Federal Aid Does Little For Free Trade's Losers

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Federal Aid Does Little For Free Trade's Losers
Health Subsidies Reach Few Laid-Off Workers; Hurdle for Bush Agenda
By DEBORAH SOLOMON
March 1, 2007; Page A1

GALAX, Va. -- For more than 80 years, the people of Webb Furniture crafted wooden dressers and other furniture here at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains. In January, under pressure from Chinese imports, Webb shuttered its Galax plant and fired all 309 employees. Tonya Graber lost more than her job painting furniture. The single mother also lost health insurance for herself and her 12-year-old son. Under a government program aimed at helping workers harmed by trade, Ms. Graber was eligible for federally subsidized health insurance, but she couldn't afford it.

She isn't alone. The Health Coverage Tax Credit, tucked into a 2002 trade bill to win support in Congress, is supposed to cushion the blow to factory workers hurt by imports by paying 65% of the cost of health insurance. (The subsidy is also available to workers whose companies have dumped their pension plans on the government's pension insurer.) More than four years after the program began, just 11% of those potentially eligible for the subsidy are taking it -- or about 28,000 of the roughly 250,000 people the government estimates may qualify in a given year.

(snip)

The problem is that compensation programs often add bureaucracy without helping many people. Even if the health-insurance assistance program were working well, it would aid only a fraction of those who lose their jobs. The Labor Department must certify that workers have lost their jobs to imports from certain countries or to a shift in production there. Most workers in call centers or other service industries whose jobs are sent overseas don't qualify.

Another struggling program is wage insurance, designed for workers over 50 who lose their jobs because of trade and then take a lower-paying job. The government makes up half the difference in wages, up to $10,000 a year, but it requires that workers prove they don't have "easily transferable skills." Some can't do that.

The issue: Should Washington give up on such programs, or should it expand them and try to make them work better? For the moment, people on both sides on Capitol Hill say President Bush will need to beef up programs for those hurt by imports if he wants congressional backing for new trade legislation.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117271508949822864.html (subscription)

[SoCalDem]

1. That's the dirty little secret

Sure, they "offer" you extended benefits when you lose your job, but most people cannot afford it, so it's an empty offer.

When we had to rely on COBRA for 18 months it was costing us almost $800 a month and that was in 1996.. I cannot even imagine what it would cost these days..:scared:

We could "afford" it, but barely :(

[onyourleft]

3. COBRA

We are currently on COBRA and it is costing us $867 a month. We are "affording" it because we have to and are currently living off of our savings. My greatest fear is not finding insurance when COBRA runs out in June, as I am probably not insurable. We have no job prospects in sight, what with my husband being one of those ill-educated individuals we all hear so much about (degrees in math and 25+ years in the computer industry). :(

[question everything]

5. You may want to look at private insurance

for either of you, like your local Blue Cross.

Most companies insurance are very generous, covering maternity and pediatrics and other treatments that most of us do not always need.

If you cannot be covered by one, talk to your state agency to see if you can join its pool for people like you, or what it would take to be covered by your state Medicaid. Do this before your COBRA expires.

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. We're all free trade losers

I fought the NAFTA fight and lost. American workers lost. Unions lost. The Democratic Party lost. November of 1993 was one of the saddest months of my life. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Richardson, Tom Foley, and a other dems stabbed us in the back. I will NEVER forget.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. If we're going to outsource jobs we need to be far more generous in our benefits

Trade hurts those who loser their jobs and it hurts them hard. It destroys entire communities. On the other hand, it saves American consumers and corporations a ton of money.

Economic analysis shows that Americans would still save money if we signed trade agreements but then raised taxes on the corporations and on people and had the government pay the workers' salaries whose jobs got outsourced for the rest of their life. So I propose that we do just that. If your job gets outsourced and you can't get find a job that pays as well as your old job, the government should just pay the difference for your salary and benefits for the rest of your life.