The declining numbers aren't simply a function of job loss. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study released this week found that in March 2009, only about 70 percent of private-sector workers had access to employer-provided medical care benefits, "and only 25 percent of the lowest wage earners—those with average hourly wages in the lowest 10 percent of all private industry wages—had such access." Note the difference in the data between the public and private sectors. For government workers, 88 percent have access, and the participation rate is high. For private-sector workers, 71 percent have access, and the participation rate is lower. What accounts for the difference? It's unclear. But at least for single employees, the government picks up more of the tab (90 percent, compared with 80 percent for private sector jobs). For family coverage, the split is the same, 70-30, in both the public and private sectors.
In fact, there's pretty good evidence that government spending is all that stands between the struggling insurers and complete disaster. Look through the insurers' earnings reports, and you'll see that a portion of the loss in commercial business has been offset by growth in Medicare and Medicaid programs. At UnitedHealth in the past year, for example, enrollment in its public programs rose from 6.185 million to 7.115 million.
This is an interesting article. I think the last paragraph is the most interesting and begs a rather interesting question but I not sure how to phrase it. But if health insurers are making through Medicaid and Medicare, I wonder what breakdown is and is it possible that they fear the public option because they would lose that revenue from those two government programs?
