America's private insurance policy cost every older American hope of a good job
Please realize age makes one unemployable by companies that provide insurance, these are the companies that pay the best and anyone would love to work for.
Hiring is done by the Human Resource Department and it is responsible for controlling health insurance costs as it is one of their budget lines. One of the major ways they control costs is to keep the average age of the employee younger.
The cost of health insurance is set yearly in 2 ways. The first issue is the average age of the work force for the company is analyzed. It is further broken down into male, female, geographic location and jobs performed by the employees. This is a beginning factor for a new policy. The older the average ages of the group the higher the costs of the policy.
Another factor with an existing policy is the history of the group. The higher the costs last year the higher this factor drives this new years increase.
The Human Relations Department thus has an incentive to hire young and not hire older workers of any age.
If you are in your late 40's, you are old by present insurance standards. In fact older workers are fired (laid off) because of our present way of providing private health care insurance.
The private insurance policies cost every older American INCOME and hope of getting better paying jobs with the companies we want to work for with good pay, healthcare and wages paid.
Now bitch about single payer all day but anything else cost us as we age our income, employment and our quality of life as we mature.
PS, President Obama we would gladly pay higher taxes if we were employable by the better companies. This also does not take into account the opportunity costs to the companies and country of the experience lost by not employing the most capable Citizens.
I know this is true. Not only in corporations. The school where I taught last year fired four people -- all of them were women, and they were all over forty-five. Oh, and each of us dared to express opinions that were at variance with those expressed by the Head.
September 22, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
wwstaebler
Yes this happens everywhere there is insurance offered. It keeps the rates low and cause grief as we age. It seems there is no interest in this issue here or maybe it was my presentation.
September 22, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been aware of this since I turned 50. I started to carry personal health insurance over and above what was offered by my employer since 2000. It was only $300 a month which I could easily afford and it was better than what my employer offered. But when I turned 50 it jumped to over $900 a month all because of age. That's when I realized there was a serious problem with health care. I tried to discuss the issue with the State insurance commission, but they were already in the pockets of the insurance industry. So if an individual with a personal policy can get jacked up and mugged by the insurance industry I suspected businesses were also being mugged as well. As for age being a hiring factor for employment, it sounds discriminating. But businesses are reacting to the cost of insuring their employees and the insurance industry is squeezing as much blood out of the rock as they can - I suspect they see the end of their free money for no service era. What you say here makes me wonder if those in Congress realize just how much their actions on health care are shifting the scales in favor of the insurance industry at the expense of both the public and business communities? It's one thing to be taxed by the government, an arena the public has control over with the ballot box, it a whole other thing to be force to purchase a product that one can neither afford nor have the option to get the best product for the cost.
September 22, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejuce
The ageing out employment because of insurance costs is one of the important issues of insurance reform that has not been discusses.
A mandate for all businesses to offer insurance will only increase the problem by moving the issue down to smaller companies that will have to look at the age of employees for insurance costs also.
One can return to school for training but it is not effective if at the end there is no opportunity for employment because of age.
This problem needs to be considered before any health care legislation is finalized.
September 23, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
No "reform" legislation pertaining to health care will go into effect until 2014. Among other points of relevance in that timing to other demographics, that means that whatever watered down version of public option is finally passed will not close the gap in coverage for those currently on Cobra, which limits its "benefits" to 18 months.
This timing gap spells certain disaster, not only for those already on Cobra, but also to anyone else at risk of being downsized -- due to age and subsequent health care costs to an employer -- during the next 2 1/2 years. The odds are slim that anyone in this demographic will become re-employed by another company facing the same high contributions to a healthcare plan for that new employee for all the reasons you noted.
So what will happen? A huge segment of baby boomers will fall into a twilight zone without coverage, just when serious illness and/or forms of disability may begin to manifest:
a) their Cobra benefit will have run out, but no public option will not yet be in place;
b) because they are not yet 65, they will not yet qualify for Medicare;
c) he, or she, will probably not get another full-time job with full health benefits because the cost to the prospective employer is too high;
d) any work that is available will be part-time or in a small business that does not contribute health benefits at all, and,
e) skyrocketing individual policies will be unaffordable.
If one is concerned about over-population in this country, this seems like a good plan -- allowing the American baby boom to die off prematurely is one way to address the fringes of over-population, although, since baby boomers can't have children anymore, sex education and readily-available birth control might be more to the point to prevent the world population from doubling by 2050.
Of course, this baby boom attrition won't be happening in other industrialized countries, and therefore only America, among them, will lose the accumulated education, experience and wisdom of this demographic that, in other generations, has proven to be a useful tempering influence on intemperate youth.
But never mind.
September 23, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! This is the scenario we will face if the adverse selection is kept in that horror of a health reform bill, known as the Baucus Bill. Everyone is so focused on the Public Option, they don't realize how badly the premise of adverse selection can bite them. It is potentially more damning than prex ever was. Discrimination due to age,smoking, and obese people will all fall into the category of adverse selection. Since obesity is on the rise, if you are not young and fit, good luck getting that job. Anything that poses a risk will be a major consideration to the employer.
September 23, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink