As the economy continues to founder, more and more folks find themselves "underemployed." That is, able to find a job or two, but only on a part-time basis. While that may, in fact, put food on the table and keep a roof over one's head, it creates another problem:
"Fewer workers say they have access to employer-sponsored health coverage."
That's because, in order to be eligible for group cover, one must consistently work a certain number of hours "on the job." So if you're racking up 20 hours at (for example) Fred's Shoes and another 20 at Joe's Cafe, that 40 total hours doesn't get you benefits at either place.
Here's another little clue that the reporterette missed, by the way:
"[E]ven when the unemployment rate fell between 2002 and 2005, it did not appear to have an impact on employer sponsorship of health plans"
Really? And what happened in 2010 that might have changed this calculus, Allison?
Here's a hint.
"Fewer workers say they have access to employer-sponsored health coverage."
That's because, in order to be eligible for group cover, one must consistently work a certain number of hours "on the job." So if you're racking up 20 hours at (for example) Fred's Shoes and another 20 at Joe's Cafe, that 40 total hours doesn't get you benefits at either place.
Here's another little clue that the reporterette missed, by the way:
"[E]ven when the unemployment rate fell between 2002 and 2005, it did not appear to have an impact on employer sponsorship of health plans"
Really? And what happened in 2010 that might have changed this calculus, Allison?
Here's a hint.
Posts
