Business is willing to pay for public health care
Posted on January 15th, 2009 by Jason Rosenbaum in Solutions that Work
 |
According to the media, one of the more contentious aspects of Obama's health care plan is how much if any businesses who don't provide health care to their employees would be required to pay to help support a public insurance program.
According to a new report released today from the Main Street Alliance, 73% of small business owners said they're happy to chip in. 63% said they would be willing to contribute as much as 4-7% of their total payroll costs.
Though the conventional wisdom says businesses, especially small businesses, are against the kind of health care reform proposed by President-elect Obama and Health Care for America Now, clearly, that's not the case. Some other findings from this report:
- 59% of small business owners support a reform plan with a choice of public or private options
- 75% say there should be more oversight of private insurers
- 70% see a strong role for government in guaranteeing health care for all
These findings really shouldn't be surprising. The majority of Americans receive health insurance through their employer, and most employers at least partially subsidize this insurance. Businesses, especially small businesses, are being crushed by skyrocketing costs, especially at a time when they're being squeezed from the other end with falling revenues and profits due to the worsening economy.
As I covered months ago, big business leaders are getting on board for health care reform. now it seems small businesses, the engines of our economy, are on board as well.
Health care is economic stimulus. If we can relieve the strain on businesses by providing quality, affordable health care to everyone at lower cost, we'll be well on our way towards getting our economy back on track.
Is the government going to produce more healthcare related goods and services than exists now? If not, then how will it provide "quality, affordable" health care at a lower cost? Either the supply must be increased, which doesn't seem to be proposed, or the costs will rise as demand rises. You can force price controls in order to make it more affordable, but then care must be rationed and rationed care is not quality care.
We may get universal care, but it won't be quality, affordable care at lower cost for all. More likely it will be bloated, bureaucratic, rationed care with oversupply of some services and goods in some areas and under-supply in others (particularly low income areas.)
It seems to me what we have NOW is rationed care. Being low income myself presently I know first hand. I was told by the WV Insurance Commission when I lost my health insurance coverage that I can and probably would be turned away by private doctors, because they will not accept private payers. I make too much, on unemployment, for medicare and not enough to buy my own health insurance.
I have a good friend from England whose mother underwent knee replacement surgery last year, and she did not pay a dime. His mother is living on a pension, low to middle income. Not wealthy by any means. Also, her doctor makes house calls! If England can do it why can't we?
Agreed. Supply and demand models make little sense when talking about health care, especially health insurance. The government isn't going to produce more health care related goods and services, it's going to produce an alternative insurance program. And, as we can see by the prices of current insurance programs, there seems to be more demand than supply, if you want to use those terms.
Jeri,
You are correct, we ration health care extensively in the U.S. We simply do it on an economic rather that a scientific basis. Every other industrialized nation on Earth has found a way to provide at least a reasonable standard of care for their citizens. Here we lack the political will.