Skip to main content
Search US website

Why the Public Option Does and Does NOT Matter in HealthCare Reform

8 Comments

September 16, 2009

Related Topics:

OPEN Forum Message

Test Your Business Skills

Take one or more of OPEN Forum's Crash Courses on topics like Leadership, Search Engine Marketing, Facebook and more.

Learn more
It would appear, at first glance, that the entire country has lost its collective mind, thanks to health care reform.

Between the bizarre contentions of lunatic fringe opponents who read way too much science fiction and the opposition of elderly citizens who don't seem to know that "government-run health insurance" is a pretty fair description of their beloved Medicare, you really don't know whether to laugh or throw something.

The fact is that there are no perfect proposals among those that have been floated in either the House or the Senate. But I think it would be much more productive to complain about things that are actually in those proposals — coverage mandates, "pay or play" provisions, etc. — rather than making stuff up.

Of course, these reactions may run the gamut from counterproductive to silly but they are at least in character. Back in 1945, when Harry Truman first proposed some form of medical insurance for seniors to become a part of Social Security, conservatives immediately started muttering about "socialized medicine."

It took another twenty years for Congress to pass the legislation that created Medicare and Medicaid. So, we are at least running true to form.

Small business owners have shown themselves to be much more practical than partisan when it comes to this particular issue. We all know that health care reform really needs to happen, sooner rather than later. And, no matter how you may feel about the government dipping its evil fingers into the health care marketplace, it's pretty clear that the marketplace is not going to self-correct.

As others have noted before me, it doesn't matter what they do in Washington, it would be difficult to imagine a system that is worse than the one we have now!

Which brings me to today's topic. I wanted to say a few words to you about the public option.

I'm bringing this up because one or two microbusiness owners have asked, in my hearing, why other small business owners are said to oppose a public option. I don't have any of knowing whether other small business owners do, in fact, oppose it. I know that a lot of small business lobbying organizations oppose it — but that is not precisely the same thing.

The debate over that particular leg of the President's proposal is most certainly a throwback to the 1940's, with the accusations of ‘socialized medicine' and ‘back-door government takeover of health care.' In fact, the accusations are old enough to warrant noting that Medicaid and Medicare did not, in fact, lead to a government takeover of the health care business.

In other words, to paraphrase the late George Carlin, mother's milk does not lead to heroin.

It is also worth noting that the phrase is ‘public option.' I suspect the public option, if it is passed into law, will be used primarily by low-income individuals, and perhaps self- employed individuals and microbusiness owners who have not been able to get affordable coverage elsewhere.

For the rest of us, it's very simple. If you don't like "government-run health insurance," that is fine. You don't have to use it. Note, once again, that the "option" part of the concept is operational.

While the public option (or whatever they're calling it this week) may not loom all that large for most small business owners, it will matter quite a bit if it keeps reform from happening at all. It will also matter if a low priced government-run insurance option puts downward pressure on premium prices among private insurers.

Ultimately, what is going to matter to both the economy and the small business owners operating within it will be the degree to which reform efforts cause costs to decline. As we all know, the bottom line is the bottom line, isn't it?

I don't really know whether the current reform proposals will bring down costs but I do know that shooting down reform efforts altogether certainly won't.

What do you think about the way the health care reform debate (such as it is) has been going over the summer? Do you want Congress to address this issue or do you oppose government intervention in the health care marketplace? And what do you think about those who claim to speak for us, the small business owners? Drop a note in the comments and let us know what you think.

* * * * *

About the Author: Dawn Rivers Baker, an award-winning small business journalist, regularly reports and analyzes small business policy and research as the Publisher of the MicroEnterprise Journal, where the nation’s business meets microbusiness. She also publishes the Journal Blog.

What do you think?

Member avatar

Join the conversation ( 8 )

  • Dawn Rivers Baker 2 years 8 months and 12 days ago

    Dawn Rivers Baker

    Unless said reformers can figure out a way to cause this thing called health insurance to behavior like something other than insurance, I don't really see how anything at all that they do will bring down costs EXCEPT for people to become healthier, thus filing fewer claims.

  • Dawn Rivers Baker 2 years 8 months and 12 days ago

    Dawn Rivers Baker

    Oh, I don't mind if you sneer. It's not MY theory! LOL The bottom line is that reformers are trying to construct a system that rewards wellness rather than rewarding the treatment of illness, if you can appreciate the difference. As for healthy people paying for sick people, that's happening anyway. But it WOULD be more cost effective for us all to be paying to be healthy rather than paying to have our various illnesses treated - again, if you can appreciate the difference. The biggest problem to begin with is that insurance is a poor choice of a financial product to pay for medical care, since insurance is designed to increase in costs as you file more and more claims. But, people resist big changes (witness the current craziness), so they're trying to preserve the insurance part.

  • PAUL ROSENFELD 2 years 8 months and 14 days ago

    PAUL ROSENFELD

    I apologize if my tone seems a bit sneering and rude. I don't mean any disrespect and I note you clearly say "that's the theory."... Paul

  • PAUL ROSENFELD 2 years 8 months and 14 days ago

    PAUL ROSENFELD

    That thinking strikes me as more than a little arrogant. Let me see if I get this right: Govt forces insurers to insure the sick so they will force members to be healthy. What's next? The insurers organizing pickets around McDonalds? Do you really believe insurers are going to make a dent in having Americans give up their pizza and cheeseburgers? We're an overweight nation with something like 20 or 30% obesity and insurers are going to tell people to get healthy?? No, what's going to happen, im my humble opinion, is simply the redistribution of costs from the insurer right over to the healthy people: insurance rates are going to go up because they will be spending tens of billions more they otherwise wouldn't have spent. The people who take care of themselves will foot the bill. While I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing, I just wish Americans would realize that someone is going to pay for this coverage and it's them. And if Americans are ok with that, great, let's increase covera

  • Dawn Rivers Baker 2 years 8 months and 14 days ago

    Dawn Rivers Baker

    The thinking b ehind reform is that insurers, no longer able to deny coverage to anybody, will have to find another way to avoid paying out claims. If they have to insure the healthy and the sick, then it pays them to work at keeping everybody healthy (i.e., preventive care, preserving wellness rather than treating sickness). Whether this will actually work to bring down costs is, of course, unknown. Like I said, that's the theory (in case you were wondering). I'm not sure what'll happen when it's put into practice.

  • PAUL ROSENFELD 2 years 8 months and 14 days ago

    PAUL ROSENFELD

    Anita - The thing I struggle with is the pre-existing condition. In financial services an analogy is making a loan: Banks aren't forced to make loans to individuals or businesses with "pre-existing conditions" or said another way: not credit-worthy. The bank says "no" or often, they price for risk. The riskier the customer, the higher the rate, shorter the term, etc. Personally, I'd like to think we should cover these people but where does such coverage start and stop? Who makes that decision? And based on whatever that answer, it's clear to me there is a new cost that insurance will bear to provide service and those costs will be born by the other members (us) in the system. So I think it's more than disingenuous to declare that costs will come down when insurers, unlike banks, will be asked to bear new risks they otherwise wouldn't underwrite. Again, I'd like to see us have a solution like you, but adding significant costs to a bankrupt nation is something I struggle mightily with. P

  • Anita Campbell 2 years 8 months and 14 days ago

    Anita Campbell

    Some elements of the current system simply MUST change: denials of coverage after the fact; pre-existing condition exclusions (don't we all have pre-existing conditions? -- seems like that's a human condition); uncontrolled costs; not being able to get coverage.

  • JAMES LAPKE 2 years 8 months and 15 days ago

    JAMES LAPKE

    It would not be difficult to imagine a system that is worse than the one we have now! It is both the Medicare & Medicaid that some expect to extract $500B in waste and fraud, and the European & Canadian systems most Americans DO NOT WANT! It is a huge jump from a failing Medicare & Medicaid System to a full Nationalized System and it is not a road to which we should create a pathway to!

Crash Courses

Tax Deductions for Your Business

Think you're paying too much in business taxes? Learn more about some possible deductions with our latest crash course.

Launch Course

Javascript is currently disabled. Please enable javascript for the optimal OPEN Forum experience.

All users of our online services subject to Privacy Statement and agree to be bound by Terms of Service. Please read.

© 2012 American Express Company. All rights reserved.