"Pro-Business" Isn't Always What You Think -- Take Health Reform, For Example

People who think they know "what business wants" may need to think again -- especially when it comes to social issues like health reform. Case in point: A recent study of New York small business owners shows that more than half believe small businesses have an obligation to provide health coverage. What's more, 51% think they should be required to provide it.

But do they distrust government solutions, preferring to let "the market" solve everything? Apparently not: 72% support the option of joining state-run insurance pools, and a stunning 85% think government should act as a "watchdog" over health insurance companies.

Why? Partly because they know our broken health system stifles innovation. And partly because they know that many American businesses struggle with runaway health costs, or with workers who can't get treatment for their medical problems. That means they can't compete on a level playing field, domestically or internationally. And without a level playing field, the free market can't operate.

Roll over, Newt Gingrich, and tell Ayn Rand the news: Sometimes capitalism can be improved when government and free enterprise work as partners. These entrepreneurs understand that.

Small Business Majority cosponsored the New York survey, whose findings are consistent with an earlier survey the group conducted in California. The California study's key findings included the following:

1. 80% of those who expressed an opinion felt that employers should pay something to provide healthcare ...
2. 75% ranked the availability of affordable healthcare as extremely or very important.
3. 57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government ...
4. 55% were in favor of paying into a statewide pool that would enable their employees to obtain coverage at favorable rates...

"There is a range of political opinion among small business owners," John Arensmeyer told me. Arensmeyer, the Founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, added: "They tend to be an independent-minded group. But they're in favor of what works. They see health care as both a moral obligation on their part, and as a problem to be solved."

The entrepreneurs polled in this study represent the second-most trusted institution in the United States, according to a Gallup poll. Small business is more trusted than organized religion, police, or even doctors. (Congress is at the very bottom - below even HMOs. Man, that's gotta hurt ...)

Arensmeyer explained why innovation's being stifled by our broken health system. "Somewhere there's an engineer at a computer firm with a better idea about something," he said. "She can't go out and start her new company, though, because she and the people she'd like to recruit all need their health coverage. How can we compete in a global economy this way? It's crazy."

Arensmeyer says SBM supports principles of health reform, rather than getting locked into specific models. ""We believe in shared responsibility," he said. "Everybody needs to be a part of the system for it to work. But it needs to be affordable."

I mentioned my past concerns with what I felt was an over-reliance on individual mandates in the Clinton/Edwards plans, which could have resulted in onerous burdens for lower-middle-class working families. "In order for a system of shared responsibility to work," Arensmeyer answered, "it's got to be affordable for individuals. We think the (now defunct) California bill did as good a job at that as we've seen anywhere."

"The Clinton and Edwards plans didn't reach the point of specificity," he added. "The devil's in the details." That's a position I can support, having had the same concerns early on about Massachusetts health reform. (Massachusetts eventually had to concede that 20% of uninsured residents would remain without coverage under their plan.)

Says Arensmeyer, "The Massachusetts experiences reinforces those basic principles: affordability and universality."

Old paradigms of "left" and "right" are breaking down in social policy. The public's becoming aware that the "business world" is comprised of different groups with differing and often competing interests.

People picture different things when they hear "small business," because the entrepreneurial world is diverse. But these encouraging surveys suggest that a wide range of small-business owners, from small-town Main Streets to the Silicon Valley, want comprehensive health reform - with government playing a key role.

RJ Eskow blogs:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[GOP4MoreTears]

Seems I remember a time back in the fifties and sixties when this was a pretty common attitude among business leaders, that was before the "Greed Is Good" crowd came to town, the worldcoms Errons, Countrywides and Bear Stearns et al, of our enduring national nightmare, lead by Reagan and Bu$h economics.

[edva]

This discussion demonstrates that, as they have with other elements of our culture, the unholy alliance of corporations, the super-rich, and our government have appropriated the term "capitalism" to mean what THEY want it to mean, and have wedded our national image to it. "Democracy and the Free Market System". So it's Democratic Capitalism in words, but Corporate Imperialism in fact.

[SeriousBlack]

Excellent summary!

[Marlyn]

"a stunning 85% think government should act as a "watchdog" over health insurance companies."

Better yet, get rid of insurance altogether. Let our government provide the care. They are doing a fine job with the VA.

[Sundialsvc4]

"How much does health care cost?"

"Why does health care 'cost' so much?"

No one seems to be asking THOSE questions.

Someone's in the hospital for a serious pneumonia ... they cure it ... and sack the uninsured person with a bill for $400,000.

$400,000?!

[dadw5boys]

54% OF THE $400,000 IS PROFIT FOR THOSE WHO PROVIDE NO HEALTH CARE FOR ANYONE.

[joekerr]

I love it when people start kicking around this ball. This is classic example of addressing the results of a problem instead of the source. Ask yourself "Why is health insurance so important?" Often finding the reasons for something can lead you to some curious answers. Were thousands upon thousands of Americans dying before the advent of insurance? Were we dropping like flies in the street? Has it solved the problem of injury and death? Doesn't seem like it. Now let's examine some of the more common ailments of society. The common cold and the flu are so rampant because of the proximity in which we live. Diabetes can be directly related to the food industry and the noxious stuff they put in our food for "color" and shelf life. Asthma is related to lax restrictions on emissions everywhere. Heart problem? Check that fridge again. Out of all these things, not a single corporation has been held to account for the damage they are doing to the population. Perhaps we should start taxing THEM instead of us. McDonalds can pay a nickel to healthcare for every Big Man and Ford can pay a dollar for every Hummer and then perhaps we'll start to see some changes.

[UnbiasView]

"Were thousands upon thousands of Americans dying before the advent of insurance? Were we dropping like flies in the street? Has it solved the problem of injury and death? Doesn't seem like it."

Same with universal health care so I guess you could say we don't need that either . . . or welfare . . . or big government handouts.

[hardlyhikin]

Actually...
People died at a much younger age before the advent of health insurance, many diseases that people died from 50 years ago are curable and insurable nowadays. And I doubt that Ford would be willing to pay a dollar for every Hummer that GM sells.

[WilburM]

this is a classic straw-man argument. it's not Capitalism that's broken. have we ever had Capitalism in this country? government and business have been sleeping partners since the beginning.

Lobbyists and their influence over Washington, et al, have brought us to this place at this point in time. you can't have market corrections or innovation where the whole enterprise is strangled in bureaucracy.

is it the proper role of government to ensure health and welfare of its citizens by the best means possible? of course. how to go about that is a matter about which reasonable minds may disagree. but let's not make it an argument for socialism, because that's a ludicrous leap of logic.

socialism is what we have in part. it's what china has in greater measure. there, socialism doesn't seem to be much of a solution for things like human rights, freedom of the press, or environmental disasters.

[research]

OOOOO let's redefine Capitalism and Socialism! Fun!

Unfettered Capitalism = unmitigated disaster.

Conservatism=BushCo (when you loved him)=fascism=robber barons.

Has since at least Hoover (villes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville

Social services DO NOT equal "Socialism"

[WilburM]

you are confusing Capitalism with de facto Government-sponsored businesses. I like the term used above in this thread: Corporate Imperialism. I suppose it's an effective form of Fascism.

HTF would you know what unfettered Capitalism is or is not? it's never existed for any meaningful period.

from OED:

:1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common."

income taxes, zoning, corporate taxes, death tax, public lands, pork barrel, kickbacks, price-controls, etc. what exactly would you call that? and where in the world did you study politico-economic systems?

p.s.: just because people co-opted words, doesn't mean the words don't continue to have meaning.

[Quitcherbichin]

"is it the proper role of government to ensure health and welfare of its citizens by the best means possible? of course."

B S

[LewisWalsh]

"socialism doesn't seem to be much of a solution for things like human rights, freedom of the press, or environmental disasters." Do you mean human rights like US warrant less surveillance and telecoms retroactive immunity? Do you mean freedom of the press by a worthless main stream media that does not even report on something as important as the CERN experiment, or perhaps you refer to a China that must compete with the worlds oldest and largest polluter nation? Come on guy, you can get past the high school civics indoctrination.

[MaureenSharkey]

To all my republican friends who vote against their own interests; wouldn't taking the 'profit' out of health insurance companies mean you would pay less for health care!?

This is one area in which the people would benefit if the governemnt took it over.

Same with energy. If we took the profit out of energy, a dependency we have---not a luxury, then we would all be paying a lot less.

Of course this means we can't have a lot of expensive wasteful beuracrats screwing the whole thing up.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the ol' republican pitch---its been the same since Herbert Hoover----that the market will work itself out. That we don't need incentives because there is incentive enough because poeple know they will get rich, lets say, with coming up with alternative energy good enough to get an airplane up and flying across the nation. Well, noone has come up with a cure for cancer yet.

Which reminds me, if we still aren't able to come up with a cure for cancer, then we may not be able to come up with an alternative energy strong enough to keep us up and flying. Therefore---we should reserve oil for airplanes while we transition into alternative energy for cars, like electricity or hydrogen fuel cells.

[UnbiasView]

"To all my republican friends who vote against their own interests; wouldn't taking the 'profit' out of health insurance companies mean you would pay less for health care!?"

I don't think you understand what a profit actually is, it is something that makes things efficient and helps keep costs down.

Profit is not a bad thing, would you work for free every day? If not, why not take away your personal profit too.

There is a reason that government doesn't run anything efficiently: the don't have a budget, they can just take more from you with the threat of jail time.

[Egalitare]

Funny that Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those in the Private Insurance sector, especially when you consider that Medicare is working with a higher risk pool of "customers" than any Private Insurance outfit does. The profit from Private Insurers comes from screening customers and selecting those who are less likely than average to file claims and from denying coverage when illness does occur.
There are some things the private sector does well, and some things it is ill suited for. Providing basic healthcare to all citizens is not something that is "in the wheelhouse" of the private sector.

[scottarino]

Geeze, shoudn't we have picked a Presidential candidate who was pro socialized medicine then? One who wouldn't promise to work with the insurance cartel (lobbyists)? Seems kinda important if you want to end this horrible, horrible system in place now.

[UnbiasView]

Horrible?

Why would all the leaders of countries with socialized medicine come here for treatment?
Why would America take 1 of 8 doctors that Canada trained?

The system is far from perfect but a government takeover is the stupidest thing I have heard. Stop hoping government will fix your problems, get a job with benefits. If you can't, refine your skills so you can get a better job.

[hardlyhikin]

Again, UV, try looking at the facts...
By any objective measure there are dozens of countries in this world with better healthcare systems than ours.
There is no doubt that every system has anecdotal downsides, but ours does too, 41 million unisured Americans is one of them.
And, sorry, but EVERYBODY can't go out and increase their skills so they can get a better job with more benefits. If you're set, GREAT, I'm happy for you, but just like everybody can't have a Caddie or a Corvette, or a 20,000 sq. ft. house, everybody CAN'T improve their lot.
Try having a little compassion.

[Quitcherbichin]

I couldn't have said it better. It all goes back to personal responsibility. Something the Dims obviously know nothing about.

[Quitcherbichin]

"# 80% of those who expressed an opinion felt that employers should pay something to provide healthcare ...
# 75% ranked the availability of affordable healthcare as extremely or very important.
# 57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government ..."

Bravo UnbiasView. You hit it right on the head. Just read the statistics above. 80% felt that employers SHOULD pay something to provide healthcare. 57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers, AND government.

God help us. We are closer to Marxism and socialism than most of the unwashed masses ever imagined.

[drricklippin]

Health Care is everyone's legitimate concern on may different levels.

The ONLY REAL way out of this mess is both individual (health behaviors)and institutional (public health)prevention.

OUR CURRENT US HIGH-TECH-HIGH-COST ,TREATMENT DRIVEN ,DISEASE CARE SYSTEM IS NOT ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE IN THIS COUNTRY OR ABROAD.

While prevention is not popular politically it is indeed an imperative. We are running out of time to act!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Health Care Sector Forecaster
Southampton,PA

[davidpeace]

Sure, business and government can work together, as long as business remembers that government, in the form of We the People, is the boss and that business is heavily regulated.

[UnbiasView]

You mean the government of "we the people" with a 9% approval rating in congress?

[AskFrasco]

Very interesting. Health Care shouldn't be such an issue, unfortunately it is. The E.Factor understands that this is a growing problem for Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses and is offering its members Health Care options at a low cost. The E.Factor http://www.efactor.com is devoted to giving entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed.

http://efactor.com/?page=benefits

[Dajo]

RJ said, "Capitalism can be improved". Correct, the improvment is called Socialism. Democracy and Socialism are a much better fit. Socialism is a much more equatible and sustainable economic system. Therefore it is much more Democratic. Call it greater Ecomomic Justice if you will.

[Henry]

Dajo,

FYI there are two kinds of goods: private goods and social goods. In a Democracy you can choose either, Democracy does not require the free enterprise capitalist allocation. Look, for example, at the military. They provide "security" as a social good. The service of military security is "socially" allocated in these here United States. i.e. they're socialists. The roads, the library, public schools are social goods, meaning that lack of money does not exclude the provision to any citizen. A democracy can choose to provide health care as a social good as opposed to a private good. And for a variety of reasons. How about it's the christian thing to do! Or... it turns out to be much much more effiient than the private allocation. Compare U.S. healthcare costs per capita to the rest of the industrialized world. It's really a no brainer.

[LewisWalsh]

The public has been led to believe that the purpose of the military budget is to equip a military for defensive purposes. The fact is that a good part it goes for such things as golf courses, hunting lodges, and luxurious officer quarters etc. The better part of the 650 Billion Dollars this year will be redistributed upward in the form of profits to military contractors. War and fear of war has always been profitable for some. President Eisenhower understood this when he warned the nation of the "Military Industrial Complex."

So, if socialism is good for the military and various law enforcement entities, how is it that socialism is an ugly word for the rest of us? Most us would like guaranteed pensions after short careers, government provided health care for life, free educational benefits for the entire family; the list of socialized benefits for specific groups is very long. For the rest of us, we must content to participate in a Darwinist system of dog eat dog.

[mommamia526]

Wilburrrrr, Dajo et al... A little bit confused, just like Eskow. Socialism is not communism. The socalled *by people like you'all* *socialist* countries of Western Europe, for example, are not socialist countries at all. Several are kingdoms and they have mixed economies, which, by the way, the U.S. has as well, in different proportions. And, Willy Wilburrrr, it appears to me that the U.S. is competing not with a socialist country, but, oh phooey!, a communist country,,,,and...losing...businesswise, currencywise, capitalismwise. The Euro, the currency in all *them socialist countries of western europe* is also doing much better than the (formerly) almighty dollar. It is, Eskow, not only a fact that the person who has a better idea can not start a business, because she has to keep her healthcare deal with her employer, she may be ill, or have a preexisting condition, and not be able to do that, and she may not even be able to work at all, as she can not get hired. Doctors, too, must pay exhorbitant costs, for a.o. Medical Malpractice Insurance, and they must practice defensive medicine, which prevents innovation, or even application of known and tested newer techniques the doctor keeps learning. Medicare is supplementing medicare advantage programs, people are paying extra premiums and then...their hospital deductibles are multiples of the Medicare deductibles. Let us stop the swagger and nonsense and get down to facts, numbers and brasstacks, Eskow.

[WilburM]

wait.... I want to respond but I snorting shake out of my nose laughing. Yeah, there sure is a lot more economic justice in socialist systems. the only real difference is that the ruling class is a bit more direct about who's really running the country and who's working for whom. Socialism is a proven failure. Capitalism is an ideal who's time has never really come.

by the way, if you just start getting your mind wrapped around the fact that small business in this country are pretty much Capitalism and big businesses are basically Socialism in action... it all begins to make a whole lot more sense.

[research]

I wouldn't try to rescue the term "Socialism"

The USSR pretty much stained it forever.

The Scandinavians call their combination of a regulated capitalistic free market and an extensive social safety net:

"The Middle Way"

I call it Liberal Democracy.

[Quitcherbichin]

"RJ said, "Capitalism can be improved". Correct, the improvment is called Socialism. Democracy and Socialism are a much better fit. Socialism is a much more equatible and sustainable economic system. Therefore it is much more Democratic. Call it greater Ecomomic Justice if you will."

I call it communism. If that is what you like carry yourself to China or Cuba.

[idest]

Cold War's over buddy, settle down.

[MinuteMan]

Healthcare is just another piece of infrastructure that supports the engine of commerce and is no more at odds with entrepreneurship than roads—after all, how did we add the burden of healthcare to employers?

I've worked for a small company and now work as a consultant/contractor. If I had had to provide healthcare (I got it from my spouse) I likely would not have been able to do either of those. By relieving small companies of this disadvantage, we would be fostering capitalism, not hampering it.

[joebaggadonuts]

If the government were the single payer for essential services and you could buy insurance for enhanced medical service, wouldn't that solve the problem? Employers could provide it as an incentive to work for them vs their competition for employees, AND everyone would get access, like they do in every advanced nation in the world. Why can't we do that here in the US? It's not socialism to provide infrastructure. Why do morons rule our choices? Because they can.

[bayside]

In my opinion, The republicans that have been in charge for 30 years has privatized (stolen or sold ) everything we have ,which will come out when Obama is president..I expect the cons are running scared and will do anything to stop him.. I just hope Obama can salvage some of it..

[UnbiasView]

Keep hoping because I think you are insane . . . BTW, what has anyone stolen from you?

[Henry]

Think of the USA business expense at $300 bil for health care, or whatever the number it is. Take that expense away from USA business and lay it on a state social health care system. This would make USA business more profitable, and the 10 times earnings (P/E) for value would add $3 trillion to value. (yahoo). This is a tremendous component of the debate yet it is hardly ever put forth. Business competitiveness, business valuation are big big components of a social health care system. $3 trillion in value... how can we not recognize this?