Another cruel joke

[Ivo Skoric]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/politics/campaigns/14MARR.html?th

After the promise to give work permits to poor illegal Mexican 
laborers in the States, in the continuing charm offensive that 
precedes every president's State of the Union address, Bush now 
promises to spend another $1.5B of money that he does not have - even 
the IMF is finally mildly complaining to the US for their 
indefatigable deficit, and the MoveOn Bush in 30 Seconds contest 
winner clearly depicts the future of U.S. as indentured labor (for 
Chinese capital, perhaps, because that's where all the T-bonds are 
now).

Of course, this $1.5B will be spent on a noble cause - not like 
nearly $400 billion they spend on military - this will be spent on 
helping low-income couples get and stay married. Wade F. Horn, the 
assistant secretary of health and human services for children and 
families, said: "Marriage programs do work. On average, children 
raised by their own parents in healthy, stable married families enjoy 
better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor."

So, what exactly would government do with $1.5B? For months, 
administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the 
proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to 
help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy 
marriages." Training? What low income couples in the US need to stay 
married and take care of their children is better health care at 
lower cost, longer paid maternity leave, more available day care.

As I am now a low-income dad in New York city for the past two weeks, 
here is what I found about this government's care for marriage: IT 
SUCKS. In New York city pharmacies it is easier to find what is 
needed to groom your cat, that what is needed for a mother to 
breastfeed her baby. Why? Because most of people in NYC decide to 
stay single and have no kids - the schools are perceived dangerous, 
the kids can't be left alone to play in the streets, and, paid 
maternity leave being an "old-Europe thing", the parents have to 
choose between working and not being able to care for their children, 
and not working and not being able to feed their children. The 
choice, then, is clear. And no training will help there.

On top of that comes the arrogance, indolence, unflexibility and 
insensitivity of the health insurers. The kind of health care 
provided by HMO-s here in the US is no better than what I have 
experienced in communist Yugoslavia. The wait time is surely the 
same. Only in Yugoslavia that hassle came FOR FREE. And here it costs 
an arm and a leg. In Yugoslavia you could have at least bribe 
physicians then and receive better care. Here, you have to become a 
private patient, i.e. pay all expenses out-of-pocket to receive that 
level of care. Of course, to do that, you need to be a millionaire, 
i.e. this is not an option even for upper middle class...

One thing that I've learned when we got a baby, is that health 
insurance (and that goes for all large insurers) comes in tiers. When 
I was listening to the representative on the phone, I thought I am at 
the railway station. There are usually four tiers - individual, 
husband+wife, parent+child, and family. But some employers will offer 
only a choice of two tiers. Let's examine the following example: we 
have a low income family with a baby - father works for company A and 
has health insurance there, mom works for company B and is offered 
health insurance there. Company B offers only two tiers - so mom can 
insure herself without a baby, or she can insure the entire family, 
meaning that dad either has to drop his insurance tru company A, even 
if the insurance offered tru his wife would not cover his needs, or 
the family needs to suffer costs of paying for two health insurance 
policies for dad. How is Bush going to adress that ridiculous 
requirement by corporate health insurer on the individual health 
insured?

Let's see another example: the fourth tier (family) is always more 
than the sum of the parts - i.e. the family policy costs more than 3 
individual policies. As my insurer eloquently explained to me: it 
stays the same even if you have 8 kids. But how does this help low-
income families who are getting their first child? A low-income 
father insured by the company C, also has his wife insured as a 
dependent. Now they get a child - automatically they jump to the 
family rate, which ads to their expenses the cost of insuring 2 
children. Where does Bush expect they are going to get money for 
that? Why doesn't the government force health insurance companies to 
establish the fifth tier for the single-child families if they really 
want to help them stay married so much? I found that it would be most 
cost-efficient to get divorced and have my wife get insurance as a 
parent+child, and I as an individual. 

Here are the rates/tiers offered by Empire BCBS PPO to a small (2-50 
employees) group:
individual (employee)		$ 469.39
employee + spouse		$ 938.86
parent + child(ren)			$ 844.97
family						$ 1549.15

Family rate is for more than $40 higher than the sum of 3 individual 
rates. This places undue burden on young families that expect their 
first child. Not only they have to pay a full rate for a new member 
of household, that cannot produce any income, but they have to pay 
more than the full rate.

If parents were enrolled as separate individuals, instead of as a 
couple, when the child is born, they would save $2817.48 a year, by 
paying an ‘individual' and a ‘parent + child(ren),' instead of a 
family rate. For a low income family this is a substantial savings. 
There is a lot that $2800 can buy for a baby. 

This is simple math. Ok, we know Bush is not good at that, but then 
some of his vanglorious advisers should do the job for him. The 
health care prerogatives in the U.S. are an obvious incentive for low 
income families to get divorced as soon as they get their first 
child. Is the Bush administration going to do something about THAT?

ivo

---------------------------------------------------------
Ivo Skoric
19 Baxter Street
Rutland VT 05701
802.775.7257
ivo at balkansnet.org
balkansnet.org