A variety of health insurance related stories popped up on my radar screen this week. Most of them relatively depressing.
First, a study from Cal indicated that employer-provided healthcare (particularly at no charge) is going to become increasingly rare. The thing is that the biggest impact will be on full-time workers who make between $9-$11/hour.
Let's stop and do some math, shall we? Oh, I'll do it for you...read on...
Those folks work full-time and make between $18K-$22K.
According to this study: "the greatest growth in jobs today is in the job sector where people are being paid $9 to $11 an hour. "This is precisely the job category where health insurance is disappearing the fastest. The percentage of full-time workers earning between $9 and $11 an hour covered by employer-funded health insurance dropped 13 percent from in the last four years."
You know what that screams to me? Widening gulf.
So, the answer would seem to be that people need to be able to coverage easily if their job doesn't cover them right?
Well, as we learned from following ActorMan's story, state mandates don't always help you get that coverage affordably. And UninsuredFtnessInstructor's story aside, more people are probably concerned with whether they can afford insurance, not get it in the first place.
And all arguments about the precise number of uninsured in this country (and we've already had that argument on this blog!) this post at Hospital Impact makes clear that the cost of treating those uninsured does impact us all. (Source: CNN.
Now, this article from the Heartland Institute seems at face value to offer some hope: a bill in Congress that would allow insurers to market plans across state lines without meeting every state's mandates (like the Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating mandates mentioned in Actor Man's story.) On the one hand this sounds like it could be great and lift the surely unintended burdens that people are carrying in such states.
On the other hand it seems like another instance of overruling the intent of individual states.
And forgive me, skeptic (or is that cynic) that I am...I'm suspicious that an article from a supposedly "independent" organization doesn't at least acknowledge what the objections might be. That's pretty much Debating or Journalism 101. The fact that they don't means the link I just provided you isn't an "article", it's an Op-Ed piece. Consider yourself warned.
And this item on Heartland from SourceWatch.org doesn't make me feel any better.
I'm pretty confused actually, because if this Institute really is a conservative mouthpiece, then why are they supporting federalism over states' rights? Soooo confusing.
But then check out the recent medicinal marijuana ruling. Oh, wait. That's another post.
Comments