Chamber Notes: Business can't afford to not reform health care

In fact, it is perhaps one of the most significant business issues to be addressed in our time. It is even more significant than debates on taxes and regulatory burdens that business and the government perpetually engage in year after year.

Why? Because the escalating costs of health care and health care coverage consume more business resources annually than the most onerous tax or regulatory environment possibly imaginable.

Small businesses are disproportionately affected. They are the economic engine that fuels the growth of employment opportunities, the country's gross domestic product, and innovation that leads to new products and services.

This column has devoted a lot of space to health care reform over the past year. Now that the issue has reached a decisive moment in Congress, it behooves us as citizens, employees and employers to fully appreciate what is at stake.

We need to look past the dogmatic talking heads of the radio airwaves and 24-hour television news channels. Their contribution to the intelligent debate on this important issue has been negligible at best and tomfoolery at its worst.

Hypothetical arguments abound about the future demise of quality health care if we adopt reform. Facts are often ignored or misconstrued to motivate fear of the unknown and of change. Opponents of health care reform say it is a government takeover that will bankrupt our country. They disregard the very real consequences of maintaining the status quo.

If health care reform proposed by President Nixon was adopted in the 1970s, our country would be saving an estimated $1 trillion per year on health care costs over what we are spending now in 2010. If President Clinton's plan was adopted, we would have reduced health care spending by $500 billion a year.

These are not hypothetical arguments about the future. They are reasoned facts that have the benefit of analytical hindsight. Are we destined to repeat the same mistakes of the past in the hope for a different outcome?

Without question, the health care reform under consideration now requires some significant changes, and rightly so, because we have ignored this growing problem for decades. However, it is not a government takeover as opponents charge.

The program is fully paid for, and an array of sound financial models all point toward an actual reduction in the deficit over the next 20 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the current proposal before Congress will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years, and even more in the second decade.

Under the current proposal, all people are required to have health-insurance coverage of some form or pay a penalty for being uninsured. Poor and middle-income people will be eligible for assistance through Medicaid coverage or tax credits to cover the cost of health-insurance premiums.

Most important, the current proposal will create exchanges in which small businesses and individuals who buy their own coverage directly from insurers could choose from a range of competitive plans. Pre-existing conditions would no longer disqualify an individual from obtaining health insurance coverage at a reasonable cost.

For those who lose their job, decide to become self-employed, or switch jobs to an employer that does not offer coverage, they will be assured continuing affordable health care coverage through these exchanges.

Finally, political dogma and ideology do not pay the bills.

We once again have a real opportunity to change course with a pragmatic solution to a real problem that affects every business and every individual in our country. Granted, it's not perfect, but then again nothing ever is in real life.

Nonetheless, the current proposal before Congress offers an opportunity to establish a structure that will compel continuing improvement in the years to come, and offer our country a real chance for reducing the escalating costs of health care and health care coverage that adversely affect citizens, businesses, employees and their families.

YOUR COMMENTS

RULES OF PARTICIPATION

If you encounter other problems, please email ewiffin@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.

In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.

Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.

Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 1 0

medicare= socialism - 2010-03-16 07:50:13

All I know is that I pay for my medical care and disabled and elderly should have to pay for their medical care as well. Why should I have to shoulder the burden for this weaker types ?

Yes , sure it would be nice if we could all have medical care, but we do not live in a socialistic Utopia, this is America.

And right now we can not afford it.

unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?

Fred Shubbie - annapolis , md - Karma: Terrible

Fred - 2010-03-16 07:13:01

are you joking? What do you think the sole purpose of medicare is?

Rick M - Laurel, Md - Karma: Excellent

Headline does not match content - 2010-03-15 13:57:06

Reform is needed, as indicated by the headline, but the question is whether this overhaul is the proper methodology. There are many less intrusive, less expensive, more productive ways to move forward in achieving the same results. See Paul Ryan's proposal for an easy reference.

We saw government jumping into the housing market to 'benefit' the people by providing low interest rates and relaxed lending standards through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That brought us to the financial crisis from which we are still trying to gain freedom. There is no reason to believe that this brand new government intervention sold as a mechanism to help 'the people' would wind up any differently.

Social Security: Unsustainable. Medicare: Unsustainable. Medicaid: Unsustainable.

Why would we add another to this list of entitlement programs that are facing failure?

Ben Hilliard - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Good

medicare - 2010-03-15 13:36:37

I am so sick of seeing old people getting medicare. We must end all types of entitlements immediately.

This Bill is a poor excuse at chang - 2010-03-15 13:20:24

"...Opponents of health care reform say it is a government takeover that will bankrupt our country. They disregard the very real consequences of maintaining the status quo..."
This is the biggest fallacy foisted upon the public - that those that dare speak out against this Bill are in any way in favor of the "status quo". The vast majority of those of us who are against this Bill beleive it is incumbant upon us to have meaningful Health Care change - not stuff like this Bill which has required brides written into to buy vote of Congress members (LA Purchase for example).
"...Under the current proposal, all people are required to have health-insurance coverage of some form or pay a penalty for being uninsured..."
Does this not smack of something that the Federal Government might be crossing the line to force Americans to do? Where in the Constitution does the Federal Government get to force a citizen to have to buy something they might or might not wish to buy?
"...Pre-existing conditions would no longer disqualify an individual from obtaining health insurance coverage at a reasonable cost..."
OK, I understand that with a fixed set of assumptions the CBO has said it will not add to the Deficit, but nobody to date has been able to explain how everyone is going to be able to get affordable health insurance when not everyone is going to have to pay "market costs" for that insurance. I mean, come-on, how does a company provide affordable health insurance to someone who has excessive risk - IE: Cancer or Morbid Obesity? Unless of course, the Gov't will pick up the tab.
"...Granted, it's not perfect, but then again nothing ever is in real life..."
True, but this Bill isn't even good enough to convince the all the members of the Party in Power to vote for it without bribes and pork deals.
Can anyone name any Government Program that was ever initiated that did not end up costing more than it was suppossed too? Why would it be different with this one?

Fred Davis - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Terrible

Health Care Reform - 2010-03-15 10:21:48

does not automatically mean Government controlled/run Health care. I know some want this. I support common sense health care reform. However, we can not afford National Health with this current economy and tax structure.

IF health cae reform - 2010-03-14 22:55:51

is going to save money, why does it cost trillions? That is a simple business question. Any business that doesn't have health savings accounts is wasting money.

Peter Dennis - Annapolis, MD - Karma: Neutral