Small business owners benefit from health care reform, don't repeal it
Several years ago, my husband left a traditional job to work on entrepreneurial projects. When his COBRA health coverage ended, we faced a problem -- because of preexisting conditions, we couldn’t get health insurance anywhere. Because I have not worked full time since our young children were born, I had no policy for us. Our only option was to continue post-COBRA coverage with the COBRA insurer. We paid almost $1,300/month for a policy with no dental, vision, or prescription coverage. We simply couldn’t afford it, and eventually my husband shelved most of his business to take a traditional job. His business was succeeding; were it not for health care costs, he would not have had to leave it.
People seem to hang this state’s economic recovery on entrepreneurs. But we don’t guarantee good medical coverage at reasonable rates for people not tied to traditional employers. There is an enormous disconnect in thinking here. I am angered when people with employer-sponsored coverage say we don’t need reform. Here’s my response: easy for you to say. This is a moral and policy issue: equal access to good health care is not only right, it is imperative to small businesses and entrepreneurs who can help rescue us from recession. It would have made such a difference to my family had the health care reform bill been enacted earlier -- my husband might have reached the stage of hiring workers instead of putting projects on hold (and joining the ranks of those seeking jobs during a recession). Some in Congress want to repeal the health care reform bill, and Bill Schuette is continuing Michigan’s lawsuit to challenge the legislation. Does he believe this is best for the people of Michigan? If Michigan wants to encourage new business, it needs to support that mission in ways that matter. Fighting health care reform is political grandstanding that will hurt all Michiganders. Tracy Jensen Ann Arbor
Comments
Diagenes
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Obamacare is a terrible piece of legislation that does not improve health care. It only further regulates health insurance companies. It increases expenses to business by requiring insurance companies to expand mandated benefits, which drive up premium costs. It reduces the reimbursement rate to physicians who treat medicare patients by 30% over the next 3 years. This will cause physicians to stop accepting new medicare patients. In 2012 all companies that pay more than $600 to any corporation or individual has to issue a 1099 tax form and report it to the IRS. This requirement will be burdensome for small business in particular. Over the next two years the Dept of HHS will issue thousands of pages of regulations restricting the freedom of Americans in regards to their health care options. Repeal the bill and enact sensible reforms.
maria
Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
Why are we not more outraged at how our haelth care environment kill our entrepreneurial spirit!
David Briegel
Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 11:12 p.m.
Speechless, you are right as usual. And Americans go to Canada for less costly drugs. "Free Market Americans" aren't really since their hired hands in Congress assured no bids or competition! Canadians and Europeans are fortunate to live in more civilized societies! 50% of Americans have a pre-existing condition! Young people can't afford their own insurance. Insurance companies actually have to provide health care and not just take all the premiums and turn them into bureaucracies, exorbitant salaries and dividends ! Imagine.. My biggest complaint is the absence of single payer.
Speechless
Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
Excerpted from further above: "... You understand that health care in Canada is hopelessly broken. If you lived there, you'd see many of your neighbors coming to the US and paying out of pocket to see a doctor...." False. This statement, so often repeated, is straightforwardly wrong. The vast majoriity of Canadians, along with a similar majorities in western Europe, would feel absolutely horrified at the prospect of moving to a U.S.-style health care management system. They would not ever consider trading away their own systems, whatever the imperfections, for the waking nightmare that currently exists inside our country. The Obama plan patches a few of the worst horrors but leaves the underlying dymanics in place. Occasionally, a well-off Canadian will travel into Detroit for a specific treatement under a particular physician or team of professionals. Or they may come here for non-health related surgery (e.g., cosmetic) not covered under the Canadian national plan. The Universal, single-payer programs in place elsewhere go a long way toward removing greed as the driving force in health care.
limmy
Tue, Jan 18, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
I agree with you totally. I don't understand why people don't want access to health care. I also pay through the nose every month because I am self employed and have to purchase my own policy. I live in fear of something happening and being cancelled. I also love the requirement that kids can stay on the parents policy until age 26. That is a big relief for a lot of people.
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.
Where is author Jensen among all these comments? The silence is deafening.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
@david b they didn't go up year after year, and when they did go up it was a nominal amount maybe less than $8. And no, it is not "better" health care, it is the same health care, just 32% more expensive. the point is someone with preexsisting conditions wanted health care, so the cost shifted to everyone across the board, therefore a lot of premiums went up. if I were a "higher" (pre existing conditions) risk driver my car insurance premium would cost more and a "lower" (non pre existing conditions) risk driver would cost less. sorry, but my health insurance costs should be lower, b/c I am less of a risk
David Briegel
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.
Bunny, Your insurance premiums went up every year for the last 40 years. Who was to blame for that? Did you get better health care? JSA, they needed the votes. Unfortunately it was the votes of those Reps rented by the Insurance Cartel. The simple fact is that the Repubs have no plan. They never had a plan. They never will have a plan to benefit any other than the those that rent them!
JSA
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
Anyone that watched last years congressional discussions cannot call what was passed a good bill. it did not include an end to the anti trust exemption for the insurance industry nor the prohibition of selling across state lines. When Speaker Pelosi stated "we have to pass this bill to know what is in it" I was appalled. A bill in excess of 2500 pages included pork for Democratic legislators,unions, hospitals and big pharma. It did not do much, outside of pre existing conditions for anyone else. I don't think killing the bill is the answer but it does need almost an almost complete rewrite and maybe this time the taxpayer will benefit.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
I also disagree with Letter to the Editor. I too am self-employed and have a small business. my rate went up as a direct result of the health care reform being passed and like someone else I too got a letter stating that the increase in my premium was due to the new health care reform. My rate went up 32% and I am a healthy, no pre-conditioned, go to the doctor once a year or less type of person with a huge deductible, no office visit co-pays and no RX co-pays.
Dalex64
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 10:18 a.m.
Insurance rates are going up because the companies now have to accept pre-existing conditions and no lifetime cap on payouts. They are "saving up" This has not been offset by an increase in income, which is supposed to come by having everyone pay premiums, hoping that most people will use less than they pay in.
David Briegel
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 9:20 a.m.
It is disgusting to hear this bill called Obamacare. It was the direct result of his election by 53% of the vote and his #1 priority. The problem was that there weren't 220 Dennis Kucinich or 60 Russ Feingold to pass a sane bill. They had to "reach across the aisle" to the Repubs and the Blue Dogs who were owned by the Insurance Cartel. This was not the bill Obama or any Liberal would have written. It is a hodge podge to protect and maximize the Profits of the Insurance Cartel. It is an effort to achieve some lofty, civilized goals. It is a start. A beginning which would improve the lives of the citizens with "the best health care in the world". If by best you mean 37th! It truly is disingenuous and even silly to call it what it clearly is not!
Cyclezealot
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 1:51 a.m.
Townie. McGiver is always giving us his philosophical gobbly gook.. Insurance companies crossing state lines. What a line.. As if competition exists. If it were to, the big guys in Hartford would smack it down before they got off the ground.
Don
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 12:24 a.m.
If you can't handle it your not suited to run a small business? what kind of trashy comment is that? I have run a small business for 20 years, and employee between 4-8 people and I can't handle the costs. Telling other businesses what they can afford to pay is arrogant and disgusting!
nicole
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
I can't disagree more with this article. We own a small business and our rates just went up as a direct result of Obamacare. Our insurance carrier even wrote us a letter stating that was the case, a direct result of this new legislation. The cost of doing business is high and always has been. It's not easy to cover all those costs. If you can't handle it, then you're not suited to run a small business. You have to work your "behind" off to make it. Something that President Obama and most of his cabinet and Czars have never had to do! Under Obamacare, costs will continue to go up. And if you think you'd ever get the kind of care that Giffords is getting in the hospital under Obamacare, you can forget it. She's getting the last of the good treatment, it won't be there in a few years, as doctors and nurses jump ship in disgust with this new program.
Jay Thomas
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 10:31 p.m.
We are seeing the largest across the board increases in insurance premiums ever as a direct result of Obamacare passing. The goal is to make private insurance so expensive that we will all beg the Democrats to take care of us.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 10:16 p.m.
You understand that health care in Canada is hopelessly broken. If you lived there, you'd see many of your neighbors coming to the US and paying out of pocket to see a doctor. But sure, maintain the fantasy that other systems are far superior. The far left has never let reality get in the way of a good call for entitlement.
Speechless
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 10:03 p.m.
If Tracy Jensen and family lived just 50 miles directly to the east — in Wndsor, Ontario — her husband's business would have experienced zero problems with health care costs. In fact, there would have been no insurance premiums at all. If they were citizens of Canada, a portion of their regular taxes would go toward free universal health care for everyone. Here in the U.S., it's apparently going to take near to a full century to adopt the single-payer model in use everywhere else throughout the developed world. People in those other countries generally regard the greed-driven U.S. system for managing health care as the most astounding train wreck. In the meantime, the best possible near-term option for families like the Jensens would be the resurrection of the public option, which was originally intended to be in the Obama plan. That would remove them from being necessarily at the mercy of pedatory health insurance companies, as well as force these companies to clean up their act to a noticeable degree. Naturally, removal of the public option was a top priority for the insurance industry during the congressional battles over the Obama health plan.
dotdash
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
What if the sad fact is that we just can't afford health care? We are flailing around as a society trying to find a way to pay for it all, but maybe the real answer is for people to consume less of it. What if we all thought, for example: This test is going to cost someone $5000. If I had to pay for it myself, would I? And then if the answer is no, say no to the test. Just as some people in earlier generations chose not to call a doctor when they were dying (preferring to leave something to their kids; it was their time to go anyway), why are we choosing a few last, machine-ridden days or weeks over our grandchildren's well-being?
Dalex64
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
Every man for themselves, right?
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
How, exactly, is SSI not a ponzi scheme? When it was created, the first to pay in received far more than they spent. The system was balanced for a long time, and now you receive far more than you put in if you've worked most of your life. As the percentage of elderly increase, those who are taking more than they gave continues to increase. The only solution is to both cut benefits to those who "don't need it", which means it's no longer what people were told it was. And to raise the tax, which increases the size of the bottom of the pyramid. This is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. It would be illegal if it weren't run by the crooks who run the government. It's time to break up the ponzi scheme and refund all the taxes paid in, based on how much you paid over the years. Since Obamacare operates on an identical principle, it needs to be repealed immediately.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
"Obamacare waivers. [...] large corporations [...] do not have to abide by the mandates in the Obamacare." Why not? Where is a list of 'citizen' corporations?
RBW5
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
I am also self employed and unfortunately, I could not disagree more. Yes, the system needed to be reformed, but this bill as it was passed really did nothing to make the system more affordable and "bend the cost curve downward" as we were endlessly told must happen by those who championed this particular bill. There are so many easy fixes that could have been put in this bill, but they were ignored. Yes, the fact that ins cos can no longer deny for pre existing condiitons is positive, but be clear, these companies are for profitt enterprises. They will accept you, but rate the heck out of your policy, which in lamens terms, means they increase your premium cost to make up for their increased expenditure due to your condiiton. If the condition is bad enough, they'll accept you because they have to, but the question then becomes whether you, as the consumer, can afford the policy. One example of an easy fix would be to create a single regulator for insurance, rather than continue to let the industry be regulated by the 50 different states. This would allow insurance companies to offer coverage in more states, which would increrase competition and decrease the cost to the consumer. I recently had to get coverage for myself and my daughters and I had only 4 companies to choose from. And oddly enough, all four companies' products with similar benefits were all priced within dollars of each other. How is that an open market?
Ian
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
Obamacare waivers. What most people are not aware of is that large corporations like Walmart and McDonalds have been give waivers so they do not have to abide by the mandates in the Obamacare. As of December, 2010, over 200 large corporations were given waivers. Talk about corporatism. The Obamacare is designed to put small businesses out of business and to control our lives.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.
"Oh thats right, then there is no profit in keeping people sick." Perhaps you meant to say 'in keeping people healthy'? Currently, essentially all medical profit is reliant upon a steady stream of sick customers, er, 'patients'. Mr. Dearing et al- Please let people speak. If you delete something, please tell us why.
AlphaAlpha
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 11:54 a.m.
McGiver, AnnArBo, Ian, gsorter, Macabre Sunset, all have informed opinions. It is regrettable that Ms. Jensen's opinion piece is so thinly disguised as not being the political piece it would otherwise be labeled. It is evident to most that health care, or lack thereof, had approximately zero effect upon the devolution of the Jensen's entrepreneurial venture. A venture incapable of generating an added $500 to '$1,300' per month, is not a viable venture. In the larger picture, the 2,000 + pages were primarily written by paid representatives of the insurance and medical industries. Whose financial interests do you think they intend to protect and promote?
johnnya2
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 11:51 a.m.
Calling SSI a ponzi scheme is just stupid. There is no investment part of SSI that claims benefits you will get if you invest in it untiil people on the bottom get nothing. The ponzi scheme is actually the stock market in general. The investment groups got 401ks and IRAs to increase the pool of people "investing" in stocks. That created a false demand, which drives up stock prices. (basic supply and demand). That is why they like the idea of privatized SSI. The problem with that would be the same as what the problem with SSI is now. If the baby boomers start pulling money out of the stock market (to pay to live as retirees) then the demand goes down. When demand goes down, the prices drop and then more people will take their money out earlier and earlier. Suddenly the stock market is crashing. The only problem with SSI is a population based one. It is impossible to fix quickly, though a simple solution would be to allow MORE immigration, which creates more demand for products, which in turn leads to more money being spent, meaning more jobs, and more people paying into the SSI fund. The other bad argument is the medical malpractice argument. EVERY state that has passed some form of medical malpractice reform has higher medical costs than those that do not. It forces doctors to do their job and do it better. If you looked at it and said, well if this dude dies it will cost me an extra $200 a month in insurance premiums or $10,000, what will be the extra standard of care taken with the health of a patient. Finally, the death panel argument is a non starter since we already have death panels. They are employed by BCBS, Aetna and Humana. THEY decide what they are willing to cover. I will take a person who does not have his paycheck and bonus tied to profitability making those fact-based decisions. I will also point out that Republicans always seem to want outcome based figures and in no area is the US a leader in health care except one, COST. So why not model a system that has better outcomes and lower cost into the United States? Oh thats right, then there is no profit in keeping people sick.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
As someone who is self-employed, the particularly painful part of this legislation is the piece that makes my current health insurance illegal. I carry a policy with a $6,000 deductible. It makes sense to pay relatively minor things out of pocket, but I need to be covered in case I get diagnosed with cancer or have a car accident. It's relatively inexpensive because most people my age don't need $6,000 worth of health care every year. Obamacare needs people like me paying premiums which are at least doubled what I pay now, though. So high-deductible insurance will no longer be legal when the worst of the legislation takes effect. It's basically a medical ponzi scheme, the same way Social Security is an old-age ponzi scheme.
jcj
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 10 a.m.
@David Briegel I find myself agreeing with you to a point again. We must be mellowing in our old age. We do need health care reform. And I do think it needs to be fixed piece by piece. There have been too many mistakes by humans just by wanting everything now without looking at the consequences. No health care reform would be just as bad as such a massive plan as is before us now. Obviously we can't survive with the present system, but we need to find a system that will protect the most people (if not everyone) without bankrupting those paying for it.
Ian
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:35 a.m.
Does anyone know what exactly is in the 2,500 plus page bill? I doubt it. Even if you knew what was in the bill, how do you interpret it? A lot of these massive bills are purposely written to be very vague and very difficult to read so the public is purposely kept in the dark. Public has no choice but to believe what they are told. Even if is a blatant lie. Also, there isn't much time to research and debate these bills because they are introduced the day before the vote (Bush did the same thing. Obama promised 5 days to read the bills but lied.). Why do you think that is? Obviously, it is because they (those that wrote the bill) do not want the public to know what is in the bill. How does anyone, with any confidence, trust that this bill will benefit the average person? I couldn't. Particularly with such an important thing as health care.
AnnArBo
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:29 a.m.
Unfortunately with the bill being over 2000 pages, you really don't know the effect it would have had on you. First off we do know you would have paid a sharp tax penalty for not having insurance, you also would have been required to file a 1099 on every vendor purchase. Once you started hiring employees, you would face more regulations and costs or face more tax penalties. You don't get something for nothing, and this is forced participation. This bill is so full of onerous regulations, it would have increased your cost of doing business in the name of getting insured. I agree with the above post, this is just a shift in responsibility, that's why so many states are suing to opt out, it's going to cost them money they don't have. If its so good for business why are so many companies pleading to get a waiver? You can't solve the problem of the uninsured by simply mandating that you buy coverage, telling insurance companies they have to offer benefits (that will raise premiums) and forcing people into medicare without costs going up. If that logic held up, we could solve hunger by forcing the starving to buy food.
Townie
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:19 a.m.
McGiver: Yes, the 'existing' health care reform does not lower costs. That's because the Republicans kept the cost cutting measures out of the act. Supposedly to 'protect' Medicare that they hate anyway and wish to do away. Medical malpractice is another meme often used as the culprit for high costs but even in states where it has been reformed, costs have not gone down. Pre-existing conditions: you say 'Blue Cross will cover pre-existing conditions after six months.' 1) 6 months is a long time, and, 2) you can die or go bankrupt before coverage begins. And the premium will be incredibly high as well. Health savings accounts work for people who don't really get sick. I applaud your good health but sadly not everyone has almost perfect health.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:09 a.m.
At least "Obamacare" as the conservative mantra calls it, is a plan. The conservative plan is called "every man for himself", which is to say they have no plan. Prior to the democrats creating a plan it truly was fend for yourself. Find a job that offered insurance in a system where nobody was required to offer insurance or keep offering it indefinitely. Our insurance comes from my wifes employment. She works for a regional subsidiary of a national corporation traded on the NASDAQ. We opted for a family plan as two of our adult age children are either still in college or fresh out of college and under employed. Our copay with her employer is $10,478 a year. Then we have the usual $500 person/$1500 a family deductible before an 80/20 copay kicks in. None of that cost can be blamed on Obama's plan. We in America pay far more than any other country for health care and our outcomes are not commensurate.
McGiver
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:07 a.m.
First of all, the existing health care reform act does not lower costs, it shifts them. I absolutely agree there does need to be reform that will actually lower costs like allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. Medical malpractice reform is also needed. We already have similar regulations on workers comp and auto insurance, why not medical malpractice? Answer - lawyer lobbies. Another error you make is claiming you couldn't buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Blue Cross will cover pre-existing conditions after six months. I am a small business owner who has used three different insurance companies in the past 16 years. All have been under $600 /mo. All have health savings accounts. All have have large deductibles which go hand in hand with HSA's. The simple principle is this - cover large or catestrophic expenses and take care of the small items yourself by saving for them regularly. We really do need reform but not the crap that we got.
David Briegel
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 8:55 a.m.
The repeal of the Health Care Law passed in response to his election by a substantial margine of our citizens would be a huge and tragic mistake. Take it piece by piece and fix what you want with the votes and the signature of the President. But repeal is silly grandstanding to an uninformed base!