Several state legislatures are considering taking action in an attempt to force larger employers to offer health insurance to their employees. While there is considerable variation among the states, most appear to require large employers to dedicate around 10% of payroll dollars to health benefits.
I’m not sure this is Constitutional, legal or advisable, but it is clear that the level of frustration experienced by the middle class (read – voter) is growing. And their legislators are acting upon that frustration. According to the New York Times, the effort “underscores state lawmakers’ growing frustration with the progress of federal health care reform and the success of a union effort to turn Wal-Mart into a symbol of everything that is wrong with the system.”
It is remarkably easy to throw stones at Wal-Mart – while I won’t fault their desire to succeed in a capitalist economy, I do have problems with the company’s lobbying for state financial incentives, tax subsidies and abatements while thousands of their employees, who can’t afford or are not eligible for Wal-Mart-sponsored health coverage, receive their health insurance through Medicaid. This well-documented “double-dipping” at the taxpayers’ expense is highly unethical and inappropriate.
What does this mean for you?
While the effort to force employers to provide health insurance is doomed to failure, the larger message is clear – voters want health care reform. Expect this issue to finally rise to the top in elections this fall.
Jan
6
I have to take exception to the last statement. Our entire system of health care is based on employer sponsored health insurance. Short of a government sponsored single payer system, which many oppose because it smacks of socialism, our only choice is to require ALL employers (not just large employers) to provide health care coverage to their employees.
Insurance works, because it spreads the risk among those who need it. Health care, unlike most other things we purchase insurance to cover, is something that we all need, or will need at some time. To let some opt out of the system, because they don’t need care at this precise moment, defeats the purpose of insurance. Additionally it places an undo burden on companies and individuals, who must pay higher premiums then would otherwise be required (if everyone was required to purchase insurance) to cover the health care costs of those who refuse, or can’t afford to purchase insurance.
You are right about one thing, we need health care reform!
I blogged on this yesterday: http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/more_on_states_.html