chelidon: (Tractor Caution)
[personal profile] chelidon
This interesting article intrigued me because, while oriented towards farming and agribusiness, it points out how the current state of health insurance in the U.S. is highly biased towards big business, not just for farmers and farms, but for business across the board. In essence and fact, this heavily penalizes anyone who chooses a non-mainstream job by forcing them to spend a huge proportion of their income on health insurance, or alternately, bankrupting them if they do not pour their money into insurance, and then have the bad (inevitable, rather) fortune to ever get sick or injured.

Of course I knew this well, having made my living as a small business owner, writer, journalist and consultant for at least half of my career, and darn glad throughout for a partner who had a "mainstream" job with benefits that I could piggyback onto for most of that time. I know people who have gotten married for health insurance, I know people who retired with more than enough to live on, who nevertheless ended up having to work after retirement at a low-wage job specifically to get insurance coverage.

Full article below -- some good questions, and perhaps an eye-opener for anyone who's spent their life in a "mainstream" job or career -- that is, one with healthcare benefits included.

by Ezra Klein

In a policy paper almost custom-designed to catch this blog's eye, the Access Project has released an issue brief on the intersection of farming and health care coverage. And the news isn't good. Health policy types tend to assume a household is experiencing financial hardship from medical costs if they spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care. That's true for 54 percent of folks who report their primary occupation as farming or ranching. Add in part-time farmers (which is common given that farming is often seasonal) and it's 44 percent. That's high. And high is bad.

Small farmers get their health insurance on the individual market. They are not protected by an employer's bargaining power. They do not get to deduct their insurance costs, as employers do. And the individual market is bad, pricey place to get your health insurance. The median amount that farmers on the individual market get paid out-of-pocket for health insurance was $11,200. Those who got their insurance from an employer paid $5,600 out of pocket (they of course paid more out of potential wages redirected to health care, but that's a different sort of burden).

So why does this matter? As Steph Larsen, a rural policy organizer for the Center for Rural Affairs observes, when you're talking about building a more environmentally sustainable, local food production system, you're talking about having a lot of farms. As Larsen puts it, that requires small-scale farming to be not only environmentally sustainable, but economically viable. Small-scale farming is hard to make a living at and harder to make a regular living at. Crop prices go up and down. Droughts descend. Tastes change. Subsidies shift. If you can't keep your health care amidst these fluctuations, you can't keep farming. It's irresponsible. And so many don't. As Larsen concludes, health reform is an important part of farm policy not only for the farmer who needs health care, but the office worker who'd like to farm. In this, it's much like the rest of health care policy.

The fact that our health system specifically advantages stable jobs at large employers reduces entrepreneurship in all forms. Fewer people can start small businesses, move home to take over their family farm, or spend a couple years trying to make it as a rock band. Economic creativity is reduced across the board. Scraping by on low wages for a few years is one thing. Going without health care, particularly if you're older or have a family, is rather another. It's as true for the young innovator who wants to leave Bell Labs* and start his own company as for the tired office worker who'd prefer to return to Nebraska and reinvigorate the farm he grew up on. We have decided to discourage them as a matter of national policy. We have decided to make it easier for ConAgra and harder for family farms. The question is why.

Date: 2009-01-13 12:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Going out on a limb here, but it looks like farmers are a group, and actuaries are all about groups. Used to be that farmers had this crazy thing called Grange. They represented farmers as a group. Groups that approach insurance companies and buy lots of policies get better deals, even if they're farmers.
Anyone who is self employed can deduct health insurance premiums from their income, but when they're too much, they're too much.
Kind of makes you long for the days when farmers got the best medical care because they readily had chickens to trade for it.

Date: 2009-01-13 02:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't know why the Government has discouraged small farms (and small business, in general) I suspect that they don't Pay Lobbyists like the Agriculture Industry (shouldn't that be an Oxymoron?)

Date: 2009-01-13 02:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Time for national health care already! It would actually made things easier for ConAgra et. al., since government would be providing health care, freeing up businesses to make more profits.

Date: 2009-01-13 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Thanks for posting this. I'm all in favor of universal health care, and here's just another reason.


chelidon: (Default)

July 2011

1011121314 1516

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 07:26 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios