Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Guess Who Foots America's Health Care Bill? Not Employers.

By Niko Karvounis, Health Beat. Posted March 12, 2008.


Under our current health care system, patients shoulder far more of the financial burden than employers.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Niko Karvounis

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the always-compelling duo of Ezekiel Emanuel and Victor Fuchs -- associated with the National Institutes of Health and Stanford University respectively -- dispel the myth of "shared responsibility" in health care financing.

What does this mean, exactly? Simple: "the common claim that employers, government, and households all pay for health care is false. Employers do not share fiscal responsibility and employers do not pay for health care." In fact, the "money [for health care] comes from [our] own pockets."

As simple as this assertion may seem, it's actually a ground-breaking statement. As Emanuel and Fuchs point out, most of the political rhetoric surrounding health care reform implies that everyone -- individuals, employers, households, and governments -- struggle with health care costs equally. Implicit in this formulation is a sad tale of businesses getting crunched: Because employers provide health coverage to most Americans who are insured, employers are often singled out as victims. It often seems like the health care crisis is their burden.

Indeed, "burden" is quite the buzzword here. Barack Obama says it's a tragedy "when businesses have to lay off one employee because they can't afford the health care for another." Hillary Clinton notes that "large American companies compete in a global economy against companies in countries that impose far lower health care burdens on employers." Congress celebrates reforms that supposedly "takes [the health care] burden off employers." It certainly sounds like businesses have it bad.

Not so fast, say Emanuel and Fuchs. We need to consider the "health care cost-wage trade-off." A large body of economic research shows that, when you crunch the numbers, employers don't lose the money they spend on health care, but rather take the costs out of their employees' paychecks. In fact, a 2004 study from the International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics found that "the amount of earnings a worker must give up for gaining health insurance is roughly equal to the amount an employer must pay for such coverage."

This unsettling trade-off has been going on for the past 30 years.

Consider the fact that over this period "premiums have increased by about 300 percent after adjustment for inflation" while inflation-adjusted corporate profits have "flourished ... with ... increases ... of 200 percent after taxes." A two-fold increase in profits hardly seems an indication of hard times.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health care, health insurance, employers, health care reform

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Public / Private Sector Healthacre
Posted by: hrmcouncil on Mar 17, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pharmeucetical and insurance companies will gouge private sector businesses as much as they can, they are businesses afterall, not non-profit groups.

By providing a healthy public and private sector you can get them competing against one another.

Insurance companies cannot charge too much for a service if the consumer can wait a little longer for a free publically funded service.

Pharmeucetical companies are pressured by the public system to lower rates for bulk purchases, lowering the bar for the private sector too (harder to justify gouging when the government buys a pill for $1 but charges the private sector $10). No wonder the USA pays more than everyone else in the world for the same mediciations.

In Canada the reverse is occuring, they are introducing more private healthcare to compete with the public system, in the USA it's more public healthcare that's needed. Same result though, a little healthy competition.
Staff, Healthcare Reviews rate and review your hospital, doctor dentist and more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Convenient Excuse for Employers
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Mar 22, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Employers have been using the cost of health care as a convenient excuse for low wages for over a decade. In reality, if they didn't have that excuse, they would find another.

The general inflation and health inflation statistics fail to take into account that employers are passing more and more of their share of the cost onto employees. Even those employers who provide health insurance benefits will intentionally charge employees more than they know they can afford, in order so they don't sign up with the employer.

Employers like to bitch about health care, but they really don't want to solve the problem. A single payer health care system is the only way to control both costs AND access for all Americans. The current consumer-directed plans are little more than a cost shifting device to load more expenses on the employee.

The big shots in corporate America continue to support and pay for politicians who will fill their personal pockets instead of doing what is right for their employees in health care. Corporate America's ideal solution is to dump health care in the laps of their employees and retirees, and remove themselves from the picture entirely (of course they will still give you a 2 1/2% raise when they do this).

At over $7,000 for every person in the U.S., we ALREADY pay twice as much as any other developed country. The people who snivel about the cost of a single payer system don't seem to get that we ALREADY pay more than enough to cover everyone with universal care at a fair price. All of the current proposals are little more than a sop to big insurance, drug, consulting and medical companies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

price
Posted by: artemka on Apr 1, 2008 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]