Private insurance hurts U.S. businesses

Len Nichols and the New America Foundation have released a great paper, well sourced and with great charts and tables, showing the private health insurance's effect on global competitiveness.

Here's one of the charts:



Download the pdf for Employer Health Costs In a Global Economy at the New America Foundation website.

San Franciscans covered for now

USA Today's headline reads "Businesses fight plans to ensure health care" -- the worst possible head for advancing health care.

That's because the polls show that small business is the key icon for Americans, held in higher esteem even than moms and apple pie. If small business is against it, so is America.

But consider this. It's true that a couple San Francisco businesses sued so they wouldn't have to pay more for health insurance for their employees -- and a lower court agreed with them, that the Employees Retirement Insurance Security Act forbade the state to require employers to insure their employees. But there's always going to be some businesses against minimum wage, health insurance, child labor laws, whatever.

At issue in the restaurant association's lawsuit is a 1974 federal law, the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. It bars states from requiring employers to offer health insurance or regulating the benefits they do offer to protect companies from varying laws. Congress gave only one state, Hawaii, an exemption from the law in 1975. It is the only state that requires employers to provide health insurance.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said business owners such as Scherotter will have to comply with the law, at least until the full court can review the lawsuit later this year. A lower court sided with business owners.

More important were the poll last year that showed that California businesses are in favor of universal health care:"Despite High Cost, Small Business Says It Supports Universal Health Care -- 80 Percent Say Employees Deserve Health Coverage" from the San Diego Business Journal:

About 500 small businesses across the state were randomly surveyed by phone and e-mail; many were in support of a 1 cent sales tax solution, while favor for a single-payer system was split, with the majority of business owners who don’t provide health care voting for the single-payer system, according to survey results.

Another article, this one from the Sacramento Bee covered that same poll. Some key findings:

• 57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government – three times as many as do not (19%).
• 55% were in favor of paying into a statewide pool that would enable their employees to obtain coverage at favorable rates – over three times greater than those opposed (17%).
• A substantial plurality (near-majority) said that they favored two leading California healthcare reform proposals, with a small plurality supporting a single-payer plan:
• Governor’s proposal -- 47% in favor; 31% opposed
• AB 8 (legislative leaders’ proposal) -- 47% in favor; 33% opposed
• SB 840 (single-payer) -- 42% in favor; 40% opposed

The businessman and the immigrant

A couple voices from the day —

I talked with a businessman based in Colorado Springs who said he was in favor of a 4 percent payroll tax in order to cover his employees — and that's even though he's not paying for health insurance now.

How about a 6 percent payroll tax?

Hell yes.

He said that right now his cost for employing his three employees was 25 percent of his budget. Not payroll, budget. He wants to insure his people, but who can spend 25 percent of their budget on it?

At the 208 Commission meeting yesterday, there was the clear implication that single-payer wouldn't be fair to small businesses, which couldn't afford a 6 percent payroll tax. It makes you wonder how many couldn't.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece today on businesses supporting single-payer. Turns out that 42 percent of them do. In fact, 55 percent would be willing to pay into a state fund to help cover their employees.

The other conversation was with an Englishman who had immigrated here. I didn't ask the circumstances, but he said he hadn't taken into consideration what losing the NHI would really mean in his life. He says that the enemies of single-payer make preposterous arguments. Nicely said.

WI single-payer proposal

A retired small business owner in Colgate, Wis., writes Single-payer system would bring windfall for businesses in the Small Business Times, a journal for Milwaukee and Southwestern Wisconsin small business news.

His charge is that the campaign contributions from healthcare and insurance industries — now joined by banking and credit card interests that benefit from health savings accounts — have corrupted politicians who can no longer see that the compromises they're making are killing Americans and American business.

He urges small business to support the single-payer bill before the Wisconsin Legislature:

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and that's exactly what Sen. Mark Miller (D-Monona) and Rep. Chuck Benedict (D-Beloit) do with the Health Security Act (SB51/AB94). A small additional payroll tax for employers eliminates the 10 to 15 percent they currently spend on health care benefits, and a small additional payroll tax for employees eliminates costs of co-pays, deductibles, dental, vision, and scores of other expenses...

If you are hung up over the government's involvement, get over it. There are some things best left to the government to fund. Fire and police protection, building public roads, and funding health care are just a few. Political campaigns are another, but that's a story for a different day...

Where are the non-healthcare business leaders on this? Many with their heads in the sand. They are trying to reduce costs in this so-called "free market" system, all while turning their heads when their fellow healthcare businesses pick their pocket.

Lohman can be reached at jlohman@execpc.com.