SumDay
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,862
Why your boss is dumping your wife
- Thread starter SumDay
- Start date
Live And Learn
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Yeah, this a fear of mine as I am covered under DH's healthcare plan. He's a low wage earner so I have a bigger fear that his employer may completely drop coverage. I have full freight Obamacare premiums plus 7k for OOP costs in my budget. I'm hoping that I really dont end up paying all that.
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
My previous Megacorp made the stipulation that working spouses of employees had to enroll in their employers HC plans in the early 90's, and many others have too. Obviously it did not apply where the spouse was not employed, or employed by a firm without HC - but you couldn't choose based on which was cheaper where both spouses had HC available from their respective employers.
And while it's inconvenient and unfortunate, it's understandable. It was easier to see on the local level, where small employers a) made sure their plans were more expensive to employees than other employers in town (to induce them to use the other employers HC), b) having no health care (to induce them to use other employers HC), or c) flat out asking employees to enroll on their spouses plans. Companies had to do something to avoid bearing more than their share of HC costs, it puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
If there's a "fairer" approach, what would it be? I'm amazed that any companies don't do this to control their costs...
And while it's inconvenient and unfortunate, it's understandable. It was easier to see on the local level, where small employers a) made sure their plans were more expensive to employees than other employers in town (to induce them to use the other employers HC), b) having no health care (to induce them to use other employers HC), or c) flat out asking employees to enroll on their spouses plans. Companies had to do something to avoid bearing more than their share of HC costs, it puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
If there's a "fairer" approach, what would it be? I'm amazed that any companies don't do this to control their costs...
Last edited:
Healthcare and employment have nothing in common, and as long as one depends upon the other, inequitable outcomes will always be one result. The sooner the two are totally separate, the better, and also the easier it will be to reform healthcare.
travelover
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 14,328
+1M
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
+1002, no argument there...
FinanceDude
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 12,483
And so it begins.........
jazz4cash
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Mega corp pays $80/mo to induce employees to use a spouse's coverage. I believe their annual cost/employee is something like $15k and I am surprised they have not offered a more attractive offset.
meierlde
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Actually if you think about it paying a higher amount for family health care coverage for a worker than if he is single by a company does not really coincide with any reasonable definition of an employees worth. It is rather a company subsidy encouraging some behaviors such as having children. I see companies moving to saying that if you want to cover a spouse your contribution towards health insurance increases.
I remember a time when American business favored the family man (and back then, they were surely and utterly favoring the 'man'). Now, American business is much more aiming to attract and utilize the young, single firecracker, and when he (because even today, there is still an advantage to being a man) burns out or settles down, turn favor to the next young, single firecracker. There are still some employers, I'm sure, who care about the employees that drive the engine that causes the business to prosper, but increasingly employees are simply going to be viewed as unreliable and costly resources, to be exploited when possible, used otherwise, and discarded when a better supplier of the resource is available. I see the whole labor market becoming like one big Kleenex box.
audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
So add $65 to the employee's portion to pay for spousal coverage?
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I may misunderstand your view, every company I worked for had several rates. Used to be single or family. By the time I retired there were three, single, single+one, and family (3 or more).meierlde said:
Last edited:
Prob very wise planning. Always prudent to OVER- vs under-budget critical items.
I retired from the Federal government and I had the family plan, even though it was just my DH and me. Your only choice is single or family. My friend and her DH are both Federal retirees and they both chose the single policy, since 2 singles are cheaper than the family. I have recently added my 24 year old daughter back on my plan. She was without health insurance when her DH's ended his 6 year Navy obligation. He is doing contractor IT work for a museum in CA and works from home. He is without health insurance now and he is checking into a program to get it through the VA since he was in Afghanistan while serving and he is low income.
Forgot to say, that I work 3 days per week at a doctor's office. There are 4 employees plus the doctor. The office manager works 4 days per week and the other office employees work 3 days per week. We are not offered any health insurance. My friend and I are both Fed retirees and have our own health insurance and the other 2 are covered under their DH's health insurance plan.
The office manager was talking to a patient who works at a dental office and they were saying they did not know what small businesses were going to do because of the new health care act. The person working at the dental office was saying her employer was going to cut back employees hours, so that they would not have to cover them. I mentioned how ironic it was that when patient's come to see our doctor, we expect them to have health insurance or to be able to pay themselves. The majority of our patients are elderly and are on Medicare. If they did not have the health insurance, many if not most of our patients would not be able to see the doctor. Their conversation regarding health insurance ended quickly.
The office manager was talking to a patient who works at a dental office and they were saying they did not know what small businesses were going to do because of the new health care act. The person working at the dental office was saying her employer was going to cut back employees hours, so that they would not have to cover them. I mentioned how ironic it was that when patient's come to see our doctor, we expect them to have health insurance or to be able to pay themselves. The majority of our patients are elderly and are on Medicare. If they did not have the health insurance, many if not most of our patients would not be able to see the doctor. Their conversation regarding health insurance ended quickly.
Last edited:
travelover
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 14,328
Good point. If everyone bought their own health insurance, it would be pretty crazy to pay one employee considerably more than another just because that employee had a big family.
Ironically, when I was growing up, my mother was paid less than a man's wage as a school teacher because women didn't "need" the money.
Healthcare, and retirement savings. Where you work should not be the deciding factor for where you get your health care and where/how you save for retirement. A majority of companies quickly threw their original employee retirement strategies (pensions) under the bus, and I suspect that it will be the same with healthcare.
Why should affordable health coverage availability, and the quality of your healthcare be dependent on your employer. Currently, buying individual or family coverage on the open market suffers due to a large percentage of the population being on some form of work related group policy. I had one employer start charging me more money for covering my wife than an married guy (or single head of household) with a family when they changed providers. Our ages (mid 50s) was the discriminating factor, but the bracket was labeled employee and spouse only. I bought her a better individual policy at less money (and this was a fairly large company).
We retired early and purchase individual health insurance policies. If you haven't had the pleasure of doing this, I can tell you the guys that cover you in a group can really turn on you when you go to purchase. We're not talking just money here....
Last edited:
W2R
Moderator Emeritus
Now you are making me feel old! Back in the 1960's, I was put in charge of an office and eventually a typist was hired as my assistant. Despite the fact that the typist was brand new, he earned twice what I was earning, plus, he was a hunt-and-peck typist whereas my typing was decent so I was doing a lot of his job. When I mentioned the wage disparity to my boss, he told me that the typist was a man and needed the money. The typist was single, as I was, so that didn't make much sense to me but back in those days that sort of weirdness was still not that uncommon.
Mulligan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,343
W2R said:
Now, W2R, quit playing dumb. You knew back then the man was still supposed to "sow his oats" for awhile, and thus needed the cash, while you should have been married already. That wasn't the companies fault!
Seriously though, I hope we get so far removed from what happened to you, in a few years when you are telling that story to a teenager, they will think you made that "crazy story"up.Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
Spanky
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Our company charges $100 / month for spousal coverage.
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Several members seem to be mistaking employee premiums for total cost of health care, the latter is what businesses understandably care about, premiums are usually trivial by comparison.
Incidentally the same mistake most of the general population makes (seeing premiums and out of pocket costs as all there is). If more people understood what health care really costs them, there would be much more of an uproar...
Incidentally the same mistake most of the general population makes (seeing premiums and out of pocket costs as all there is). If more people understood what health care really costs them, there would be much more of an uproar...
Last edited:
rbmrtn
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Yes, that is the issue with saying " Don't worry about it, it's free, the insurance will pay for it.". It's the reason we have waiting rooms full of people that don't even really need to see a doctor. In many cases we are over "doctored".
Similar threads
