The Fallacy of "Just get a job with benefits and you'll be fine"

Throughout the impassioned debate on health-insurance reform in the United States, one often is exposed to the reasoning directed at those lacking health insurance, "why don't you just get a job with benefits?" While a solution, of course, the very concept is so rarely placed under scrutiny. If it were to be evaluated thoroughly, more among the most ardent of free-market proponents would probably see how damaging the system of employer-granted benefits has become to our society.

Information on wage freezes in the period after WWII are well documented. In order to lure the most capable during that era, employers sought other attractions, one of them most notably employer-financed health insurance. Such a system has become the standard in the United States. One's health insurance is thus dependent on his employment within the company, whose pool of employees reduces the risk for the insurance company and makes the insurance itself affordable. Such is not the case for those with pre-existing conditions who seek health insurance outside the office pool as outright denials and exhorbitant pricing are standard fare.

Thus, many Americans, particularly those over 40, people with Diabetes, Crohn's Disease, people who were once treated for Cancer but now have a clean bill of health and people with any congenital disorder find themselves beholden to the employer for that which may be unattainable on the private market for the individual. A person with the aforementioned conditions may dream of working part time, working two part-time jobs, being an adjunct at a community college, a freelance writer or translator, tour guide or any other profession outside the standard 9-5, cubicle-bound atmosphere. Yet, such independence is often stymied by the need for that 9-5 office job as the price of health insurance for the afflicted individual can run well over $1,000 per month (recently, a person I know with Crohn's Disease was quoted at $1,300 per month through her regular insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield).

"Job lock" is the term peculiar to the American worker who finds himself unable to segue into something more befitting his talents or interests owing to the health-insurance restraint. An obedient workforce this helps create, people inured to mistreatment knowing that loss of job means loss of affordable insurance thus loss of access to preventative treatment (and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that they can just go to an emergency room ---ERs are in no way related to preventative medicine).

The prospect of job lock is a reality. I am personally acquainted with individuals fearful of losing the tie that binds them to a profession for which they may be ill suited and read story after story on the Internet from others in the same situation. Not being able to forge one's own career path, be an entrepreneur, work independently and contribute to society through work that gives the individual a feeling of genuine achievement is detrimental to our self perception as a land of opportunity.

I cannot claim to have the answer to what will unite Americans in regards to the solution to our health-insurance situation, but I do know very well that in order for us to continue as a nation of self starters, people satisfied in their work, we need to move beyond this relic from the Post-War Era. The individual who wants to teach at the community college and do freelance translating or be something outside the bourgeois norm is not a drain on society. That individual may put in just as many hours as the executive covered by his employer, but his work does not come with the insurance package offered at a corporation, thus he is at the mercy of insurance companies who are often and, quite accurately, portrayed as predators.

It is no surprise that other rich, capitalist nations who enjoy freedom, such as Australia, have recognized this, thus, the Australian is not bound to unsatisfactory employment should he be the bearer of a pre-existing condition. He is free to work whatever job he wishes. Unfortunately, such self realization is often lost on many Americans who would respond to such a fact with, "well, if you think Australia is so great, go and move there and die under socialism!" Notwithstanding the immense difficulties involved in immigrating to another continent and the fact that that continent is by no means socialist according to the actual definition of the word, it should be remembered that a genuinely patriotic person looks at what is wrong with his society and analyzes ways to rectify the problem.

America is indeed a great nation, ranking number one in a multitude of categories, but this is one area that could conceivably retard our progress as a society. We need to sever the link between employment and insurance. Our employer is not responsible for our car insurance, home insurance or even pet insurance, so the union is incomprehensible.

Severing this link can lead to a multitude of individuals starting their own small businesses, working remotely, working two part-time jobs they love or simply turning their passion into their employment. The time has come to abandon this relic of another age. To have a competitive edge in the free market, we need to stop expecting that employers provide insurance and look for ways to either make private insurance accessible and affordable for those with pre-existing conditions or let the private insurance companies compete with a public option, just the same as private universities, high schools and other entities have their public counterparts.

Let us hope that "job lock" will be an embarassing part of our past and remembered with regret for just how much it limited the very opportunities with which we should associate this nation, that of job freedom and autonomy.