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.”

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.

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.”