Would single-payer help small businesses?

This poll has been inspired by this thread.

Would a single-payer healthcare option help small businesses? Would a public healthcare option help small businesses?

single-payer would help more, though, as it would level the playing field for them vis-a-vis corporate America.

The problem is that a Public Option based on a current model similar to private plans would still be expensive. The reforms that they are mandating like hospital reforms and multiple tests and electronic records are all items that would be a work in progress. A single-payer system would be % based upon pay.. We already pay into medicare.. most wouldn't notice a bit more, and would save once they dropped the expensive crappy private ins. plan. Many small businesses would hire another employee or offer higher pay if ins wasn't already a huge part of the pay in an employee.

Health ins is a sham. I wish more Dems would show up, stand up and say to these mostly older on medicare people.. I want what you have.. medicare.. Why can't we open it up nationwide?

I voted in this poll.

K & R

Currently, a google search for "single payer small business" has this poll at #42.

And then only for businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Fewer than 20, and it starts in 2014.

It is unbelievably stupid to put this off until 2013.

Although, on January 1, 2009, the U.S. population was estimated to be 305,529,237, just over one and a half times what it was in 1966 (196,560,338).

So, there's that.

Just put the public plan under Medicare management and we are good to go.

Working out the kinks and all.

and there's no room to hide pay offs to Big Pharma or Insurance.

It was mentioned in the referenced thread.

If we have everyone covered in a government plan, businesses would save a ton of money on their insurance premiums. It's not only the health insurance premiums that would go away. Say goodbye to medical payments on workers comp, general liability, commercial auto, etc.

The same would apply for individuals. No more medical payments on your home and auto insurance.

call for businesses to continue to pay a portion of employee healthcare. In some cases if they don't, they get taxed, fined, etc. How is that different than businessess paying a portion of the health insurance premiums for their employees?

It all depends on the details of the legislation.

Large companies may see a savings even if they are required to pay a portion of their employees health care (or taxes or fines, etc) depending on the cost of their current private insurance.

The smaller businesses would get screwed with a half assed health care bill. If they don't offer coverage to their employees, they could be fined or mandated to offer coverage which would add an expense that doesn't currently exist. Also, there would be no savings in the other insurance they (both large and small companies) need to have.

In my previous post, I was referring to a single payer or medicare for all type of system where we could insure everyone, this is what would eliminate the medical payments on other types of insurance, but once again, it depends on how this type of system would be financed.

If everyone was covered, including injured workers, would federal law entitling all citizens to healthcare preempt state laws regarding workers compensation and entitlement to treatment? Maybe permanent disability claims would still be litigated at the state level, but would workers comp insurance premiums be reduced because the treatment side of work comp would be replaced by federally mandated medical care? Workers comp is a big expense for employers and difficult for small businesses to afford.

If we have universal coverage, there would be no need for the medical payment portion of workers comp and other types of insurance (general liability, home, auto, etc).

This all depends on the language of the legislation.

The government may decide, in order to control the costs of a universal program, to not cover medical care needed due to an injury sustained at work or on an individual or business' property or due to a car accident, etc. I'm sure the insurance companies would argue against this because medical costs can be unpredictable and they'd rather have the govn't pay for them.

Who knows? This may open a market for the existing health insurers to offer coverage for these payments. Obviously, they would collect the premiums and try to get the govn't program to pay for most of the medical costs.


Wow! I'm not sure I answered your question but I did reveal to myself that I have in fact become more cynical. I didn't think that was possible. :evilfrown:

I got skewered a week back for advocating that single payer was the only way to go lest we have happen what happened in Massachusetts whereby insurance companies are lowering doctor compensation to artificially create shortages.