PxlDan

According to an AP story, about 60 percent of Americans have job based insurance, about 7 percent purchase individual policies and the rest are uninsured. That 7 percent who purchase coverage directly from the insurer find the cost to be quite high, in part due to the fact that insurers spend a significant amount of money to insure only the healthiest people [article].

Most artists know the high-cost of individual health care coverage all too well. In general, artists are 3.5 times more likely to be self-employed and earn less than others with similar educational levels.

Recently the NEA reported that Artists are unemployed at twice the rate of other industries. With a slumping economy effecting the arts and ancillary professions, artists have been hearing that their work is a luxury item.

However, for many artists, health insurance is a luxury item.

Some artist take on a second job for the health benefits or may be lucky enough to be covered under their spouses job. However, those who are not face the prohibitively high costs of individual coverage. Costs that are even higher if they have a pre-existing condition - that is if they aren't denied altogether.

Earlier this week, the health insurance industry offered to end their policy of charging higher rates for individuals who are ill. A policy that is considered responsible for millions of Americans being uninsured.

So why is the health insurance industry suddenly willing to reverse the policy? Under increasing pressure from an Obama administration and Congress is the insurance industry really ready to make meaningful concessions?

The truth is, the industry knows that a national health care system would be a direct competitor. Offering to make insurance available to all Americans seems like an altruistic step forward  - but is it enough to convince congress that the private sector is willing to reach out to the 45.7 million Americans that up to now they considered untouchables?

The WSJ quotes Cigna Corp. Chief Executive H. Edward Hanway as saying "I think that if we as an industry are willing to make substantial changes, then the need to have a public plan is extremely questionable".

I think a public plan is past due. This industry offer would seem to be an attempt to influence lawmakers and water down a government run plan that could potentially undercut private insurer profits. As momentum builds towards a national policy we may see more increasingly desperate 'hail mary' attempts at proving that the private sector can fix the ailing system -  and successfully scuttle talks of reform like they did 15 years ago.

As it stands now, The current proposal would seem to be too little, too late. Ending the policy of charging those who are ill higher rates is a good start. But, until insurance is actually affordable, we're not quite there - and we can't expect the health-insurance industry to cave on every point. Even this current proposal has provisions and loopholes.  For one, higher health status pricing for their insurance coverage would end only if congress mandated that all Americans to purchase insurance (at what rate?), and higher rates would still apply for a number of population segments - including older americans.

A doctor once gave me an early lesson in how the insurance industry works. Knowing I was an uninsured student at the time he handed me my medication and told me he would not keep a record of the diagnoses so it wouldn't effect me when trying to get insurance later. In my adult life as an artist and entrepreneur, I have been lucky enough to be able to afford individual coverage for myself and my family, but I recently experienced insurer rejection when trying to join my wife and child under one plan (my wife is also self-employed). Not going to happen thanks to my own medical history.

Aside from good health, our current insurance system also requires steady employment to participate - but an artists income tends to be rather sporadic. An eight week theater run, a music gig, commissioned work, seasonal art festivals, etc.

Too many of our creative colleagues are not insured or are finding it difficult to carry the minimal insurance they have. Artists at all stages of their careers struggle to make a living - a struggles made worse by a sagging art economy.

In the U.S. there is no individual grants for artists at the federal level and although a number of non-profit organizations are available to assist financially struggling artists,  very few of them make preventative health care their mission. Affordable health care would benefit all Americans, artists included.

There are 1 Comments for Artists would Benefit from a National Health Plan

Add A Comment

Name:

Email:

URL:

Message:

Performing Spam Check