Posted on 11/12/2004 2:16:04 PM PST by Between the Lines
A very good point! It is already cheaper for me to have a private policy as opposed to my company's plan. If you live in a state that allows co-op health insurance, check it out. I pay about 3/4 of what I would through my company.
Yes and yes.
The way group insurance rates are calculated this can't happen. It's cheaper to insure employees of a company than it is to insure individuals because you can get an experience rating from the group that you can't get from individuals. That's why president Bush is pushing for small business to band together to buy insurance.
You have made a very good argument for a flat tax.
It would be better for the entire medical issue for a low income employee to be able to afford insurance rather than have no insurance and go to the emergency room...that is what drives up premiums/cost for all.
That would be from all the cafeteria workers, I assume.
It's not subsidizing, it's a volume discount
Actually uninsured hospital visits are paid mostly by the county government. There is a percentage not covered that the hospital would have to absorb.
The biggest reason for soaring health care costs is that everyone thinks that every doctor visit for however minor an illness or injury should be paid by the insurance company. If we went back to only major medical expenses being covered by insurance many more would be able to easily afford insurance.
Let's suppose I work for Wachovia, and my insurance plan costs a total of $900 per month ($600 paid by the company, $300 paid by me). While I probably won't be able to get an identical individual policy cheaper, I could certainly find one that suits my needs for less money. (Remember -- we're talking about high-salary employees here.)
What if I shopped around and found an individual policy with a high annual deductible of $5,000 or so, and could get this policy for only $500 per month? Here's what I would do . . . go to Wachovia and tell them that they could save themselves $200 every month by giving me a monthly bonus of $400 in lieu of their insurance coverage. I then take the $400 they give me, add it to the $300 I used to pay as my employee contribution, and buy myself the individual policy for $500 -- which leaves me $200 to spare. Even if you assume that I lose $100 to taxes, I still get that $100 to put aside to apply to future deductibles.
Wish they had done this when I worked for them...
Hahahahahahahahaha! A company paying you for not using their insurance plan. Thanks for the laugh.
As a highly paid employee of a large financial institution, I have to say I wouldn't object to this (within reason). We have excellent medical benefits, and they are increasingly costing the company an arm and a leg, due to forces beyond the company's control. I'd rather subsidize the lower paid employees, and thus retain both the excellent benefits and the best of the lower paid employees. As long as it's a private company doing this, I don't see it as reflecting "Communist ideals". None of us are being forced to work here, and any time we don't find our overall compensation package and working conditions (which includes competent support staff) to be satisfactory, we are free to leave and work elsewhere.
I get a $50 per month benefit credit regardless of whether I use it towards health insurance.
If I don't buy my employer's health insurance plan, I get an extra $50 per month (pre tax).
That's an awful lot like my employer paying me for not using their insurance plan, if it's not the very thing.
The key, as I pointed out in my last post, is that under the right circumstances the employee can make the case that the employer will save money by NOT having the employee on the plan.
The parable of the vineyard owner -- who hires workers at different times of the day but pays them all the same at the end of the day (prompting outrage among those who started at dawn) -- comes to mind here.
When you analyze it, they wind up charging the older workers more for their health insurance as one typically makes the higher salary at a higher age. So, one could claim age discrimination as, in my opinion, that is exactly what it is.
Of course, it goes without saying, that the older workers have a higher claims level in nearly all cases.
Add a few more plans like this and you can look for the higher paid employees to leave first.
Good point. As long as the company is going through this process, they ought to do the following: 1) make the smokers pay more for their insurance, 2) give everyone an annual physical and make those who grade poorly pay more for their insurance, 3) check the driving records of all employees and make the bad drivers pay more, etc.
So we are to apply a parable meant to describe the kingdom of Heaven to corporate policy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.