29th Apr 2008
Love and Health Insurance
Getting Married for Health Insurance makes me wonder again why exactly health insurance is tied to employment. Not that I haven’t wondered about it before….
Here’s the basic results of a recent survey by Kaiser, which is obviously an insurer:
Those who cited health insurance as a factor in deciding to marry tended to have modest incomes. About 6 in 10 were in households making less than $50,000 a year, said Mollyann Brodie, who directs Kaiser’s opinion research. They also were younger, with 4 in 10 between 18 and 34.
“We don’t know a lot more about them,” Brodie said. “Just that they answered that of all the reasons for getting married, [health insurance] was also a reason, was surprising.”
Most employers do not offer health insurance to unmarried domestic partners of employees.
But I found this detail a bit more interesting:
Nearly a fourth of Americans said they had decided to keep or change jobs in the last year because of health insurance.
A fourth seems like a lot, and most career counseling doesn’t really address that health insurance may be the reason you’re keeping your job (or leaving it) though this certainly echoes what I hear people saying.
And then there are the young invincibles…like my husband who works three jobs (adjunct professor, real estate agent, and tutor)–but SORRY, we made just a little too much money to qualify for affordable health insurance this past year.
Health insurance is actually the ONLY reason we’re looking for full-time jobs, because right now we are happy living our vocations and living simply.
But it’s very unsettling to be without insurance. Luckily we’re healthy…and NY state covers our kids.
I need to get out of my current job for my emotional health’s sake, but one of the reasons I’m hesitating about finding new employment is the fact that I’m afraid to lose my health benefits.
It was definitely a major factor at my previous job. Not for me so much, but for many coworkers - especially the ones with children.
I think health insurance is tied to employment because a) only productive members of society deserve to get treatment when they fall ill, b) it’s an enticement from employers - I know a number of folks who have turned down a larger salary in exchange for a better health plan.
I vote for a, at least as the thinking behind it.
I know that as an employer I can’t afford to offer insurance, so I only subcontract to others, but I bet employers would love not to have to offer it.
And sympathy to Terri and SisterCoyote.
Thanks.
It is possible to get health coverage in some states without having employment, but it is (in my mind, at least) outrageously expensive, not as good as employer-covered care, and if you have any pre-existing conditions you can expect to pay +50-200% of whatever the plan’s original cost was, depending. (Eventually, the plans were supposed to revert to the “baseline” for that group, but I don’t remember how long that took.)
At least, that was what I learned about five years ago when I very briefly worked for a large California HMO. Things may have changed. But I doubt it.