Employer-Based Health Insurance and the Childfree

Written by Nullipara Tuesday, 15 December 2009 08:20

It's hard to imagine, but before the early 1960s it was perfectly acceptable to pay a man more than a woman for the exact same job. In 1963 the Equal Pay Act changed all that. No longer could an employer claim that a man 'needed' to make more than a woman because of his breadwinner status. That this argument was absurd on its face - many working women were supporting families and single men got paid more right along with their breadwinning counterparts - did not matter to those who supported the unequal status quo. After much debate, and kicking and screaming by men who cloaked their self-interest in moral righteousness, the forces of justice prevailed and it was made illegal to discriminate against people in their pay because of their gender. The Secretary of Labor at the time dismissed the silly breadwinner plaint by saying, "Pay is for work done, rather than for the number of dependents of the workers." Well said.

So here we are in 2009 and pay equity is the order of the day, right? Not quite. Over the past 50 years companies have competed with each other to attract good workers with generous benefit packages. Typically, one of the largest components of the employee benefits package is health insurance. What was once a great, and relatively inexpensive, way to attract and retain employees has become a costly millstone as health insurance costs have soared at a rate out-pacing inflation. The three big automakers bemoan how much health care for employees, retirees, and their families adds to the cost to produce each car.

I should fully disclose that I'm for single payer. It's cost effective and cuts out the parasitic insurance industry. But I also think it's the best system because it would de-couple insurance from employment and be the fairest to the childfree. If you are a person with no dependents working next to a person with five dependents and earning the exact same salary, your counterpart gets thousands of extra dollars in compensation. Isn't that paying people for their dependents? And wasn't that the very practice that was made illegal through the Equal Pay Act?

Some companies have (finally) become cognizant of the justified pique of their single and childless employees by shifting from dependent-based benefit plans to cafeteria-style plans where workers are given a sum of money and a range of benefits to choose from. However, most companies are still doling out the benefits based on how many people are in your family. Which is kind of socialist if you think about it.

I do realize that the childfree still get screwed over somewhat in a single payer system, since we pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. But it would rankle me less to pay a little more in taxes to cover ALL people than it does to know that my company pays the father of four in the cubicle next to me $15K more than me in his overall compensation package because he has potent sperm and a SAH wife. Employers' taxes would go up, but on the other hand, they'd no longer be expected to provide health benefits to family members of employees so they'd save a lot of money there. Honestly, you'd think more businesses, especially small ones, would get on board single payer.

The current health care reform plans before Congress all provide subsidies to those making 100 to 400% of the federal poverty level. Yet that level is based not just on your income but also on the number of dependents you have. That means that the lion's share of subsidies will be going to families with children. You can see what you'll pay in the different plans, and compare your premiums and subsidies vs. a family of four here: SubsidyCalculator . And no matter what the plan is that comes out in the end, most people will still be getting their insurance through their jobs.

< Prev		Next >