Why the Employer Mandate Matters
With all the focus on the public option debate, there has been far less on the importance of maintaining a strong mandate for employers to provide health care -- another feature of the House bill that conservatives have vigorously opposed.
And the reason it's important is, at least partly, because Obama did not lie-- despite Congressman Wilson's shout, all the public options as designed will not be available to undocumented immigrants, so for millions of undocumented Americans, employer-provided health care will likely remain the only source of health services outside of emergency rooms.
Similarly, given rightwing pressure, the public option will likely severely restrict funding for abortion services and I've seen few details on whether domestic partners will have the same access to health care under the public option as many do under employer-provided plans.
Like many folks, I've done quite a bit of organizing on behalf of the public option, but given some of the restrictions being put on it, I end up agreeing with Obama that it's only part of the solution. And I hope advocates keep their eye on maintaining strong employer mandates which will likely be crucial to delivering more health care to more people that even the public option.
Not trying to mince words here, but if they're undocumented, they're not Americans. They're citizens of other countries who have chosen, in the interest of being with their families or seeking work, to enter our country illegally and break our laws.
Maybe that's okay with you. (It's okay with me, actually, my own view being that the immigration situation as it stands now represents a halfway decent compromise between unrestricted immigration and patrolling the borders.)
But the statement in the original post is inaccurate demagoguery.
September 11, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, if they came from Mexico or even Brazil, they're still Americans-- it's always been a bit of imperialism to appropriate the word just for the U.S.A.
And many countries have declared that residents, who may have lived their for decades, aren't real members of those nations-- but it's not a healthy attitude. Making crossing borders a crime is an odd place to make a law and order stand, since Americans spent a lot of years condemning the Berlin Wall and other repressive laws against crossing borders.
But that's the immigration debate-- my point is actually aimed at pro-immigrant progressives who should understand why their prized public option is complemented by an employer mandate to cover services for many people who may not get access to that public option.
September 11, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken; but then, that wasn't the sense in which "Americans" is relevant in this debate. I haven't heard anyone argue yet that the Mexicans and Brazilians are O.K., but the limeys are RIGHT OUT...
And it isn't crossing borders that is a crime, it's doing so without following the specified procedures that is a crime. We can argue (and I again, don't have strong opinions) about how much rigamarole is useful or desirable, but there isn't any point.
Heck, four years ago we were all talking about these things in terms of security, not immigration.
Point being that the employer mandate wouldn't help illegal immigrants since the employers can't buy health insurance for them without admitting they employ them. And they aren't likely to do that.
Also, don't let any republicans hear you saying that, they'll be very annoyed about this dishonest means of buying health care for illegals.
September 11, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Making businesses buy insurance only masks the real problem. And, it causes many other problems. The real problem is INSURANCE COMPANIES. Get the insurance theives out of our health care. Making businesses deal with the theives does not get rid of the theives.
September 12, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have long felt -- as a supporter of single-payer -- that employer mandates were problematic. First of all, it means a change, at least, in your health coverage (a hassle, even if not total loss of coverage) every time you change jobs. And it means that if someone goes to one kind of company rather than another (leaves IBM to work for an independent consultant eg) there could be additional complications.
Also, I had thought one of the HUGE issues with health care is that other countries (eg their counterparts of GM and Ford) have the burden of health care insurance costs taken OFF the shoulders of employers, constituting a huge subsidy to producers that is allowable under WTO rules. This is HUGE. It means that US autos and zillions of other products have to include the heavy costs of employer mandates in the goods they sell, rather than, say, FIAT or SAAB, which can count on a national health system in their respective countries taking care (GOOD care) of their workers' health insurance needs.
I also resent single payer being equated with the idiotic "policies" being floated by Republicans openly devoted to sabotaging healthcare reform
September 12, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the mandates in the world don't fix the SiCKO problem - the INSURED are going bankrupt in this country. Focus on the co-pay. Focus on the deductible. Focus on the cap. And REALLY focus on the denial of claims.
Single payer is the only way. The.only.way.
September 13, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink