Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wachovia health-benefits premiums tiered in price, Higher the salary, the higher the employees' cost
Winston-Salem Journal ^ | November 12, 2004

Posted on 11/12/2004 2:16:04 PM PST by Between the Lines

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Alberta's Child
they charge higher ATM fees to non-customers than any other bank in the area I live.

"non-customers"?
Funny, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

61 posted on 11/12/2004 3:34:15 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Seems to me the real problem is that you would be content with paying $100.00 more than another person for the same services. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, even if your budget won't be affected... It would be best as someone else pointed out to pay the lower-level employees a LIVING wage from which they could pay their insurance, and a NORMAL wage to those higher paid employees who have all this extra money to burn...
62 posted on 11/12/2004 3:39:43 PM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I work for a mega insurance company. They do something similar. Deductibles and out of pocket maximums are tiered based on salary. It's like a punishment for being successful!


63 posted on 11/12/2004 3:41:40 PM PST by OrangeDaisy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

the insurance is just set as a percentage of pay - not communist.

Fair? --- just like taxes.


64 posted on 11/12/2004 3:57:59 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Look at the larger picture here:
If the Upper Management decide to opt out for the cash vs.
coverage, and buy their own plan.
The rates on the Lower employees will increase to where they can no longer afford them.

Perhaps that is the plan!

I personally think that it should be even across the board.
Why punish the one who has moved up in ranks with the company. Did they not pay for their education, and experience to climb to their current Job Level.

Why is it if your successful, then you have to punished for that success?


65 posted on 11/12/2004 4:41:38 PM PST by GARealtor (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

No, it's a descriptive parable, not a prescriptive one.

In addition, God has unlimited "wages" he can pay (regardless of your opinion on what the "wages" are analagous to). Corporations definitely do not have unlimited resources to provide health care for their employees.

Two more points: first, the commands in the Bible are to believers and churches, not corporations.

Second, God only honors giving done out of love, not mandatory giving.

Thus, any analogy of that parable to this story is completely wrong and out of context.


66 posted on 11/12/2004 5:34:48 PM PST by freedomcrusader (Proudly wearing the politically incorrect label "crusader" since 1/29/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

If I go out tomorrow and buy a new car for $30,000, I won't get all bent out of shape if I find out that someone else paid only $29,500. If the $30,000 car was acceptable for me before I found out about his extra $500 discount, then it ought to be OK afterward, too.


67 posted on 11/12/2004 5:55:14 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I'm in an unusual situation; I'm a "non-customer" at every bank, due to my circumstances.


68 posted on 11/12/2004 5:56:47 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader

You are describing this case from the perspective of the employer. I agree with everything you've posted in that regard, but my whole point was made from the perspective of an employee who believes he is being "wronged" in some way just because he's being asked to pay more than someone else.


69 posted on 11/12/2004 6:00:10 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
. . . the commands in the Bible are to believers and churches, not corporations.

I'd also add that the parable in question is directed not at "believers" and "churches" in question, but at the early followers of Christ who were Jewish converts -- to illustrate that these converts held no different a place in the eyes of God than the Gentiles who became Christians (the laborers who were called to the vineyard late in the day) even though they were never part of the "Chosen People."

70 posted on 11/12/2004 6:03:50 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

It sounds to me like employees at Wachovia aren't being asked, it's either pay more or you're on your own.

I'd have no problem if they were asked to pay more but had the opportunity to decline and pay the same.


71 posted on 11/12/2004 6:45:21 PM PST by freedomcrusader (Proudly wearing the politically incorrect label "crusader" since 1/29/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I'd much rather see a company system where if an employee is 20% overweight, has 25% excess body fat, smokes, or engages in any lifestyle considered as high risk, they're charged premiums accordingly - much like the smoker and life insurance premiums...


72 posted on 11/12/2004 6:53:31 PM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader

The employer is simply asking the employees to pick up some of the increases in their compensation that the employer has no control over. I don't think that's beyond reason here . . . and we're not talking about slaves; the employees are free to take their skills and talents elsewhere whenever they please.


73 posted on 11/12/2004 8:54:31 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If I pay $300 a month for my insurance and I'm quite content with that, what difference does it make if someone else is only paying $200?

So if you were charged $2.50 for gas, yet someone else is charge $1.80 only because they make less money, would that be fair?

74 posted on 11/13/2004 7:46:08 AM PST by Between the Lines ("Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: steplock
the insurance is just set as a percentage of pay - not communist. Fair? --- just like taxes.

Your argument that the insurance plan is fair because it is just like our unfair tax system doesn't work.

75 posted on 11/13/2004 7:51:24 AM PST by Between the Lines ("Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

I always have the option of buying my gas somewhere else, don't I?


76 posted on 11/13/2004 7:57:45 AM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
It shouls also be pointed out, BTW, that the case in this story is not the same as a gas station charging different customers different prices. A better example would be this:

Suppose the gas station charges $2.00 per gallon. Your company agrees to reimburse you $1.25 per gallon and to reimburse your lower-paid co-workers $1.50 per gallon. You can complain about it all you want, but when you realize that you are getting a gallon of gas for $0.75 you understand just how idiotic your objections are.

77 posted on 11/13/2004 8:23:29 AM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Once again, they're not asking.

I agree that they have other options. Fortunately, they don't even have to quit their job. Thanks to the brilliance of Dubya, those highly compensated employees can just open a Health Savings Account.


78 posted on 11/13/2004 12:22:48 PM PST by freedomcrusader (Proudly wearing the politically incorrect label "crusader" since 1/29/2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Maybe, but the last interview I went to I was offered one insurance option - yes or no... There are no other gas stations (and btw, if one gas station charges based on income what makes you think that the other stations won't know you make more and charge you the higher amount too?)


79 posted on 11/13/2004 6:15:53 PM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

It's a private company and they can do what they want. I like it.


80 posted on 11/13/2004 6:16:55 PM PST by Hildy (The really great men are always simple and true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson