Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
The Baucus Plan Punishes Single People -- Especially Single Moms.
I want to say a little more about the "free rider" provision in the Baucus health plan, which Tim highlighted this morning. The HELP Committee and House bills require most employers to provide health insurance for their workers. But the Baucus plan does not include such an employer mandate. Instead, it requires companies to partially reimburse the government for the insurance affordability credits of uninsured workers and their dependents.
This creates some very perverse incentives. It discourages companies from hiring single people, who don't have a spouse whose employer-provided insurance will cover them, thus offering the employer an "out" on the subsidy payback. It encourages employers to pressure married, uninsured workers to go into their spouse's health plans, even if the worker feels they'd get better coverage for a lower cost on the exchange. And worst of all, it particularly discourages firms from hiring single people with children, because they'd have to pay for the children's subsidies, as well.
We know who'll be affected most by this bad, bad idea: low-income women, who are already pushed into "pink collar" jobs with more unstable hours, less benefits, and less pay than similarly educated men. Now even those jobs will be harder for single moms to get, as employers weigh whether a worker earning $15,000 or $20,000 a year is worth paying an extra several thousand dollars for, because of this subsidy payback requirement. Why not just hire someone without kids? Or someone married?
None of the health reform bills in front of Congress do enough to dismantle the link between work, marriage, and health insurance. This system especially hurts women, since only 38 percent of women have health coverage through their own job, compared to 50 percent of men. It is unjust for women to have to consider what will happen to their health coverage -- and their children's -- if they leave an abusive relationship, for example. But while the House and HELP bills mostly maintain the status quo, the Baucus bill would make things much worse.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (10)
i am just disgusted at the Baucus bill and where this whole health care reform thing is headed. i cannot believe that the public insurance option is more or less off the table.
Posted by: lng | September 17, 2009 11:23 AM
I think I've made it clear that i'm as far from feminist as most people can get, but lets be honest, in general if a bill is going to punish someone it's either going to be black people, poor people, or female people. Baucaus sucks, and sexism is the default position in America. This is just the convergence of the two.
Posted by: soullite | September 17, 2009 12:04 PM
but hey, it pleases Obama's faith-based, family-based, homophobic, misogynistic Messianic, Corporate-fucking, Pretendident Self...so why not run with it!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2009 3:04 PM
What has been put out is worse than if nothing had been done at all. We will get crap if it passes and have to see the Repuks dance on our graves if it fails.
However, I say vote it down. The Since the Dims have insurance get some balls transplanted and try again. That goes for Bush Lite in the WH as well.
Posted by: Marnie | September 17, 2009 9:43 PM
It's already illegal to collect much of the information discussed here - marital status, children, etc. What's needed is a stronger enforcement; if a company gets caught doing this and ends up $10 million in the hole, employers might respect the laws a little better.
Or if it's Walmart doing it (likely), make it $100 million in the hole, to get their attention...
Posted by: Matt | September 17, 2009 11:51 PM
I'm concerned about part-time workers - me being one. What if I can't find full-time employment, but have 3 part-time jobs? Presently, part-time workers are never offered any benefits ... you're lucky to have a job so don't push it. With the Baucus fracas health care bill, everyone must have insurance. So how many employers are going to offer health care benefits to their part-time staff? I can see employers only hiring applicants who can demonstrate they have health insurance coverage through some other family/third-party policy. The nasty side effect Congress isn't considering with this bill is it will seriously shrink the labor pool and make more people dependent on government funded health care which will blackball them from getting gainful employment. It's a vicious circle.
Posted by: Major Domo | September 18, 2009 7:47 AM
Oh please, the Baucus plan is crap, but employers can't ask that stuff.
Plus of course why aren't employers trying to get people on their spouses insurance now ? Why aren't companies hiring single people w/o kids, that would bring their health care cost down, right ? Because that isn't information they can ask and a lot of companies actually care about their employees.
There are perverse incentives now and no matter what bill is passed there will be those same incentives, maybe a different demographic is hit, but they will always be there because health care is damn expensive. We can only hope the truly blatant are caught and fined heavily.
Posted by: ScottW | September 18, 2009 1:47 PM
If you think it's bad on single moms, look what it does to older people. Using the Baucus ration, my premium can increase from an already unaffordable $1,000 to $1886 per month.
Posted by: andreams | September 18, 2009 2:33 PM
While I appreciate Ms. Goldsteins's clear and real concern for the welfare of mothers and their children it would be nice if we advance the conversation to start talking about single dads.
While they may be a minority in proportion to single moms, I know many single dads who are full-time care providers to their kids and they suffer not just the frustrations of being a single-parent, but having very little access to the resources that are available to single moms.
This is a glaring and sexist oversight, as many people of Gen-X and subsequent generations have very different gender roles than previous generations.
Posted by: Matthew | September 18, 2009 2:46 PM
And the single women SHOULD be punished, for they have SINNED. Right, Senator BackAss?
Posted by: CranialRectalLoopback | September 18, 2009 4:49 PM