Open enrollment... health insurance cost based on pay

[Kanil 520]

So my company merged with two other companies in June and they announced that our benefits would be changing. Long story short, they've decided that the company contribution towards your health insurance will be based on pay. People with higher salaries get less and vice versa. Anyone else work for a company that does this?

 

I have two feelings on it myself. I have 26 people that report through me and 70%ish are in their mid 20s, really just starting out in their careers and families. I don't mind subsidizing them so much as the other 30% who have had more than enough time to get a position of higher pay but just haven't. That bugs me.

 

Ultimately, just due to the size of our company quadrupling = buying power, I'll end up with a better plan for slightly higher cost (talking an extra $40/month) so I'm not too concerned.

[porkbutt 891]

i thought you libtards loved socialism?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Think of it as a tax.

[Kanil 520]

i thought you libtards loved socialism?

 

You don't know me, sir.

[bandrus1 413]

isnt socialism.... its the growing culture of corporations finding ways to not foot the bill for health insurance

[lickin_starfish 1,787]

Think of it as a pentaly for being successful.

[mobb_deep 919]

Think of it as a pentaly for being successful.

Or you could look at it as a penalty for being old. Old people generally make more money than young people and generally have poorer health. As it stands, young people already subsidize old people, when it relates to health care. At least this relieves some of that burden.

[lickin_starfish 1,787]

How much do welfies contribute to ease the health care burden?

[mobb_deep 919]

I have no idea what a welfie is?

[TBayXXXVII 2,396]

Or you could look at it as a penalty for being old. Old people generally make more money than young people and generally have poorer health. As it stands, young people already subsidize old people, when it relates to health care. At least this relieves some of that burden.

 

That's not completely true. Define "young"? Also, define "old people". People under the age of 27 can be under their parents insurance still, so they're not really paying, mom and dad (approximate age range of 45-55), are. So in those cases, if the "young"/"more healthy" are not that expensive, the older folks cost is getting spread out over the cheaper cost ages. Those who aren't under their parents health care are more likely to be entering a time where they're about to really hit that healthcare tab with children. Young/married people are about as expensive as older people when you consider the cost of having children. Just the cost of the actual birth of 1 child is approximate $10k-$15k. That's not counting costs prior to delivery and costs of checkups and what not for both mom and the baby over the baby's first year. That's a LOT of money. I think that the number of "young people", not covered under their parents insure nor married with children between ages of 18-29 are extremely low.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That's not completely true. Define "young"? Also, define "old people". People under the age of 27 can be under their parents insurance still, so they're not really paying, mom and dad (approximate age range of 45-55), are. .

Once they turn 26, they are on their own for insurance

[Strike 4,815]

Once they turn 26, they are on their own for insurance

Wow he was off by a year. Thanks for correcting such a HUGE error on his part. That totally changed his point.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Wow he was off by a year. Thanks for correcting such a HUGE error on his part. That totally changed his point.

I didnt say it was a huge error. It was an error, though. Blow me.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Or you could look at it as a penalty for being old. Old people generally make more money than young people and generally have poorer health. As it stands, young people already subsidize old people, when it relates to health care. At least this relieves some of that burden.

Taxes aren't based on age, they are based on wealth. And he already said there are people his age who are less successful, so they pay less. This old/young thing doesn't compute.

[TBayXXXVII 2,396]

Once they turn 26, they are on their own for insurance

 

Correct. And isn't that the age where most people are getting married and starting families shortly thereafter?

 

I believe I read that the average woman is 27 and guy is 29. For kids, women is 28 and men 30.

[mobb_deep 919]

Mine went up again.

 

307 per pay period this year.

 

323 per pay period next year.

 

Thanks Trump.

[mcgruber 17]

My company has been doing this for two years, but this year they even stepped it up more. Before it was two brackets, and this year 4. I had a really big problem with it at first, but I really don't mind now. I've built relationships with a lot of the "lower income" people in my building and a majority of them work two jobs, work a ton of overtime, or work all day and go home and take care of their kids (and their kids kids). I don't mind helping these few out with health care. They help me every day with the tasks I don't want to do. In fact, I feel good that I can do something extra to help them out to take a little more money home. At least these people are here working and not just living off welfare and government handouts.

 

For what it's worth, my costs have gone up very little while the lower brackets costs have dropped drastically, so I don't think it's just a way for corporations to foot the bill.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

TBayXXXVII, on 02 Nov 2018 - 12:12 PM, said:

Correct. And isn't that the age where most people are getting married and starting families shortly thereafter?

 

I believe I read that the average woman is 27 and guy is 29. For kids, women is 28 and men 30.

They start getting married after 26 on average with that age increasing over the last 20+ years as people delay in getting married.

 

I am not sure that I follow your premise completely. Yes, people start having kids and the birth of kids (along with a variety of other events) does cost a lot of money. I do believe those costs pale in comparison to the costs of being older as you get into all of the cancer screenings, medications, etc.

 

The reality is that the insurance companies have great statisticians who figure out what their costs are and what they pass on to consumers. They don't lose in this deal. The ACA and other legislation has done nothing to address costs that are out of control. Some needs to come in the form of tort reform while we do have to deal with pharmaceutical companies & hospitals gouging consumers.

[TBayXXXVII 2,396]

Mine went up again.

 

307 per pay period this year.

 

323 per pay period next year.

 

Thanks Trump.

 

Yeah, mine went up this past year too... it may also go up next year. If that's all I said, then yes, one could think that it's all Trump's fault. Unless I told you that it went up every year, by a larger percent from 2008 to 2016... which it did. In 2008, my cost for health care was $87 (per pay period - twice a month). In 2016, it was $234, during Obama's last year. It's now $247, after 2 full years of Trump.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yeah, mine went up this past year too... it may also go up next year. If that's all I said, then yes, one could think that it's all Trump's fault. Unless I told you that it went up every year, by a larger percent from 2008 to 2016... which it did. In 2008, my cost for health care was $87 (per pay period - twice a month). In 2016, it was $234, during Obama's last year. It's now $247, after 2 full years of Trump.

It will continue to rise as we have an aging population as well. I think that we could fix the cost problem by doing 2 things:

- if you are uninsured, then you can be denied service. Maybe just have a hole that drops the person into a pit of fire if they aren't insured.

- kill off the old people. First sign of breaking down, we just give you the blue juice. Not painful, but keeping all of these Crypt Keeper wannabe's around is expensive.

[TBayXXXVII 2,396]

They start getting married after 26 on average with that age increasing over the last 20+ years as people delay in getting married.

 

I am not sure that I follow your premise completely. Yes, people start having kids and the birth of kids (along with a variety of other events) does cost a lot of money. I do believe those costs pale in comparison to the costs of being older as you get into all of the cancer screenings, medications, etc.

 

The reality is that the insurance companies have great statisticians who figure out what their costs are and what they pass on to consumers. They don't lose in this deal. The ACA and other legislation has done nothing to address costs that are out of control. Some needs to come in the form of tort reform while we do have to deal with pharmaceutical companies & hospitals gouging consumers.

 

Again, we need a definition of "old people". Most of the costs that you're referring to are to people over 60. Those people don't always have the bigger income. People retire in their 60's and are on fixed incomes. You also have to understand that people who are 60 also don't have that great of nest eggs when you factor in inflation. They also probably didn't have all that high of salaries either. If you're talking about "young people" paying for them, then you must have a significantly high like 26-59. At that point, why about "young people" paying for "old people", Simply, young people pay for old people. When the old people were young, they paid for the old. Now it's our turn. One day, it'll be the young people paying for us. I see no reason to complain about it.

 

To me, the best way to run health care is to have no medical insurance at all. The only exception is medicare because the 65+ people don't all have a stable income. If doctors want to make money, they'll have to be competitive with their prices. Capitalism is at it's best when everyone is a part of it. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies have nothing to worry about when insurance is around because they know they're going to get paid. If they have to compete for customers (patients), they'll have to lower their prices and make the cost more affordable.

[TBayXXXVII 2,396]

It will continue to rise as we have an aging population as well. I think that we could fix the cost problem by doing 2 things:

- if you are uninsured, then you can be denied service. Maybe just have a hole that drops the person into a pit of fire if they aren't insured.

- kill off the old people. First sign of breaking down, we just give you the blue juice. Not painful, but keeping all of these Crypt Keeper wannabe's around is expensive.

 

"It will continue to rise as we have an aging population as well."

 

I personally don't have a problem with this. The only time where I have a problem with medical insurance is where companies offer plans to their employees where the burden is equally placed on everyone... but not really. Meaning, if my company pays 80% of the healthcare bill and the employees pay 20%, that's fine as long as any increases are going up relative to their pay. But when that 20% is mostly being picked up by the lower tiered plans, because those people make less money, that I have a problem with.

 

Where my nephew works, he's 25 years old and he was paying $36 per week for medical (single, no kids). Then, his company was forced to increase the employees share because costs went too high. Well, what happened was, he went from paying $36 to $56 per week (55% increase), while people who got the "more expensive plan", their cost went from (for family), $240 per week to $260 (8% increase). To me, that's bull crap. That's spreading the cost evenly... without spreading it out evenly.

[mobb_deep 919]

Yeah, mine went up this past year too... it may also go up next year. If that's all I said, then yes, one could think that it's all Trump's fault. Unless I told you that it went up every year, by a larger percent from 2008 to 2016... which it did. In 2008, my cost for health care was $87 (per pay period - twice a month). In 2016, it was $234, during Obama's last year. It's now $247, after 2 full years of Trump.

I don't think it's Trumps fault. I'm just following the playbook from the last decade. I'm a Jon Gruden type poster. Need to update my playbook, before I lose to the San Francisco Transniners.