White House Study: Small Businesses Pay 18% More for Health Coverage

By Tom Raum | July 27, 2009

  • July 27, 2009 at 10:09 am
    Producer #1 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It seems to me, if Uncle Sam is going to mandate health insurance, then shouldn’t that health insurance include coverage for work related injuries. Note that the cost for Work Comp insurance is expensive for most small businesses. I am surprised to not hear more discussion regarding the effect that Health Care Reform will have on Work Comp.
    For instance, if the Public Option would cover work related injuries… Work Comp injuries could still be tracked; Employer’s could still have MOD’s, Employers Liability policies would be sold and adapted to cover any gaps or risks still open to the employer. I am not sure if this is a good or bad idea, I simply am surprised to hear talk of health care reform, and not have discussion about work related injuries. I would suspect that work related injuries are a large component of USA’s national health care expenditures.

  • July 27, 2009 at 12:33 pm
    JMA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think I get Obama’s remarks. Insurance will be cheaper for small employers under a single payor program because the government has proven to be so much more competent than the private sector!
    Makes perfect sense to me but a review of government effectiveness and incompetency seems to contradict the Messiah however I am sure his Kool-aid drinking followers will believe one more piece of the community organizers BS!!!

  • July 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm
    An agent from Arizona says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would love to see the transparency that was promised during President Obama’s campaign. Where is the data to support the statistics that are being thrown out. There has not been any information regarding the medical portion of workers comp that I have been able to find. If the medical portion is coverecd (which I don’t know why it would not be) what will this do to the rates for the end user and revenue structure for agents who market workers comp?
    In reference to the small business person and President Obamas concern, since when has he ever been concerned about the small businesses that employ close to 80% of the working population? You can call me skeptical, but I am looking for the hard data, and his not so hidden agenda.

  • July 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    yes, that’s right, when opening small business’s up to buy their health coverage in groups and pool their numbers to get better rates was last discussed…guess who defeated it…that’s right, Democrats. One recalls a Senator Barack Obama voting against that horific provision to allow small business to buy health coverage for less dollars. That’s B.O. You da man!

  • July 27, 2009 at 12:54 pm
    Darwin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re talking about ideas that have been periodically raised over the past 75 years. California thought about 24 hour workers’ compensation (medical + disability) about 25 years ago, and found that the law change necessary to do it was way too complicated.
    Actuarial data on medical costs, and trends may be found by looking at the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board’s web site (NYCIRB.org). There is also information regarding drug pricing and medical cost trending.
    Unfortunately, there is a significant level of work related accidents that are not reported for workers’ compensation, and are incorporated into health insurance. This is primarily due to the administrative burden placed on injured workers, and the comparative ease in receiving medical treatment through health insurance.
    If “health care reform” add the level of administrative burden equal to that for workers’ compensation, then we all are in trouble.

  • July 27, 2009 at 12:56 pm
    Sun Ra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    First rule of firms that do “studies:” you reach the conclusion that those who pay you want you to reach; if not, they don’t hire you again.

    So-big surprise!-the White House Council of Economic Advisers comes up with a result that favors Obama’s health “plan.” Gee, who would have ever imagined that?

    Please government, take over the entire economy; we know you’ll get much better results than a free market. (Note to state worshippers here: this is where you fill in your parroted response about how the free market is cruel and how free markets result in millions of women, children and poor people dying in the streets within seconds of the government relinquishing even one one-thousandth of one percent of the economy).

  • July 27, 2009 at 1:21 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why? State mandated coverages, restrictions on cross-state purchasing groups, and the fact that health care providers charge more to patients with insurance to make up for the below-cost reimbursement of medicare, medicaid, and other federal and state health rationing schemes.

    Typical gov’t. Gov’t creates the problem and then tries to sell to citizens that the gov’t is the solution to the problem.

    The gov’t is the problem. Less gov’t means more health care for everyone at a lower cost.

    Only power hungry thiefs (mostly Dems) buy into this. Of course, as Abe Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

    It’s hope that the electorate wakes up to this gov’t boondoggle. It’s fool’s gold. But, hey, the gov’t can fool some of the people all of the time.

    Many of them have blogged on the IJ site. Why? They obviously hate the insurance industry. They should get back into their tiny, little gov’t provided cubicles and draft rules, regs, and legislation governing public flatulence, because they sure know how to stink up things.

  • July 27, 2009 at 2:21 am
    riverrat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Small groups pay more per person than large groups. NS. The law of large numbers applies here BO just as it does in any group situation. Doesn’t four apples cost more per apple than a truck load?
    Brilliant.

  • July 27, 2009 at 2:34 am
    Steve Thompson - Aspen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Some have said that with medical treatment – why should we continue to differentiate between work comp and non-work comp… that these are two parallel health care systems running side-by-side? Work comp basically covers you for 8-hours a day. Health ins covers you for the remaining part of the day…

  • July 27, 2009 at 2:39 am
    Robin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The housebill that wouuld charge an employer a $750 fine per employee, per year, for NOT providing health insurance to their staff, is a fraction of what we pay each year for health insurance. I guess I could chose to NOT insure them and pay the fine. It will save me thousands of dollars and there would be fewer insured employees. I would not be the only employer that would do that and save a TON of money. That is not the answer folks.

  • July 27, 2009 at 2:50 am
    An agent from Arizona says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have for over 20 years provided a very good health insurance plan for my employees, as one of their many benefits. I totally agree with Robin that the answer is not to opt out and have the employees take the National Plan, even though it would save me thousands of dollars a year. I am wondering how the plan will work for my employees that have opted to go on their spouses plan rather than our plan. Will I now be forced to pay $750 per employee, because they are insured under a different plan? By the way part of the so called 45,000 uninsured are the employees who are not under their employers plan, but very well be insured under a spouse’s plan. Another 12 Million are undocumented workers. The true number is closer to 17 Million citizens. This is still too many, as we need reform, but not what the Democrats are proposing.

  • July 27, 2009 at 3:43 am
    Roc says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s the point; if small businesses are already paying 18% more for health care premium then we all will get to pay that much more too.

  • July 28, 2009 at 8:28 am
    HEALTH says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    GET THE LOBBYISTS OUT OF CONGRESS …. OKAY–CAN YOU THINK OF THIS FOR ONE MOMENT? YOU MAKE $9.50 per hr. You work really hard to get ahead. You pay your rent. You pay your car insurance. You’re feeling good. You have food, so you can DO life. You can be happy! But wait! You wake up night after night with a tooth ache. WANTING THE PAIN TO STOP, YOU CALL FOR HELP! WELL, WE’RE SORRY, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE, SO YOU GO HOME AND PRAY TO GOD FOR THE PAIN TO STOP. YOU PUT OFF PULLING THE TOOTH, THEN YOU WAKE UP AT 4 AM. THE PAIN IS OVER THE TOP, SO YOU GET THE PLIERS AND YOU ALMOST PASS OUT FROM THE PAIN OF TRYING TO PULL YOUR OWN TOOTH. TRUE STORY!! IF YOU CAN WALK IN THESE SHOES, THEN AND ONLY THEN, CAN YOU SEE THE POINT. PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEALTHCARE REALLY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. WE ARE SIMPLE MINDED. OUR FEAR STOPS US FOR MOVING ON. CAN YOU THINK ABOUT A TUMOR IN YOUR BODY? YOU’RE 62 AND HAVE WORKED YOUR WHOLE LIFE, AND YOU FIND YOURSELF WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE. YOU SEE 2 DOCTORS WHO ASK MORE QUESTIONS about why you do not have Healthcare than THEY DO about the tumor. THEN THESE SO CALLED “GREAT DOCTORS” KILL YOU ON THE OPERATING TABLE AND WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAD NO COVERAGE THE SURGERY GOT HANDED OFF TO AN INEXPERIENCED DOCTOR WO HAD NEVER PERFORMED THE PROCEDURE. THIS WAS 6 YEARS AGO. I ask you, why does an aspirin cost $9.00 in the hospital? It is because the insurance industry got involved with healthcare to begin with! Doctors complain because Medicare doesn’t pay as much to them as private insurance. Have you ever thought that maybe it shouldn’t? Why should drug companies recoup all of the costs of their research and development the first year the drug is on the market and then stuff the corporate coffers until the patent runs out and generics can be sold at a reasonable price? WE HAVE TO WAKE UP AND STOP SPENDING ALL THE TIME AND MONEY WE ARE SPENDING TRYING TO DECIDE ON THE UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ISSUE AND JUST GET IT DONE! WE HAVE BEEN DECIDING WAY TO LONG! THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE, SO HOW WOULD THEY ALL FEEL IF WE THE PEOPLE TAKE AWAY THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE? KEEP YOUR EYES ON GREED. DO WE REALLY NOT GET IT? THE MORE I HEAR THE MORE I DO WORRY. TAKE ALL THE MONEY THAT ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN FINED FOR BREAKING THE LAW, AND WE WOULD HAVE HUGE NEST EGGS FOR YEARS! GET THE LOBBYISTS OUT OF CONGRESS AND TAKE THAT MONEY AND PUT IN IN A POT FOR HEALTHCARE. WE OUR NOT CANADA, SO WHY IS IT THAT WE CANNOT GET PAST OUR FEARS? DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO ANYBODY? PEOPLE WHO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE SEEM TO HAVE ALL THESE FEARS.

  • July 28, 2009 at 9:59 am
    Jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Workers compensation insurance is a good example of what can go wrong with an insurance provider influenced or operated by political interests. “Political rate suppression”, as it has been called, is the result of those with political-social agendas, to manipulate the insurance rate setting process.
    Utilization drives costs and rates. The consequence is unfunded liabilities that drive, again, politically motivated coverage modifications and draconian rate structures, either through direct premiums or tax hikes. The California workers compensation insurance system is an example of such actions.
    On the surface it looks all inclusive and desirable. But, the pain of a Federal Government health insurance system will be excruciating. Utilization is given. Paying for it is not.

  • July 29, 2009 at 7:23 am
    JMA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Government for the government by the government. Time to get your head out of the sand!!!!!
    One of many Washington incompetent examples;
    In 1978, the department of energy was created with the sole purpose of making America energy independent.
    According to a recent report in 2008 the dept of energy had a $22 Billion budget and 220,000 employees and consultants. ARE WE ENERGY INDEPENDENT????
    Anything the goverment touches grows without accountability and without any performance standards as there is no incentive to get the job done. So what am I misssing????

  • July 30, 2009 at 7:55 am
    citizens’ expense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Written by Richard M. Ebeling
    Wednesday, 06 August 2008 02:12
    With the government budgeted to spend nearly $3 trillion in its current 2008 fiscal year, it should not be surprising that special interest groups of all types flock to Washington, D.C., to lobby for pieces of the budget pie at taxpayers’ expense.

    In 2007, over 15,600 registered lobbyists spent more than $2.8 billion to influence federal legislation and tax policy. During the last ten years the number of D.C. lobbyists has increased by one-third, while their spending has almost doubled.

    Lobbyists span the political spectrum and represent virtually every sector of the economy and social group. Special interest groups lobby for offensive and defensive reasons. Some pressure groups aggressively lobby to acquire benefits, favors, and government handouts to the detriment of their competitors’ and the taxpayers. Others lobby reactively to prevent the implementation of government regulations and redistributions that might harm them.

    But either way, billions are are being spent each year to persuade politicians to use their governmental power in one way or another that otherwise could have been spent more productively in private sector activities.

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2007, organized labor spent over $44.3 million on lobbying members of Congress. Public sector unions shelled out almost $18.5 million last year to influence federal legislation; transportation unions spent nearly $10.6 million, industrial unions spent $6.1 million, and other unions spent in total another $6 million.

    On the other hand, business associations of all types spent more than $87.2 million last year on lobbying activities (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, alone, expended over $52.7 million of this total).

    As can be seen in the Table A, below, by industry, pharmaceutical and health product companies spent the most on lobbying in 2007, almost $227 million , followed by insurance ($135.9 million), computers/internet ($110.7 million), electric utilities ($110.6 million), hospital/nursing homes ($91.5 million), and education ($88 million).

    In Table B, below, the specific largest individual associations and companies are listed that expended the largest sums on hiring Washington lobbyists in 2007.

    In addition to the $13.8 million in lobbying expenditures by the National Association of Realtors in 2007, last year Freddie Mac spent $8.5 million and Fannie Mae $5.6 million “persuading” the congressmen who have now assured them a government-guaranteed bailout.

    Finally, Table C, below, summarizes the leading policy issues in terms of the number of clients (businesses, unions, associations, non-profits) that hired lobbyists to influence federal legislation in their respective desired directions.

    Not surprisingly, the general heading of federal budget and appropriation issues had the largest number of interested parties hiring lobbying firms. After all, this covers a huge number of policy areas for which government can expend monies, impose regulations, or distribute any number of other favors and privileges that can affect the economic well-being of virtually any citizen in the United States.

    The specific spending areas that drew the biggest number of clients in 2007, outside of general budget and appropriation decisions, were, respectively, defense, health care issues, taxes, transportation, and energy.

    Billions of dollars a year in lobbying activities will continue to be spent in Washington as long as the government has favors and privileges to bestow, and other people’s money to redistribute for the benefit of some at the general taxpayers’ and citizens’ expense



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features