If you are reading this blog, you hardly need to be told that advertising, and those of us who practice it, took a real body blow in this recession. And the people I know who have been bloodied seem to have one of three reactions to it.
- A few people who use it as inspiration or fuel to strike out on their own and do something they’ve always wanted to (See: Lemonade).
- A few people love the agency game so much that they resolve they will be advertising survivors.
- And then there’s a whole bunch of people, by far the biggest group, who would like to do their own thing, or just try something a little different, but feel they can’t afford to change for some reason or another. They need the income to pay off the boat. Or support the habit. Or the kids. Or the kids and the habit.
Or it’s not the income at all — it’s the health insurance.
My suspicion is that if it weren’t for health insurance, a lot more people would be willing to risk doing their own thing. Because, as I pointed out to Erik some time ago, when you really do a risk assessment, sometimes (and particularly when the economy is bad) staying in a job can actually be a bigger risk than striking out on your own. It ties all of your revenue up in one source, and if that one source goes south, so do you. Whereas, when you strike out on your own, necessity sharpens your resourcefulness. You find ways to make the income you need.
But the health insurance. That’s a whole different story. And I’m very sympathetic. I have been fortunate in this recession — I made a career change a year ago when I left my old agency, and I now teach and consult, with the teaching paying part of what I need and providing health insurance and the consulting providing the rest. But there was a time, in the economic downturn of the early 90s, when I was laid off. My wife was 6 months pregnant at the time, we couldn’t move for a variety of reasons, and there were no jobs in Cleveland. So I freelanced, and COBRA benefits covered our maternity care. And I did pretty well, financially speaking. But a week after our son was born, the COBRA benefits expired, and maintaining our health insurance would have cost us more than our mortgage payment. Literally two times more. I remember thinking at the time, “You know, if it wasn’t for the health insurance, I could stick with this freelance thing. I like the schedule. I like the independence. And with a new baby in the house, it’d be nice to be around more.” But baby care is not cheap. So I took a job.
Times are different now. Yes, credit is tight, but the the shift toward a marketplace of ideas and the technology available to people has made it generally more possible for anybody, anywhere to be an entrepreneur. You see that in the economic data, where small business is still the fastest growing segment of the economy. So just imagine the explosion of entrepreneurialism we might see if healthcare ceased to be a concern for people.
I’m not sure if our Senators and Congressmen have taken into account what kind of effect a surge like that might have on pulling us out of this downturn, but I am sure that the growl of the collective Animals on the matter could get some attention. And I am sure that this is not about Reds or Blues. It’s more personal than that. It’s about you and what kind of life you want to live. So let them know. If you would take the plunge if you knew you and your family had health coverage, let them know that. Tell them to get off the dime and get it done. And tell them there are a lot of you, waiting to pull the economy up.
10 Comments
Political Animals – By Greg Thomas – http://shar.es/DsbO
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Would univeral healthcare trigger entrepreneurship and help revitalize economy? Greg Thomas on #PFTA – http://shar.es/Dtly
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
The kind of life I want to live is absolutely centered on entrepreneurship. My problem is that I do not want to give the Government a financial incentive to wish me dead, access my bank account, or to essentially deny me the ability to get affordable private health insurance of my own accord. As it is written now, the bill prohibits private insurers from issuing new private policies until 1 year after the passage of said bill, unless the plans are offered as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan”.
What does this mean?
If I’m fired, laid-off, quit, etc., and I lose my health employer-based insurance coverage, I will have no option but to purchase the Government run plan or a private plan participating in the “Exchange”. Exchange requirements mean that insurers will no longer be able exclude those with pre-existing conditions (some of which can be quite costly to treat) and will curtail price increases, etc.
If you’re sick or lead an unhealthy lifestyle (as most Americans do) this is great.
If you’re healthy and fit like I am, this is terrible. Insurance companies, being businesses rightfully concerned about the bottom line, will increase costs on the front end to pay for expected costs on the back end. Healthy individuals will be lumped into the same plan with those who have diabetes, coronary heart disease, etc.
And I say that as someone who has experienced episodic lack of coverage for many years now, and who has also paid for significant medical care out of her own pocket. (Incidentally, it was surprisingly affordable.)
This is only one of many significant issues with this bill, in my opinion. Find a parent with a child suffering from Down Syndrome or other developmental disability and ask them what they think of this bill.
There are so many ways to encourage more affordable health care while preserving the entrepreneurial drive of medical innovation, that aren’t being included in the discussion… Tort reform, for one. I live in one of the most ridiculous, corrupt, litigious areas in the country when it comes to personal injury and malpractice lawsuits. As a consequence, there are only a handful of obstetricians still practicing in the county–most of those that are refuse to allow any activities during labor that might increase the risk of a lawsuit–using a jacuzzi, walking around, etc. Who suffers? The patient. The doctor who cannot provide appropriate care for fear of litigation.
As a side issue, I’m also frustrated with Congress’ attempt to ram this 1000+ page bill through without thorough discussion or public review. This is a bill that will significantly affect all American’s lives for better or worse–and they won’t allow debate??? Sounds fishy to me.
At any rate, I’ll jump off the soapbox before I slip.
Sorry for turning this comment into a post, but this issue touches a nerve in me…
I agree with Jess. What people are not realizing is that, even if employed, most of them are paying for their insurance anyway. It comes out of their paycheck, they just never see it, so don’t think they are paying for it. Obama’s plan isn’t free either. It still comes out of your pay. An nothing seems to say that it’s going to cost less.
As for your picture at the top, Obama and other Congress employees are exempt from this plan. They want US to use it, but are NOT WILLING to make themselves use it. Sounds REAL fishy to me…. has anyone actually READ these 1000+ pages?
ps – I’ve been self-employed, part time employed or not employed for most of my life. I’ve had all kinds of insurance plans and the self pay are not all that bad. The BEST one I had was not actually insurance, but a “share” plan. The state of Texas declared it illegal and made us stop using it. What we need is a reform of the insurance companies, not another insurance company.
Unfortunately Jess has a lot of mis-information in his response. If you don’t believe me, read the bill yourself. I am a very fit, and healthy 37 year old, yet I can only get one health insurance provider to cover me. Why? I have allergies, and had a hernia surgery when I was 1 year old. And better yet, the premium alone, for basic coverage with a huge deductible was more than my mortgage. Add in the costs for actually using my health care, and the costs made it nearly impossible to build my business.
There is no incentive to kill you. Please if you are going to argue against this, at least don’t come off as a conspiracy theorist.
Her response.
And I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I have read the bill.
Respectfully, I am a very fit, healthy non smoking 28 year old who has had foot and eye surgery, with a few other chronic issues, and I’ve had no difficulty obtaining affordable coverage.
Frankly, this bill’s potential additional taxes from a small business perspective concern me quite a bit. Additional payroll taxes = insanity.
BTW, if there is no incentive to kill me, why are “end of life” counseling sessions suggested every five years for seniors?
Jess,
The End of Life counseling sessions are not incentive to kill people. For one, they were proposed by a pro-life Republican from Georgia. They are simply a “living will” session people can CHOOSE to have with their doctors, and the insertion into the bill is that Medicare will cover them. That’s all.
Read about it from the insertion’s author here.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html#more
Gov’t Healthcare plan = more entrepreneurialism? Maybe… maybe not. via http://www.pleasefeedtheanimals.com http://tinyurl.com/m2b37g
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I like health care.
Health insurance is underwritten and offered in terms of groups of 1 to thousands. Large groups have the advantage of better averaging amongst other things. However, a smal group is at a serious disadvantage. So part of the answer is changing the way small groups are defined and underwritten. This would level premiums better and make it easier for the aged and less healthy to have insurance. Fluctuating participation rates also affect premiums. When the young and healthy are unemployed, they tend to opt out leaving the less healthy to carry the financial burden. That said, uninsured people can get catastrophic care at hospitals which may be absorbed into the overhead costs passed back to insurance companies. And the rates have to go up further!
So, a critical part of any solution has to involve total participation in health care insurance. From there it becomes a matter of designing a system that is cost effective and delivers a “reasonable” level of care.
Controlling costs requires some type of oversight. Currently, companies provide some control by shopping for the best deal. This also sets a benchmark for evaluating cost and service effectiveness of government run programs.
Take away the private sector programs and government services have no competition. If government can do a better job, then studies of the VA, Medicare, Medicaid should be able to prove that. I haven’t seen such studies presented during this “debate”. Also, government charges artificial rates subsidized by deficit spending that businesses cannot get away with.
I do believe that there are opportunities to improve the efficiencies of the current system. However I do not believe we need to expand the range of government provided coverage, just the way coverage is extended to small groups including the unemployed.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] at Please Feed The Animals Greg Thomas looks at the entrepreneur spirit and why our healthcare system may be holding it back: [...]
Post a Comment