OMB: Owner-Managed Business

AP sources: Bill likely to cut employer mandate - Yahoo! News

For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.

These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.

We have a similar requirement with auto insurance. What happens? Low-income workers, such as those who work for fast food companies, get insurance when they need to renew their licenses or auto registration, then let it lapse, so they don't have to live in their cars or do without food. Meanwhile insurance salespeople drive their mega-trucks, towing their boats to the lake. I have read that in some states, up to one-third of drivers are uninsured. I think that the insurance industry should be forced to offer an attractive product in order to procure customers, rather than have customers forced to buy the product because of legal requirements.

In the case of health insurance, I think any competent and unbiased observer will notice that the present system came about when the insurance industry promised that they would fix things sixteen years ago, instead of allowing then-President Clinton's plan to go into effect. To mandate that everyone give money to the same band of dishonest enterprises now is to pull out the kneepads and open wide.

The President is a very bright man, so I really cannot understand why he appears to be willing to approve a bad health care plan. We all know that we need a nationwide health care plan. We all know that the current situation, brought to us by our ever-friendly insurance companies, is intolerable and unjust. But why in the world would anyone want to use the force of law to squeeze poor workers in order to further benefit that very same insurance industry? That is such a bad decision that it boggles the mind to read about Congress considering it.

Medicare/Medicaid-covered and private insurance-covered patients' care is subsidized by self-paying patients

That's not all. This plan will bankrupt a number of businesses, including locally-owned grocery stores, local multi-unit restaurants, local multi-unit gas stations, local taxi services, and the like. I agree that a business that has fifty employees really should have already provided a health care plan. In fact, I agree that a ten-employee company should consider company-provided health care as a competitive advantage and make it a priority to provide it. But I do not agree that a smaller business, even at the fifty to ninety-nine employees level, should face penalties if they decide they cannot do so at this time.

And yet, I have to admit that the Constitution does not support a federal agency as the nation's central health care provider. In fact, even Medicare and Social Security are on shakier constitutional ground than they are on financial ground. What could work instead, though, is a kind of joint-powers authority of all states, territories, and commonwealths, with federal approval. Create this nationwide health agency, financed by a tax assessment collected by the feds on behalf of the states / territories / commonwealths, and limited to some basic level of care (to be known as "BasiCare"). Inform the insurance companies that they are free to offer coverage on top of BasiCare, but that they may not compete with BasiCare itself. Yes, this could and should work.

Seizing funds from low-income workers to subsidize a failing industry will not work, and liberal leaders like Barbara Boxer should know that it will not work. Furthermore, conservative leaders also know it will not work. They all know that what we have now isn't working. In fact, do you know that Medicare/Medicaid-covered and private insurance-covered patients' care is subsidized by self-paying patients? Insurers negotiate discounts and set caps on how much they will pay. If you walk in with your VISA card, you don't have that, so you pay full-ride, some of which goes to compensate for the discounts given to those insurers. We need to replace today's failing system, but not with something based on the same central principle (insurance: charge for services you don't provide; reject or drop coverage for those who are sick, so you don't have to pay for their care) that caused failure in the first place.