Employer-Based Insurance & Home Ownership: Two Ideas That Reality Doesn't Support

[stopbush]

Times have changed dramatically. The day of landing a job that you could stay at for 30 to 40 years is long gone. The statistics show that workers between the ages of 18 and 38 change jobs an average of 10 times. Many of those workers relocate to take a new job.

Workers between 18 and 38 change jobs every two years. That means that their health care plan is changing just as frequently or more frequently than they change jobs. A job change for most people means either going on an expensive COBRA or switching to a new health care plan when they switch employers. That also means that many workers have to go back to square one when it comes to meeting their deductible when the switch jobs. Worse, many employers change health plans very frequently to take advantage of low teaser intro rates. I've worked many places where you start a health plan in January, and just as you're about to meet your deductible in June, the employer switches carriers and it's back to square one on the deductible. Come January, you're back to square one with the new carrier, hoping that you don't switch again in June to start the whole cycle over again.

Does this work for you? Wouldn't it be better to have a single-payer insurance that travels with the INSURED, no matter who they decide to work for, where they decide to work and when they decide to switch jobs? Does employer-based insurance make sense in these times where people have multiple employers over the course of a few years rather than one long-term employer? I don't think so.

And what of home ownership? That was great when you lived in a company town, bought a home that was affordable and put down roots because you knew you'd have that job for 40 years. You could sit there and watch as your equity slowly but surely grew into something wonderful. But does homeownership make sense today, where people change jobs and relocate all the time out of necessity? Does it make sense to buy a home when you may be in that home for only 5 years? Sure it makes sense in the type of artificial bubble we just lived through, but in normal times or when that bubble bursts, who needs to be burdened with a property that will not be an asset and may well be an albatross?

These two things have formed a social backbone for our country for decades, but they aren't relevant in the times in which we live.

I say single-payer insurance and renter's rights should be on the political agenda. Anyone else agree?