Should companies continue to provide health insurance to their employees?
Most people are fortunate enough to have health insurance coverage through their employment with a particular company.

A typical family policy cost about $129.00 per month in 1999. By 2007, the same policy increased by 70% to $273.00 per month.

The increase has mainly been caused by the soaring costs of premiums. And, with these consistent hikes, it is highly unlikely that companies will be in a position to continue to pay their employee's insurance premiums.

Those employees hardest hit are the lower-income workforces. A typical family policy offered by employers costs roughly $12,100.00 per year. The average share that an employee makes on this company-offered policy is approximately $3,200.00 per year; for a family salary of $40,000.00 per year, that's about 8% of their pre-tax income, not including deductibles or co-payments!

According to a recently released survey, the nation's largest companies continue to move away from traditional pension plans, offering new employees defined accounts like 401(k)'s only.
Companies that have made this change require employees to play a major role in funding their retirement savings.

Other companies have been testing hybrid types of benefit plans (cash benefit plan), whereby a guaranteed benefit is offered but long-time employees are generally provided with less in accrued benefits than the traditional pension program.

In fact, there are differing views on which direction the country should move: 

- Should people buy their own policies, armed with tax deductions or credits, through the private market?

- Should insurance be purchased, with some oversight by the Government, through exchanges (regardless of where or if person works, or has medical condition)?

It is criticized that the current system grants tax breaks to corporations offering insurance to their employees, whilst enabling those workers receiving coverage to receive tax-free benefits.
Unfortunately, at the same time, if you are a member of the low-income workforce not only do you not get insurance through your job, you are also not entitled to a tax break.

Some of the plans are likely to encourage employers to drop coverage altogether as they don't want to lose all, or a percentage, of their "write-off insurance as a business expense" ability.
Perhaps, an alternative could be that employers drop insurance coverage for their employees but offer them salaries high enough to compensate for the fact that they need to purchase their own insurance. 

If Exchanges were created, and health insurance was available that was a combination of affordable coverage, and a government-subsidized program, then maybe people with medical conditions would not find it difficult to get insurance coverage; insurers would not fear that people only wait until the eleventh hour when they really need the health care coverage to purchase it, and people need not suffer unnecessarily because they do not feel they have any insurance options.

Either way, with more companies declining to offer their employees insurance, problems are sure to increase with the number of people struggling to get coverage; especially those with existing health problems.

The employment market is changing; jobs are more flexible, and in some cases more short-term. New ideas , and major effort needs to be generated in order to revamp the system. Our working world has been altered from that of our parents and grandparents. 

Federal Legislation is inevitable, though it is not likely to happen soon; at least not until after the next Presidential election in November 2008. 

"Your" Money Matters, by Carl Hampton 
From the Author of "From Credit Despair To Credit Millionaire."