The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Well, if it is private insurance not provided by the employer, what business is it of the government to mandate you do it before you can be employed?

If the government wants to mandate that I have insurance, it makes no sense to make employers the gatekeeper for the governments enforcement. Create an Internal Insurance Service and require that we file annual paperwork with the government proving coverage and creating criminal liabilities if we don't. Otherwise it is feels like saying I can't get a job (that doesn't involve a car) without me providing my employer with evidence that I have car insurance.

Social security presentation is a requirement for employment because all legal citizens are automatically enrolled and the employers are required to withhold payroll taxes (regardless of your actual status) and provide detailed reporting on who gets credit for that contribution. That is, the employer has a vital role in the government program. Since all legal residences are enrolled automatically, it is also secondarily evidence that you are legally eligible for employment. If the employer is not involved in the insurance, I fail to see what role the employer has in it; it strikes me as a personal matter.

If health coverage would be a requirement for employment that is a pretty startling shift from the move towards health insurance being a obligation of employment to being an obligation for employment.

If it is government run and provided health insurance, then again, I wonder what the necessity would be in making the employer the middle man of enforcement?

If it is somewhere in between then I'll wait and see what actual proposals she makes. Her interview on NPR today still had most insurance being provided by employers and creating incentives and tax breaks to encourage increasingly small business to offer insurance.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

If health coverage would be a requirement for employment that is a pretty startling shift from the move towards health insurance being a obligation of employment to being an obligation for employment.

I believe the whole point of this is that employers are claiming they can no longer afford to be the providers of health insurance. And that may very well be true.

scaeagles' opinion notwithstanding, social security is routinely considered the best thing the federal government has ever done. I daresay a requirement that everyone be health insured which resulted in everyone having health insurance would be similarly popular, and similarly devised by the people FOR the people.


If it became a legal requirement for every working citizen to have such health insurance, employers would no more be the "gatekeeper" for that than they are now for social security.

I haven't heard any details of Hillary's plan ... but if part of the health insurance premium were to be paid by the citizen and part by their employer ... then the situation would be quite similar to social security vis-a-vis an employer's current right to require a social security number for prospective employees.

[MouseWife]

Hmm. I wonder what the costs of this 'mandatory' insurance would be? Seems that a lot of people who make a certain amount of money {more than the average people, but, still with the costs of living, never seems to be enough to cover everything} they get no breaks. Meaning, would the part the employer covered be according to what the person makes? And, it sounds like the person has to come to the table with said insurance.

And, does this punish the person who can't afford insurance at their income level? Or encourage others not to work hard enough to be at a certain level to keep them at low income status, etc.?

Insurance is expensive. When the Hubster was laid off for four months, we had Cobra. It was almost/over $800. a month. I think that was also not the normal price, but, what his company would be paying {minus his portion}. And remember, he was unemployed.

And, what type of insurance would be offered? I reached enough hours/length at my part time job to qualify for insurance. But, it was pretty darn lame. It was something, but, really, if I saved the premiums myself I could probably, if I got sick, go to a doctor and then ask for generic prescriptions. It didn't cover any major illnesses.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by MouseWife

Insurance is expensive. When the Hubster was laid off for four months, we had Cobra. It was almost/over $800. a month. I think that was also not the normal price, but, what his company would be paying {minus his portion}. And remember, he was unemployed.

There are a couple factors to consider there. First off, employer-provided health coverage tends to be at a level that is much higher than most people would choose for themselves if they were paying for it themselves. I use only a tiny fraction of the services available to me under the rather comprehensive plan my company provides and when I was unemployed, I didn't bother with Cobra and just picked a cheaper plan that covered what I needed. The main thrust of Cobra coverage is to guarantee that you have uninterupted coverage, which is an issue if you have any factors that might otherwise make you uninsurable until you get your next job (i.e., pre-existing health conditions, age, etc.). Once you are employed at a company that provides insurance, you cannot be rejected from their group policy. But if you've been laid off, are healthy and insurable, Cobra is rarely a good option as it tends to be overkill.

The other consideration is that theoretically any change that would start to require coverage for all citizens/residents would coincide with major changes in pricing structure in the industry, as well as supplements from the government. Looking at Massachusetts as an example, they not only required residents to carry insurance, but if I'm remembering the details correctly they required insurers to offer a low-cost minimal plan as an option and introduced funding for low-income families to get them on that plan.

[MouseWife]

You are right with that. We didn't have any pre-existing conditions, but, we had two boys. We have used our insurance for different things and just felt we needed to keep up the coverage that we had. Emergency room visits, all medications, testing, etc.

Well, also, we thought he'd be right back at the same position way more quickly than four months.....and when he did get back to work it was a different insurance. Now, they don't cover our oldest {they will in March, they say...} and cover half of the costs. Which is over $1,000.

That is why I wonder about the costs of what they are going to supposedly offer. Will our costs be the same anyways? And, if we are unemployed, will we still be stuck at that rate {red tape and all}.

Right now my daughter has no insurance and I am trying to find a local doctor for her for basic checkups.

[Alex]

If it became a legal requirement for every working citizen to have such health insurance, employers would no more be the "gatekeeper" for that than they are now for social security.

Yes, if that were true then that would follow. But what is discussed is not "every working citizen must have insurance" (for then you couldn't offer proof of insurance to gain employment since your employment will be providing the insurance) but rather that every citizen must have insurance and without it they can't get a job.

The very sentence "you might provide proof that you're insured as part of a job interview" says this is not employee provided or funded insurance. That's why that sentence in combination with her NPR interview yesterday makes little sense since that does have employers being the dominant provider and you can proof you have what you'll be given after getting the job.

And I still stand by saying that if it is universal governmentally mandated health insurance then making the employers the gatekeepers makes absolutely no sense. Because then you are doing nothing to monitor compliance by the unemployed. Unlike governmentally mandated health insurance (presumably) possession of a social security number is really only relevant if you're working.

Yes, I can think of proposals where employer involvement in health care is necessary. Just not any that should come up in the job interview. Heck, even your social security information doesn't come up at that point in the process.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles' opinion notwithstanding, social security is routinely considered the best thing the federal government has ever done. I daresay a requirement that everyone be health insured which resulted in everyone having health insurance would be similarly popular, and similarly devised by the people FOR the people.

So government intrusion and requirements are OK if the majority of the people agree with it. I am often amused by how many people are against government intrusion unless it is for something they think is a good idea. I admit to falling into that myself at times.

Social security was poorly planned and is doomed without major overhauls and increased taxes. When it started, life expectancy was around 66 years. Now that life expectancy is 10 years beyond that, retirement age (or better said the age at one which can begin taking benefits) will keep increasing.

I'm not sure who thinks social security is one of the best things ever done by government unless everything the governmnet has done has been more poorly planned than it, which is certainly possible. I was under the impression that most people my age don't believe they will ever see a cent of social security money, but I don't have exact polling numbers on that.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So government intrusion and requirements are OK if the majority of the people agree with it.

Um, unless such intrusions or requirements were unconstitutional, isn't that EXACTLY THE POINT of government of the people, by the people and for the people? You've totally lost me, scaeagles.

As for those intrusions which are completely unconstitutional, let's start with the federal income tax in general, and the withholding of estimated federal income tax by employers in particular. Those are intrusions I object to, and have a right to object to.

I'm not sure that social security is unconstitutional, but I'm willing to take a look at that if you can provide any information to that end.


Otherwise, it's precisely the kind of thing that the populace might want to set up for itself via its elected government. Ya know, so that we don't end up starving in the streets or surving on dogfood while living in a cardboard box. The kind of thing that was, ahem, quite common worldwide and in the U.S. before social security. Yeah, not brilliantly planned out. Still ... The.Best.Thing.Ever.Done.By.The.US.Government.