Historical Accidents and New Ideas: Revisiting Employer-sponsored Health Insurance

By Nathan Rothwell

As the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are phased in over the next several years, the American health care system may be forced to rethink how health insurance is written and delivered in this country.

The United States is unique among industrialized Western nations in that most of its citizens obtain coverage from the private market, primarily from their employers. According to recent statistics, 58% of working Americans under the age of 65 get their health insurance through their employers. While this percentage has steadily decreased over the past several years, a majority of working-age Americans still rely on their employers for insurance, a trend that has persisted for decades.

A quick lesson in history can explain why this is the case. While health insurance policies first made their appearance in the United States during the early 20^th century, World War II saw a dramatic rise in employer-sponsored health care plans. This is because wage and price freezes were put in place to tightly regulate the American wartime economy, making it difficult for businesses to attract new workers to replace those who had gone off to war. However, fringe benefits (such as sick leave and employer-sponsored health insurance) were not subject to wage freezing, allowing employers to offer these additional benefits in lieu of additional pay.

This system allowed for 75% of Americans to have some form of health insurance by 1958. For better or worse, the trend of obtaining health insurance as an employment benefit has persisted to present day. While this system is often lauded as a motivator for Americans to find and keep employment, it does nothing to address the needs of those who are unable to work – namely, the sick and elderly. Even poor Americans who are able to work either cannot obtain insurance through an employer, or are required to contribute toward group insurance premiums (which can be quite high for those with chronic health conditions).

On Bipartanship: Two Charts that Republicans Hope You’ll Never See

By Nathan Rothwell

I hope everyone stateside enjoyed their Labor Day weekend. I know Bill Maher did.

Last week’s episode of Real Time gave Maher a chance to confront writer/filmmaker/Republican hack Dinesh D’Souza over D’Souza’s role in Maher being fired from his own ABC show for comments made following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Far more interesting, however, was the confrontation between Maher and D’Souza over D’Souza’s film cinematic hit piece entitled 2016: Obama’s America.

The film attempts to paint President Obama as an angry anti-colonialist who intends to impose his agenda on the American people at all costs, and absolutely refuses to compromise with Republican lawmakers. However, when pressed in their interview by Maher to cite examples of Obama’s single-minded rage, D’Souza cited two examples, both of which amounted to flat-out lies.

Lie #1:

“Healthcare. Obama had a plan, and Republicans had a summit with Obama and they offered a lot of ideas. Obama could have taken one or two Republican ideas and he would have had a bipartisan plan.”

D’Souza is referring to a meeting Obama had with House Republicans in 2010, which the White House posted on its YouTube channel for all to see. I guess we can assume that D’Souza is only aware of this summit but did not watch it; had he watched it, he would have found that the following components of Obamacare were all suggested by Republicans and implemented into the PPACA:

• A mandate for all citizens to purchase health insurance if they can afford it, to prevent freeloaders
• Allowing dependent children to remain on their parents’ healthcare plans until age 26.
• Allowing health insurance premiums to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs
•  Providing grants to states to evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas
• Allowing employers to automatically enroll employees in health insurance programs, and allowing employees to opt out if they wish
•  Strengthening standards for community mental health centers to ensure they provide appropriate care and not take advantage of Medicare patients or taxpayers.

Is that more than one or two ideas, Dinesh? No? Then I guess we’ll move on to Lie #2: