Got Coverage?

Tanya Elena Balsky

At first, I thought my sister was crazy. She moved out to California after college graduation with her then-boyfriend, looked for a job, and started worrying about health insurance. After a few months, she said matter-of-factly "...and if I don't find something in time, we'll just get married and I can get coverage from his insurance." Sounds crazy, right? Then I started hearing whispers of it everywhere. Couples getting married six months out of college, swearing that they would have gotten married anyway but having to push it forward because only one of them could find a job that provides health insurance.

When I look at the statistics, though, this sounds much less crazy. Between 2000 and 2004, for example, the number of Americans covered by health insurance dropped by 1.5 percentage points. This is skewed dramatically by gender; in that same time period, the number of Americans women covered by health insurance dropped by nearly 3.75 percentage points. The contrast is even more stark among those who depend on their jobs for insurance- in the same time period, those with employer based insurance dropped by 3.8 percentage points and those aged 18-24 dropped by 6.4 percentage points, indicating that fewer entry level jobs are providing health benefits and the problem is worsening. Of course, this doesn't even take into account the fact that employee contributions to insurance increased more than 143% between 2000 and 2004, and out of pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance rose 115% during the same period- or that approximately half of bankruptcies are due to medical causes, and 75.7% of these cases are families that had medical insurance at time of illness onset.

Health insurance is necessary, though, and becoming even more so. The cost of health care for the uninsured is much higher than for insurance companies, partially due to the market power of insurance providers and partially due to the fact that those without health insurance receive less preventative care and later care in case of illness or injury, exacerbating the problem. Moreover, the problem of the uninsured is passed on to those who are insured in the form of higher premiums. Families USA estimates that In 2005, premium costs for family health insurance coverage provided by private employers will include an extra $922 in premiums due to the cost of care for the uninsured; premiums for individual coverage will cost an extra $341.

Of course, though it is very easy to blame employers for not providing sufficient health coverage, the cost of providing benefits is skyrocketing. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation report on Aug 19, 2004 , "Employers have been reluctant to hire full-time employees because the cost of health benefits, about $3,000 per year per employee, has increased 8.1% during the past year -- as much as three times the inflation rate and the rate of increases in wages and salaries... During the second quarter, benefit costs -- including health care -- increased 7.3% over last year."

With these statistics and my imminent graduation in mind, I propose the following solutions: we need to work for universal insurance coverage, and, in the meantime, significantly increased insurance regulation combined with the tighter enforcement of monopoly laws within the industry. Otherwise I'll be forced to post the following personals ad:

SWF, 21, with advanced degree, seeks gainfully employed
marriage-minded male. Those without health benefits need not apply.

Tanya Elena Balsky: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:01 AM, May 30, 2006 in Health Care
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (7)

Comments

It easy to blame employers, and they should be blamed, since most of them vote for Social Darwinist "push and grab" "steal and rob" candidates, not for someone who would promote a civilized, less criminal, more equitable society. We need to push for universal health care. Period.

I unsuccessfully tried to convince my (live in of 5 years) girlfriend to register a domestic partnership so she could get covered. Her employer "provides" health insurance, but it'd cost her over $200/month which isn't in the budget. I'm changing jobs anyway, so that point is moot, and we've talked repeatedly about getting married just to get the health insurance stressor out of the relationship.

Responding to eurogens, I highly doubt the number of people who qualify as "employers" come even close to the majority needed to elect the piss-poor leadership we have on these issues. Also, it really is hard to blame employers when health care costs are skyrocketing for trying to cut back. Some of them really do need to do so in order to surivive. And I agree we need to be moving post haste to a universal health care regime... how do we get there?

On a more light-hearted note, this is also related to the phenomenon of couples moving in together before marriage sooner than they might otherwise due to the high cost of housing (it's a lot cheaper to split a one bedroom with an s/o than a two bedroom with a roomate, e.g.).

Is this the conservative agenda of "marriage promotion" I've been hearing so much about?

Eurogens, I completely agree with the need to push for universal health care (as you may have noticed in the entry). However, I am also realistic enough not to expect to see it on the agenda tomorrow. The United States does, arguably, seem to be inching towards health care reform of some sort, and it is certainly worth being an active presence in the reform debate to try to achieve universal coverage. However, until this is attained, it would behoove us to try to work with the existing system to cover as many people as inexpensively and as soon as possible. Allowing the problem to get worse in hopes of making it severe enough to incite immediate change is needlessly cruel to those who have to deal with the financial and health problems that come along with being uninsured.

I am afraid I totally disagree with you.
Any reform requires a lot of energy, moreover, coverage of only some groups will bring in the long run many more victims and much more suffering - it will extend/expand the present situation - until everyone dies. I'd like to remind you that probably similar reasoning brought Medicaid .... 40 years ago. Thank you very much. We're 40 years later, and many millions fewer. I'd like also to point out that now actually maybe a good moment - the only people who talk about reality are - the liberal politicians (interestingly, the Republicans are silent - liberals do the dirty job) - everyone else seems to be ready for universal health care.
We cannot continue this nonsense - I murdered hundreds/thousands/millions people (in Bangladesh or elsewhere) -
I deserve the best medical care - he didn't kill anyone - he doesn't deserve medical care.
Can someone explain to me why our President has medical care, and countless women who take care of children, parents, sick etc. - family members or strangers don't.
I don't get it.

Many people interested in efforts to extend Medicare to all (thus creating a universal, single payer system) packed into New York City's Community Church last night to Princeton U. economist and NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman.

He spoke in favor of Rep. John Conyers bill HR 676. While that proposal may not move while Republicans control Congress, in my view, the failure of the GOP to act can and should be used against them in the 2006 elections

Krugman and co-author Robin Wells wrote a carefully reasoned and informative article in a March, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802 . If you want to be in the health care debate, consider reading that essay.

For a fuller account of the speech plus information on plans for further
Accounts of the evening and more events in support of Conyers proposal HR 676 visit the web site of Physicians for a National Health Program:
http://www.pnhpnyc.org

Thank you, Daniel, except for ... now I know that I missed Krugman.