The LA Times delighted Lefty health care wonks yesterday with an article entitled Workers’ health insurance costs soar. Here’s the money quote (as it were):
Workers with job-based coverage for their families saw earnings rise 3% from 2001 to 2005, while their health insurance premium contribution increased 30% … The average cost nationally of family coverage during the period increased nearly $2,500, to $10,728 from $8,281.
Man that seems like a big jump. And it would be—-if it were true. But it would appear that the Times has once again proven Jefferson correct:
The quoted figures came from this study, which clearly states (see table 3) that the average employee paid only 24% of the total premium for family coverage.
In other words, the average employee paid $1,987 for family insurance coverage in 2001. By 2005, that figure had increased to $2,574.
So, the actual increase paid by employees was $587, or $147 per year. No one wants to pay more for insurance, but this is not the stuff of a Dickens novel.
This reality has not, of course, stopped the usual suspects from quoting this disingenuously written article and tut-tutting about how awful things are.
These are not serious people.
Comments 7
Just found your blog. Really like your emphasis on the numbers. Sadly lacking in the current debate which is all based on emotion and demagoguery. If we are going to have a debate on health care, on medicine, well we should at least try to base our conclusions on science. I lost all respect for the public health community’s abuse of statistics when I found out one of the ways they measure the health status of Americans when compared to the health status of citizens of other countries was by comparing the amount of money spent on health by the government! I can’t remember a more foolish abuse of statistics. My health status is NOT a function of how much money is spent on my health, preventive or otherwise. That may be a rough measure for Third World countries struggling to immunize their populations, it is ludicrous when talking about the U.S.
Posted 03 May 2008 at 8:39 am ¶‘The average cost nationally of family coverage during the period increased nearly $2,500, to $10,728 from $8,281.
Man that seems like a big jump. And it would be—-if it were true. ‘
Er, it is true. You seem to think it refers to what employees pay - it clearly says ‘family coverage’, which is both employer/employee contributions. The point of course is that the overall cost increases has led to many employers dropping their coverage.
Posted 03 May 2008 at 9:58 am ¶Cut the crap, Marc. The Times is obviously trying to create the impression that families absorbed a $2,500 increase.
If they were playing it straight, they would have used the figures I provided, and their title would not have shouted “Workers’ health insurance costs soar.”
This should be obvious—even to you.
Posted 03 May 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶Well, they adsorb the increase by way of wage stagnation. 3% in a 4 year period? That’s piss poor.
Posted 03 May 2008 at 10:00 pm ¶Are you saying that employer contributions are totally independent of salary?
Posted 04 May 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶Been pretty busy so sorry for the AWOL. Marc, it depends. In reform markets, differentials are considered discriminatory and are illegal. In non-reform markets, there is sometimes a differential. This differential in every case that I have seen is regressive, meaning that the higher compensated employees pay a larger portion of their premiums.
Posted 05 May 2008 at 10:05 am ¶I’m self insured and my cost for coverage increased 27% from 2007 to 2008. Just sayin…
Posted 05 May 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶Post a Comment