Tyler Cowen passes on a "defense of employer-linked health insurance," remarking "On net, I do not agree with this opinion, but this perspective is too often neglected in health care debates." It seems to me that this perspective is mostly neglected because it's wrong . . . the argument more-or-less depends on the idea of long-term employment by large firms which, of course, really is the classic model of a workable employer-sponsored health care system but which doesn't fit the reality of a large and growing number of people's lives.
« Tax Free DC? | Main | No Big Deal? »
Things You Never Read
20 Sep 2007 03:39 pm
Comments (5)
the idea of long-term employment by large firms which, of course, really is the classic model of a workable employer-sponsored health care system but which doesn't fit the reality of a large and growing number of people's lives
A prime reason why we no longer have so much "long-term employment by large firms" is that large firms no longer want to bear the burden of providing health care for large numbers of employees. Take it from someone who has been downsized & outsourced, and now works as an uninsured independent contractor . . .
Re: It just ignores the huge difficulty the current setup poses to people with pre-existing conditions wishing to change jobs or career paths.
The 1996 HIPPA law requires that when a person changes jobs the health insurer at the new job MUST provide coverage (at the group rate) as long as the person was covered at the former job without a lapse greater than 62 days between jobs. I have know couple people with serious health conditions (HIV and cancer) who have changed jobs and had no problem with insurance because of this law.
Where this is problematic if is an individual wants to become self-employed, or perhaps go to work for a small business that does not offer insurance. While HIPAA also requires insurance companies to offer a policy under these circumstances, nothing addresses the issue of pricing-- the individual is not joining a group so there is no mandated group rate and the insurer can charge so much as to render the policy unaffordable.
Jonf- This is true. I was not being precise. But in general, for someone changing jobs with a delay in between this could be an issue. I think it is addressed by the former employee's right to continue to purchase insurance for some period of time after departing their former job. One issue that I have heard of, but don't know about for sure, is that some insurance companies refuse to cover charges related to pre-existing conditions for the first year of coverage. I have wondered if this is really true and actually applies to people changing insurance as they change jobs.
Re: One issue that I have heard of, but don't know about for sure, is that some insurance companies refuse to cover charges related to pre-existing conditions for the first year of coverage.
They cannot do that if the insured has had less than 62 days break in coverage. This is however common (and quite legal) if the person is purchasing an individual policy and has been uninsured longer than 62 days.
By the way, I once worked for an employer who did not start insurance coverage until the first day of the month following the employee's two-month anniversary of employment. That was done (I suspect) so that individual with major health problems would not qualify for the company insurance plan (unless of course they had enough sense, and the money, to continue COBRA from their old job for that gap).
Comments closed October 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The argument doesn't depend on long-term employment. It just ignores the huge difficulty the current setup poses to people with pre-existing conditions wishing to change jobs or career paths.
There is nothing preventing employers from providing these services to employees as long as we don't go single payer- and there's no real need to go single-payer. Clinton's plan certainly doesn't. The reason we need UHC is so that people with pre-existing conditions aren't screwed and screwing up the market for private insurance for everyone else.
If we stuck with Clinton's plan over time we would find out whether these employer provided services are really worth it.
Posted by mpowell | September 20, 2007 4:04 PM