Once again, entrepreneurial freedom is being compromised by bureaucracy and well-meaning, but ill-acting, partisan politicians in Congress.

Senate Bill 1955 would allow small businesses to pool their employees across state lines, and in so doing, the insurance carriers are allowed to bypass many state-specific insurance regulations. Proponents argue that the regulations in many states (mostly the Northeast) are what drives healthcare expenses so high. Opponents argue that bypassing the regulations will allow insurance companies to not insure things like mammograms and diabetic supplies.

While both sides make valid points, the opponents to this bill are short-sighted in their concerns or worse, beholden to the increasingly pervasive trend of over-regulation in our capitalist society.

Insurance is a business like any other and when stifled with legislatively-mandated regulations, they are forced to raise their rates. As a result, many small business owners simply cannot afford to offer quality health insurance to their employees.

Large corporations are able to offer affordable insurance because of the sheer volume in number of their employees. Like every other business, volume of sales decreases costs of service.

By allowing small businesses to cross state lines and pool their employees, the businesses can create a volume of employees that is comparable to the size of a corporation and thus, provide health insurance at the same, lower rate.

The bill makes sense and I commend its willingness to cut through meddlesome government whims in order to provide healthcare to small business employees, a segment of the population that is severely underinsured.

To argue that bypassing state regulations is dangerous is a fallacy of thought because these employees don’t have insurance in the first place. Consumers are not the easily confused simpletons most elitist thinkers believe they are. Consumers are capable of deciding for themselves whether the deregulated insurance plan is right for them or whether a supplementary plan is necessary to cover the things like mammograms or diabetic supplies. Other arguments have stated that if this bill becomes law, insurance companies will return to the days of cherry-picking who they cover, potentially denying insurance access to those already sick or suffering an existing condition.

It’s not set in stone that by not following state regulations insurance companies will shortchange their customers either. As mentioned previously, if the volume of potential customers can reach levels comparable to those of large corporations, then it would be cost-feasible to offer the level of coverage most states mandate anyway.

According to a September 2002 report by eHealthInsurance, an online provider, a policy that costs $3,589 in New York only costs $1,538 in California. Should S.B. 1955 pass, a New York business would not have to pay more than $2,000 more for benefits than its peers across the nation.

The Democratic opponents point to many smokescreens in their defiance of this common sense bill. They argue the true cause of rising insurance costs is the high price of medical care, which this bill does not address.

However, the same legislators that now oppose this bill have blocked all efforts at tort reform and limiting patient lawsuit rewards, aimed at reducing the rising costs in healthcare.

Aside from the Senate opposition, many special interest groups have jumped on the anti-S.B. 1955 bandwagon. The American Cancer Society, AARP, American Diabetes Association, and American Nurses Association have all voiced their distaste of the measure. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has also made headlines lately with his opposition.

I admire the intentions of this bill’s opponents, as their arguments place the welfare of the patient at their cores. However, by denying passage of this landmark idea, these special interests are dooming millions of Americans who do not have affordable access to healthcare?the same access that these special interests enjoy.

I can understand stubborn bureaucrats resisting innovation in industry and commerce; I just can’t understand how anyone can fall for their empty arguments.