April 2008

Universal Health Care: What Possible Benefit?

By Robert Stephens

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

As the general manager in a small organization that employs about 18 individuals, many of them female, I was greatly troubled by the recent news coverage this weekend regarding Hillary Clinton’s proposal for universal medical coverage.

My organization provides a pretty comprehensive benefits program, including medical insurance, dental insurance, basic life insurance, vacation and sick leave, and a 401(k) plan. In addition, there are additional voluntary plans for short-term disability, long-term disability, and additional life insurance if the employee so chooses. The medical plan is fairly rich in what it covers and the organization pays one-half of the medical insurance premium for each employee.

I have watched while employees and single moms have agonized over being able to pay even their 50% share of the premium and then opt out of the plan in order to pay for other bills, such as food, utilities, house payment, and the like. Clinton’s comment that the government would have to garnish the wages of employees who didn’t opt in for either the employer-provided health plan or the government plan puts both the employee and the employer in an unsustainable position.

First of all, it was bad enough when the federal government reached out and essentially deputized all people who hired for their companies and organizations by requiring them to “certify” that the employees they were hiring were not illegal aliens. It is the job of the USCIS to keep the illegals out—it should not be the job of the employers to keep them from working.

Now, Senator Clinton has proposed that the employers coerce their employees into insurance plans that—perhaps for religious or personal reasons, but most likely for financial reasons—they do not want to be in. And, if they still don’t take the hint about joining, well, now the employers will be required to forcibly take money from the employees paycheck and send it to the federal government. Talk about a way to wreck the employer-employee relationship!!

Furthermore, the garnishment will, in many cases, tip the already stretched employee right into a bankruptcy situation. While this may be a boon for financial counselors and bankruptcy attorneys, it seems to be a strangely draconian measure that will cause more harm than good—and from a candidate who frames herself as being a protector of the “family”, “the little guy”, the “American worker”, and the like.

The one positive that may develop from Clinton’s proposal is that she may have inadvertently contributed to support of the Fair Tax Plan. Regardless, the idea of the federal government mandating that individuals take part in an expensive medical plan and then garnisheeing their wages if they choose not to should cause every Libertarian to want to throw up. However, after the initial visceral reaction, we need to argue, cajole, educate, or simply discuss the issue with our fellow citizens and convince them of the horrible consequences of the Clinton proposal.

If you’re still on the fence, just remember the bumper stickers from Bill Clinton’s first administration: “If you like the IRS, you’ll love National Health Insurance.”