Fewer Employees, Higher Health Insurance Costs

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The problems of small group insurance are partly due to the realities of risk and small numbers: there aren't enough people to spread the risk over.
The majority of our problems are due to wrong-headed governmental regulation of the health insurance markets. A couple of recent examples: the State of Colorado has doubled the number of health insurance mandates in the last couple of years. Buyers are forced to pay for coverage that may not suit them, and carriers leave the state due to burdensome administration.
The state of Texas does not allow Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) accounts to reimburse for individual health insurance premiums. Employers are prohibited from assisting employees with pre-tax employer dollars when the employee wishes to purchase an individual health policy.
The socialized medicine and conspiracy theory types add nothing to the discussion when it comes to helping employers and employees figure out a prudent way to protect employees from catastrophe due to health care problems. An antidote to the "public health insurance" blather is to watch Stuart Browning's videos (stuartbrowning.net) on the Canadian health care system. Also, "Uninsured in America" is sober tonic to the hysteria of socialized medicine proponents. (I have no connection with Browning or his efforts.)
Public health insurance is anti-sick people. You're okay as long as you don't use the system. God help you if you do.

Michael of CO 11:18AM June 17, 2008

It is no surprise that the prices are raising. This is the response to the increase in costs of at least 12 % for each of the last 25 years. Then in addition, there have been some companies that had failed. You know no money as they spent funds on all manor of things. The regulators never did get to them. We had insurance companies doing every sort of thing. One bought a telephone company in a distant country. It had nothing to do with insurance but it was a crapshoot. Not quite what was envisioned when insurance companies were established?
Another interesting factor is the reduction of competing companies and the domination in a market area of the surviving company. I do not think that was the intent of the company licensing acts in various jurisdictions. It just does not help the consumer. You know that person or gal-one of us.
This will continue, as the political leaders are able to allow it and even profit from it at the expense of us dumb bunnies.
I hope someone reads this and takes it to heart. Sadly, from my experience, no one does and it is of no avail.

stephen of PA 7:56AM June 17, 2008

This folks, is one of the very important reasons why America should be moving to public health insurance-----because it would be PRO-BUSINESS to do so, and especially PRO-SMALL-BUSINESS.
There is no reason small businesses should be paying more than large ones due to selective underwriting of small groups. There is no reason that small businesses should be having to settle for a second class of employees (those worried sick about heath insurance or those too dumb to know they need it).
There is no reason for very small employers to be forced to either spend themselves to bankruptcy to cover employees or face their un-insured employees with a "let them eat cake" attitude in a close-quarters working relationship.
Citizens can have whatever health-care-funding mechasim we want in America, just like other free nations that do theirs much more sensibly than we do here. So far, we have not faced down the underwriting corporations. Republicans will be bringing our the likes of Reverend Wright this year too, to prevent us from doing so if they possibly can. Question is, "How Dumb Are We?"

Daniel David of NM 6:00PM June 16, 2008