The health care reform bill set for debate in the U.S. Senate will include an option for the public to buy insurance from a government-run entity, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced today, “Reid says he will bring a health-care bill with public option.”

Reid’s much-debated decision to add a public option — which states could opt out of — grabbed most of the headlines. Less noticed was the way the bill headed to the Senate floor would treat employers.

While employers with more than 50 workers would not be required to provide coverage, they would face fines of up to $750 per employee if even if only a few of their workers received a government subsidy to buy insurance.

“Since the penalty is much less than employers currently spend on employee health insurance premiums, most businesses would choose to pay the fine and drop their group health insurance,” warns Bryan Riley, a former candidate for Kansas Insurance Commissioner, in a blog post.

By simply paying the penalty, businesses would no longer have to fret and worry about hefty increases in insurance premiums from year to year, and the uncertainty they bring to budgeting.

If they lose their employer-backed coverage, workers would have to buy their own insurance, either through the government-run option or private health providers. For lower-income workers, the government subsidies would help cover the premiums. But families whose income exceeds some maxium threshold set by Washington bureaucrats would have to pay the full freight.

If they don’t receive a corresponding wage increase from their employer, some middle- to upper-income employees could wind up worse off financially with the health reform bill.

Riley also warns the Senate bill gives individuals few incentives to purchase health insurance on their own. Under the legislation, those who don’t buy coverage would face an initial fine of up to $100.

“Since the biggest fine is much lower than the cost of health insurance, the bill would create an incentive for individuals to drop their health insurance and pay the relatively small fine,” Riley writes in his post.

Because the bill prohibits insurers would denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, “smart consumers will drop their health insurance and only sign up after they get sick.”

At just completed news conference, St. Luke’s President and CEO Peter Thoreen said the Sioux City hospital has reversed employee pay cuts made last spring.

In April, St. Luke’s announced pay cuts for about 475 employees not directly involved with patient care. The cuts ranged from 4 percent for hourly staff to 10 percent for Thoreen and other top managers. The pay cuts were part of cost reductions the hospital implemented to cope with a budget shortfall driven by the bad economy.

Thoreen said St. Luke’s expected patient volumes to decrease this summer, but instead the numbers stabilized, allowing the health system to reinstate employee pay to the pre-April levels.

“The great success St. Luke’s has been able to achieve this year, despite tough economic times has been possible because of the sacrifices our employees have made,” Thoreen said.

Read more in print and online Tuesday.

Are you uninsured by choice? Taking a chance that you won’t get seriously ill or injured so you can spend your money elsewhere that otherwise would go toward health insurance premiums?

In the future, if you continued to opt for that choice, you could be facing some hefty fines.

A health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats would impose fine of about $1,000 on individuals who refuse to buy affordable coverage. Under the draft legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years, “Senate bill fines people refusing health insurance.”

Such a mandate could fall heaviest on young singles, many of whom opt to save money by going without health insurance.

Have any bottles of Zicam in your medicine chest? If so, you might want to consider getting rid of them.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday advised consumers to stop using three of the popular cold remedy nasal products — Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Nasal Swabs and discontinued Swabs in Kids’ Size.

Zicam maker Matrixx Initiatives Inc. promised to withdraw the two remaining products and offer consumers refunds on those already sold, all the while maintaining its products are safe. At stores in Siouxland and elsewhere in the country, merchants were pulling the products from the shelves today.

According to the FDA, more than 300 patients across the country lodged complaints about the nasal sprays, claiming they harmed or destroyed their sense of smell, ”Man who lost sense of smell assumed Zicam safe,”

Like many Americans, I’ve personally used Zicam and found it be an effective in lessening or getting over a cold or allergies. I’m not sure whether to dump or keep my remaining supply of the medicine. Are the perceived benefits worth the risks?

Losing your sense of smell would certainly be a drag when it comes to enjoying food and drink. The FDA also noted that people who can’t smell may also miss danger signs in their daily lives like smoke or gas.

At times, temporarily losing your sense of smell would be welcome, such as when you drive by stinky meatpacking plant (John Morrell comes to mind), hog confinement, cattle lot or sewer treatment plant.

Have you ever used Zicam? What do you think about the FDA’s ruling on Zicam? Let me know.

Remember last fall when then Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama lambasted his Republican rival John McCain’s health care plan. Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent millions on TV ads slamming McCain for a provision in his plan that would have taxed employee-provided health plans for the first time.

But now, desparate for ways to cover the nation’s uninsured, some Democrats are considering doing exactly what they once slammed McCain for, “Will Obama tax your health benefits?”

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said Tuesday lawmakers should consider changing the law that allows any funds spent on employer-provided health plans be excluded entirely from employee’s taxable income.

“That tax provision should be on the table, because it currently is, too regressive. It just skews the system,” said Baucus, who met with Siouxland leaders during their annual lobbying trip to Washington last month. “I do not favor eliminating it. . . But I do think it needs to be trimmed, limited, looked at.”

Robert (Bob) Peebles, a veteran healthcare administrator now living in Michigan, has been named interim President and CEO at Mercy Medical Center-Sioux City. Mercy spokesman Mike Krysl just announced the appointment in a Twitter post.

Peebles will lead the 2,000-employee organization while it conducts a national search for a successor to Paul Dougherty, who last month announced his retirement. Dougherty’s three-year run as president and CEO is scheduled to officially end May 15.