The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Personal Finances / Credit Cards and Consumer Debt

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/a-different-approach-might-have-been-to-require-30679681.aspx

Subject:  Re: Poll: E-fund Date:  5/12/2013  1:33 AM
Author:  aj485 Number:  307021 of 308343

A different approach might have been to require that the medical insurance premiums are covered by the employer at the same rate for three months if an employee has been laid off (not fired for cause).

A nice idea (along with universal coverage). However, the reality of the situation is that it would have never gotten through Congress, because there are too many employers that would have lobbied that they would drop medical coverage completely, rather than have to pay the additional costs to lay off employees. (After all, your differential was about $650, so it would have cost your employer an extra $2k to lay you off. Multiply that by, say 1,000 employees when a factory gets shut down, and it's an extra $2 million.) And nobody wants to be the Congressman who voted for the law that gave employers the excuse to drop medical coverage.

And given the system that was in place at the time, where you would lose your medical coverage the day you walked out the door, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the ability to continue coverage was a huge step forward. It cut one of the ties that employers had on employees, and allowed employees to be more proactive about choosing the best employment situation for themselves.

AJ
Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us