcare "plan" -- Let the poor eat dogpoop and die.

It decreases the excess population, you see . . . thereby making it more "comfortable" for the wealthy few who're left.

Think of America as a Mexican North Korea, when they get thru with us -- a society like Mexico (the ruling 200 families-oligarchy) and a political structure like N Korea (with everyone paying homage to the gospel as preached on C Street).

Is it a secret? or something?

[xlib]

Naw, we'll leave the "excess" population to be taken care of the "end of life counseling" supplied by eziekel emanuel, brother of the pit bull for the thug, rahm emanuel.
As for your references to the ruling class, my, my. YOu must be referring to the messiah and his thug crowd.

[andylance1]

The working poor and small business owners need health coverage and can't afford health insurance or medicine. Even undocumented Mexicans need health coverage to prevent the spread of disease for public health reasons.

The only way health reform can work is if there are strict mandatory price controls on medicine, lab work, radiology and surgery plus liability relief for physicians.

[papoubill]

There are four parts to the health reform (regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition) in all Democratic versions, and because the reform can not work with only one of those parts, killing one part will destroy the Health reform and our ability to slow future cost increases.

Now Blue Dog Democrats claim to be concerned about costs, but their demands would harm cost control.

Strong Regulation means laws against insurance companies using their "pre-existing condition" excuse to deny coverage based on their interpretation, or any interpretation, of your medical history, or, when you file a claim, deciding to not allow you to renew coverage, thereby covering only the healthy among us.

Mandates prevent the "anti-selection" risk that insurance companies now use to justify their use of the "pre-existing condition" excuse to deny coverage - with mandates those not feeling ill would still need to buy insurance - they could not wait until they felt ill. The mandates currently include rules that require all but the smallest businesses to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay a penalty that will go to cover the cost of the plan.

Mandates for the poor and lower middle class are impossible if there are no subsidies toward the cost of the insurance, and the cost of the reform is the cost of these subsidies. So why are the Blue Dogs against mandates when the alternative is simply giving welfare checks to the insurance companies (subsidies simply allow the insurance companies to increase premiums if there is no mandate) with no cost savings to the system?

Cost control in the plan is centered around a government-run insurance plan competing with private insurers, the "public option" that acts as a control on bad insurance company behavior. So why are the cost-control motivated Blue Dogs against the public option - demanding it not take effect except after a "trigger like the one in the Medicare drug benefit" law is activated? We know that that Drug law trigger was successfully designed to never "trigger" anything - so this is just a way to kill the health reforms one effective cost control in the plan (the Blue Dogs also want an independent board to determine Medicare claim payment rates subject to an override by Congress, but CBO says this saves only a few 10's of billion over the 10 years). Indeed the Blue Dogs demand higher than average payments to the health care services providers in their low cost rural areas, making the health reform even more costly.

When a politician has an illogical position that he sells with buzz word slogans that lie about the effect of his position, the odds are that he is simply defending a special interests that give contributions to him. Will the Blue Dogs sell Obama and the Democratic Party out for insurance company dollars?

[carlj6]

I own a business where I can't afford to give health insurance, period. I have insurance for myself and my wife, that's it. Should I feel guilty? Should I therefore feel guilty for not making sure every employee has a car to drive? On the other hand I feel basic health-care should be a "right," just not put on the backs of employers necessarily, other than being the middle-man in the case of a Federal Sales Tax of 1 or 2 cents on the dollar.

[jambo223]

I find it very interesting that Americans continue to be of two minds when it comes to making intelligent choices. The US is the only modern democracy in the world without universal healthcare for its citizens. It also ranks behind all of the modern, democratic nations that do have universal healthcare in terms of individual satisfaction with healthcare. Our healthcare system is right up there with Turkey in terms of quality but behind Morocco and Thailand. Our Republican leaders try to scare us by saying that we may end up with healthcare equivalent to Canada. We should be so lucky! I have friends that go to Canada for medical procedures to save money and get superior treatment. I also have friends that go to Mexico for the same reasons. It is crystal clear that we need to reform our healthcare system. It is clear that we need to move into the modern era and make healthcare a right of citizenship. It is time to grow up as a nation.

[actornaught]

The 'pub "solution" is the politics of constipation. Of course, that's no solution at all.

How do the necons propose that people working for small business get health insurance? Their strategy indicates that small business employees are expendable. And don't tell me that the non-insured still get medical care. That's a rationalization to continue the status quo where the stress of worrying about how to get well consistently leads to unfortunate ends. You're sacrificing the most well meaning of our underprivileged, just so you can get at a few that you perceive to be taking advantage of you.

How do the neocons propose that the employees of small businesses get insurance and healthcare?

[pollroller1]

Give me the same health insurance that the president, the house and senate gets. Oh wait, that will break the country.