More Health Insurance
Wed., September 29, 10:35 AM
It has been at least five months since I wrote about this problem that just isn’t going to go away. I’m seeing signs – a couple of surveys, a cartoon – that tell me it’s time for another rant.
I continue to believe our country needs universal health care. As you may know, I solve my own problem by using my social security to pay for insurance. (Surely that wasn’t the original intention of social security, but…)
For more than fifty years, medical insurance suggestions have been put before the Congress and have been voted down. It is a national disgrace that our legislators have personal agendas they consider more important than the health and welfare of their constituents. I won’t name names here; you can check the voting records. Then, perhaps, you can ask your congressman just why s/he voted the way s/he did.
I think the greatest constraint to change is the tradition that we must tie health insurance to people’s employment. This way of thinking results in some very disagreeable situations.
The most obvious consequence is that people who don’t have jobs don’t have insurance. The COBRA protection (which lasts eighteen months) prevents you from losing your insurance between jobs; however, it is hard to come up with around $350 a month when you’re living on unemployment. And what happens if you don’t find another job with coverage within eighteen months?
You can choose the more expensive option of insuring yourself as an individual through the same company. Of course, they can refuse to accept you as a client; they already have full access your health history, which they will share with other insurers. A new applicant to group insurance cannot be rejected, but an individual does not have the same protection. Furthermore, even though they have actually paid for a procedure to correct a pre-existing condition, the history of that same condition remains as a reason for non-acceptance.
Let’s look at this for a moment from the employer’s point of view. Traditionally, qualifying for medical insurance usually requires working full time. Full time is usually defined by the insurance company and varies from thirty to forty hours, but the employer knows it’s going to cost him to insure each individual (as well as their families).
How can the employer control his costs? Some companies hire only part-time workers, denying them all benefits. In many cases, it is cheaper to pay overtime to one worker than it is to hire an extra person and pay for benefits.
How about the effect on the workers and their families? This is supposed to be a nation that values the family. Oh, I forgot, that's a theory, not a reality.
A mother with small children may be able to work part time, but working full time (in order to qualify for the insurance) means her kids get short-changed. Or maybe the father whose wife cannot work is forced to work overtime or work two jobs, with the result that he has no time to spend with the family. Oh, well, who cares if a few more kids without the guidance of a father turn to crime? Right?
Many states do provide health insurance for families on welfare or with very low income. As soon as they get jobs that pay a living wage, they are no longer eligible for the state aid. Why should they even try?
At present, my Husband has Medicare. It will pay a large part of his hospital and doctors bills. It does not cover his medications, and all of the new prescription cards will cost us more than what we now pay out of pocket. And I am about to find out just how much Medicare co-pays are going to cost me. Stay tuned.
