http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/freeing-workers-from-the-insurance-trap.html?_r=0
I have to admit that when I saw the news about the Congressional Budget Offices' report saying that the Affordable Care Act would reduce full-time workers by 2.5 million, my heart dropped. I thought, "No more Republican ammunition, please!"
The following article gave me another perspective and some food for thought--though I still expect that "other Party" to be dancing in the aisles over the chance to do some more ACA bashing.
(Any underlines are mine.)
"The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law. Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as 'devastating' and stark evidence of President Obama's health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.
The report estimated that--thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums--many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits...
...Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs.
The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found 'no compelling evidence' that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain...
...The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don't like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster."'
An anecdote supporting the above opinion, one you won't hear on Fox News: A friend of mine recently changed jobs, leaving one she hated for one she now loves. Rather than pay for health insurance for their full time employees, her new employer gives each worker a monthly subsidy and allows them to shop for insurance through the ACA. This undoubtedly saves the company money; but it also gives more freedom of choice to the individual. As the employer mandate rolls out next year, I expect that there will be a substantial number of companies taking this approach.
As for my friend, she recently crowed that her new insurance coverage is better than what she got from her old job and, when she subtracted her employer's subsidy and the government subsidy she qualified for, her total insurance bill is $6/month.
Nope, Fox News will not want you to hear about Alice.
No comments:
Post a Comment