Comments on: Job discrimination: People who need insurance

By: tet

tet — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:13:00 +0000

Segen, the main problem with the insurance situation as it is now is that the insured are overusing the system.

Before there was widespread medical coverage (say in the 1950s and 60s) young people simply did not bother to go to the doctor at all unless they were in some kind of accident. Children went in before they went to school to get vaccinated, but otherwise only saw the doctor when they had something really wrong with them.

The problem with the current setups is that otherwise healthy people are going in on the slightest pretext. Doctors, in order to protect themselves from suits are overprescribing both medications and tests.

Since in any economy where goods and services are overused, prices go up, those who really need medical services cannot get them now because they're too expensive.

The problem with increasing the amount of insurance coverage is that the amount of overuse will INCREASE, since there's no incentive to keep usage down. This means that medical costs will increase faster.

It's a positive feedback loop that may not have a solution without changing people's opinions on when medical care is needed. We seriously need a less-safe society. With any luck, there's one right around the corner.

Tom Trumpinski

By: Segen

Segen — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:29:00 +0000

Ok. I see your point now, Tom. In theory, women can gain a job preference based on the fact that more women are on their husbands insurance plans. But now we have a problem of women with insurance vs women without insurance. There are a lot of single mothers out there…with no husband to take care of the insurance.

Anyway, I still do not agree with the entire premise of this discrimination, however.

Perhaps employers should provide benefits to EVERYONE–and if there is some sort of “doubling up” with a wife/husband situation, then one set of insurance benefit money should be donated to a general insurance fund, that can help other uninsured people or be some other sort of tax generation for something. Then we won’t have this insurance discrimination.

By: tet

tet — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:19:00 +0000

There are men without insurance, Segen. However, there are a lot fewer men that have wives providing them with insurance, which was the analog to the situation you presented in your article.

Her method of hiring definitely will result in women gaining a job preference.

Tom

By: Segen

Segen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:51:00 +0000

Anon--

I don't think marriage has anything to do with my job. Therefore, I would not marry someone just to get insurance.

Tom--

Women should be treated equally with all other types of employees. This insurance situation does not deal specifically with women--there are probably lots of men without insurance, too.

By: tet

tet — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:59:00 +0000

I find it ironic that a woman is complaining about a situation that makes it more likely that a woman will be hired for a job.

Tom

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:36:00 +0000

Segen, had you considered marrying someone with insurance?

By: kofi the in twenty minutes of watching the today show ive counted a dozen ridiculously leftist positions pushed

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:42:00 +0000

Alright well turning to the point of the post, this is just one of those types of discrimination that is not really discrimination. If they didnt want to hire you because you had a family and that would mean higher benefits costs, you could sue. If they didnt want to hire you because you were old and would have higher beneifts costs, yould could sue. If you were disabled and they didnt want to hire you because of the benefits cost — again, you could sue. You apparently arent a member of a protected class, so its ok to discriminate against you. Get used to it.

By: JayBandit

JayBandit — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:47:00 +0000

Kofi, my benefits package is 39% of my salary…fyi. So you’re pretty dead-on with your estimate.

However, I think this is a totally plausable scenario. If you have only 3-4 employees, that 1 extra is a huge difference. Insurance costs have sky-rocketed in the last decade to do the extremely outrageous number of lawsuits people file and actually win every year. The company my father works for has had their insurance nearly double in the past decade, and that seriously puts a cramp on their style…if you know what I mean.

By: Segen

Segen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:48:00 +0000

Oh, and for the future commentors to this post:

I am seriously looking for employment. Please let me know if you know of a position you think might fit me. I WILL be needing insurance (ha)…

I am willing to move anywhere–in the world–sans…Iraq and a handful of other nations…

By: Segen

Segen — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:42:00 +0000

I’m sorry. I do not know if those employees were full or part time.

I guess I could ask…but that might be a very, very awkward phone call…