KELO runs an AP story this morning saying farmers and ranchers are struggling to keep up with health care costs. The Access Project and the Center for Rural Health at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine have put together the 2007 Health Insurance Survey of Farm and Ranch Operators (Issue Brief #1 available from The Access Project). Among other details from the study, one quarter of the 2000 non-corporate farmers and ranchers surveyed by phone report high premiums and deductibles are causing other financial problems, such as "using up savings, being forced to take off-farm jobs, delaying investments in their operation, and difficulty paying rent, mortgage and other bills."
The proportion of the uninsured among farmers and ranchers is lower than the national average. Page 3 of the Access Project's Brief #1 reports that "Over 90% of the respondents said all members of their households had been continuously insured during the past year. This was much higher than the 72 percent of adults nationally who reported that they were insured all year." Only 5% of respondents said their entire household went without health insurance for the entire year. Some commentators say the number of uninsured citizens is not a problem, since many of them "choose" not to buy insurance. However, among uninsured farmers, "choice" doesn't seem to be the main issue. Says Issue Brief #1 (again, p.3), "Only three percent of the uninsured respondents said they did not have coverage because they did not see the value of health insurance." Three quarters of the uninsured respondents said the premiums are too expensive. Saying people who can't afford insurance are simply choosing not to buy insurance is like saying I choose not to buy a million-dollar house on Lake Madison.
Now some critics of proposals to liberalize (or socialize) our health care system say that folks ought to pay their own medical and insurance bills, and that folks who can't are just lazy. Farmers and ranchers aren't exactly known for being lazy. They're self-employed businesspeople, often paying their families' insurance and health care costs out of pocket. Actually, 54% of farmers and ranchers report getting their health coverage either from their own or their spouse's off-farm employment. 36% of farmers and ranchers buy their own coverage, compared to 8% in the general workforce who do so [Issue Brief #1, p.4]. Both situations have disadvantages. Those farmers and ranchers who turn to other jobs for health coverage lose time and profits. Says one survey respondent, "If I did not have to pay health insurance coverage, I could devote all my time to farming and make more money, but I have to work in town to afford health insurance coverage” [Issue Brief #1, p.4]. Those purchasing their own coverage take a different financial hit. As the Access Project study points out, "Those who purchase insurance in the nongroup market [i.e., not employer-sponsored] are more likely to face financial strains due to medical costs than other insured people" (Issue Brief #1, p.1).
We should have a keen interest in doing everything we can to protect independent family farmers. Farmers are involved in one of the most dangerous professions, so they need good medical coverage perhaps more urgently than workers in other professions. As Issue Brief #1 points out, family farms generate 85% of the value of ag production in the US, and the ag economy is closely tied to the rest of a rural state's economy (in Nebraska, one quarter of jobs are connected to agriculture -- again, see Issue Brief #1, p.1). If our family farmers go under, the rest of our economy takes a hit as well. Oh yeah, and we won't have food.
High insurance premiums and health care costs are squeezing profits in every industry. Independent family farmers are all the more threatened by these financial pressures. Universal health care -- not mandates to buy private insurance, but a single-payer, not-for-profit system -- would take this particular financial pressure off our farmers and give them that much more of a chance of making their other payments and keeping the family on the farm.
Universal health care is not just a moral issue; it's sensible economic policy. Every other industrialized nation that we compete with in the global marketplace has recognized that; it's time for America to get with the program so its farmers and workers can compete in the global economy.
Universal health care is one solution to the problem of rising healthcare costs. But there's also a solution that is becoming more and more prevalent -- I hear, more often now than ever, people are getting supplemental insurance policies -- in addition to or instead of insurance premiums -- that insurance being Aflac, which seemingly has a better return on a person's investment than an insurance premium. Do you have any take or information on this trend?
ReplyDeleteSupplemental Insurance -- I don't know much about such programs, other than knowing Aflac's ad duck is cute. I know the Aflac rep would stop by Montrose each year, and my quick cost-benefit analysis led me to check "No" on the form. In principle, it seems a little Rube-Goldbergesque: buying a second insurance policy because the first policy is inadequate. Why not just create a single, affordable policy, through the market or a single-payer system, that meets all those needs in one shot? But I welcome comments from Aflac policyholders and other folks in the know....
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea behind supplimental insurance is to provide folks with a cash flow when they're out of work.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gather, most insurance policies cover medical bills only. And if you're out of work for any length of time, you're SOL in terms of money for bills, groceries, etc.
And while most employers offer short-term or long-term disability, it's usually at a reduced rate (usually 60-percent of a person's base pay), which may not be enough.
Supplimental insurance is a "gap-filler", in the terms that you do get money to help with everyday expenses, especially if your out for any extended period of time. And if it can help you avoid something like a medical bankruptcy, I'm all for it.
It's too bad there can't be something in between.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of Aflac providing that necessary cash flow, but I don't like the idea of paying for another policy, simply because my insurance premium is only going to cover what the company wants to cover and leave me with the burden of paying for an amount equivalent to my deductible or more.
I might have been rambling in my above post as it was after all the middle of the night. What I was trying to say was that there comes a point where people have to at least make an attempt to take care of their own financial needs. When they don't, it isn't society's responsibility to pick up the slack.
ReplyDeleteWhen people are unexpectedly ill or disabled, are born with disabilities that preclude them from caring for themselves, that is different, and there are already programs in place for such misfortunes.
And yes, I will still state that although "perks" might not be the correct word, there are definitely unintentioned "perks" when you are poor and are satisfied staying there and reaping said benefits.
No sweat, Nonnie -- you raise an important question: when do we stop helping someone? We parents face that question all the time. When should parents leave children to their own devices? When can parents justify flat-out turning their backs on their adult adult children (if ever)? Similarly, when does society have a right to "give up" on a member? What is our minimal obligation to our neighbors? When do we declare citizens "moochers" and totally cut them off?
ReplyDeleteOf course, the subjects of this post, farmers and ranchers, aren't usually known as moochers. Here we're talking about self-employed individuals in a noble profession having to cut back their participation in that profession and take second jobs working for someone else just to pay their medical and insurance bills.