That’s the takeaway from a Los Angeles Times article, “Study Says Individual Insurance Too Costly,” that alerts us to this alarming fact:

Individual insurance also is less affordable than employer-sponsored coverage, the study found. Two out of five people with individual coverage spent 5% or more of their income on premiums, compared with one out of seven people with employer coverage.

Hmmm … could it be that’s because employer-sponsored health insurance is an employee benefit, mostly paid for by the employer? For instance, my wife’s employer, a huge corporation, takes $200 / month out of her check for family PPO coverage. That coverage certainly costs them in excess of $600 / month and likely closer to $1,000.

The LAT article fails to note the difference, or to explain that plans for shifting the purchase of health insurance from employers to individuals generally provide for employers to provide voucher-like payments to employees for them to spend on the insurance of their choice. There’s an alphabet of programs (MSA, HSA, etc) built around this idea.

No, the LAT can only say “Individual health insurance — often touted as an alternative to employer-based group coverage — may be an option for the healthiest and wealthiest. But a study due out today suggests that the poor and sick need not apply.” Of course, the survey didn’t ask “could you afford the insurance if your employer provided $x per month?” … but the LAT has never let something like that stand in the way of an anti-market generalization.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 at 10:01 am by A Senior Administration Official and is filed under Los Angeles Times. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.