tangomonster
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 757
I swear I'm not an apologist for large corporations or big business. I worked for a small nonprofit agency or government entity my entire career. I didn't feel that I was being paid what I was worth or that I was treated well, but my options were limited. I put up with it as long as I had to and escaped (FIREd!) when I could.
But a recent Newsweek article about Who Should Pay for Health Care Costs? had a quote from a worker who retired from Caterpillar after 35 years of building tractors. He is 65 years old and "is on the hook for $2400 a year in insurance premiums, plus hundreds of dollars more in deductibles and co-pays." This worker said "companies that are using up the lives of their workers are obligated for the health of those workers."
First of all, I don't see $2400 a year as being that bad. Don't know if Medicare is kicking in for him. DH and I would be thrilled to be paying $2400 a year now---we are paying $12,000 a year at 53! And my deductible is $10K; DH's is $2500---so we pay thousands, not just hundreds like this guy, for deductibles and co-pays.
But what really gets me is the mindset that his employer should be paying completely for any health expense. While I do think (and pray) that the health care system is changed, I see nothing wrong with paying something for our own health care costs. $2400 is not chicken feed, but I bet this man comes up with his annual cable premiums or vacations or whatever he would rather spend his money on.
And to say that companies "use up" the lives of their workers somehow doesn't ring true to me. Yes, all workers age while working. They would age and their lives would be "used up" even if they weren't working. And as much as we pay post about what's wrong with j*bs on this board, they are a necessity for most people. And it certainly isn't a one-sided relationship. Yes, workers give their time and their skills, but they are compensated for it. In this person's case, he probably was very well-compensated for work that may not have been all that highly skilled. While I could see why veterans deserve lifelong health care for their service (placing their lives and health on the line, typically at lower salaries than other workers), I just can't agree with an employer owing a worker forever after. It seems as if both worker and employer voluntarily entered into a contract which both felt was of mutual benefit. Had the worker been able to support himself without working or in a different job, he was free to do so.
I do realize that employers did promise retirement health benefits, so that's a different story when they reneg on it (but how could they have predicted that health care costs would rise to this extent?).
Maybe I'm just jealous that the jobs I worked in did not give me a pension or health care benefits after retirement.
What are your thoughts about this?
But a recent Newsweek article about Who Should Pay for Health Care Costs? had a quote from a worker who retired from Caterpillar after 35 years of building tractors. He is 65 years old and "is on the hook for $2400 a year in insurance premiums, plus hundreds of dollars more in deductibles and co-pays." This worker said "companies that are using up the lives of their workers are obligated for the health of those workers."
First of all, I don't see $2400 a year as being that bad. Don't know if Medicare is kicking in for him. DH and I would be thrilled to be paying $2400 a year now---we are paying $12,000 a year at 53! And my deductible is $10K; DH's is $2500---so we pay thousands, not just hundreds like this guy, for deductibles and co-pays.
But what really gets me is the mindset that his employer should be paying completely for any health expense. While I do think (and pray) that the health care system is changed, I see nothing wrong with paying something for our own health care costs. $2400 is not chicken feed, but I bet this man comes up with his annual cable premiums or vacations or whatever he would rather spend his money on.
And to say that companies "use up" the lives of their workers somehow doesn't ring true to me. Yes, all workers age while working. They would age and their lives would be "used up" even if they weren't working. And as much as we pay post about what's wrong with j*bs on this board, they are a necessity for most people. And it certainly isn't a one-sided relationship. Yes, workers give their time and their skills, but they are compensated for it. In this person's case, he probably was very well-compensated for work that may not have been all that highly skilled. While I could see why veterans deserve lifelong health care for their service (placing their lives and health on the line, typically at lower salaries than other workers), I just can't agree with an employer owing a worker forever after. It seems as if both worker and employer voluntarily entered into a contract which both felt was of mutual benefit. Had the worker been able to support himself without working or in a different job, he was free to do so.
I do realize that employers did promise retirement health benefits, so that's a different story when they reneg on it (but how could they have predicted that health care costs would rise to this extent?).
Maybe I'm just jealous that the jobs I worked in did not give me a pension or health care benefits after retirement.
What are your thoughts about this?