Do you have health insurance?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Cutlery

Cutlery

Kill All the White People
<Gold Donor>
7,004
20,971
Tarrant_sl said:
On a related note, my wife refuses to see any other eye doctor then the one shes been going to all her life. If she went to one within my network her contacts would be free...but because she wont see anyone else I'm stuck footing a $232 bill for them.

So annoying.
Click to expand...
Buy contacts at Costco or Sams. You don't need to buy them from the eye doctor. I get one box from my eye doc every year (because it's covered by the annual amount I get for lenses) then take the scrip to Costco and get the other 3 at half the price.

I get it though. I won't see any dentist other than the one I grew up with. Good thing the guy was like 20 when I was born, he'll be around awhile.
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,435
3,380
When my wife didn't have vision insurance she went to Wal Mart... it was like $150 for an exam and a years supply of contacts which she stretched to two years.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,896
9,295
Yeah I've been trying to tell her that but "omg its from walmart, walmart is trash" even though its the same exact thing.

-sigh- It's a work in progess, I'll get there eventually.
 
Cutlery

Cutlery

Kill All the White People
<Gold Donor>
7,004
20,971
Tarrant_sl said:
Yeah I've been trying to tell her that but "omg its from walmart, walmart is trash" even though its the same exact thing.

-sigh- It's a work in progess, I'll get there eventually.
Click to expand...
No no, not walmart. Walmart is trash, she's right.

Costco.
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,435
3,380
Yeah, she only went to Wal-Mart because we weren't Costco members yet. The experience was fine though and the contacts were the same she would have gotten anyways.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,896
9,295
Ah, yeah we aren't costco members.
frown.png
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,726
2,616
Tarrant_sl said:
That wont ever happen though.

Ever.

So given the option of same pay and no insurance or pay with my current insurance, why would I not choose the second option ya know?
Click to expand...
No one on planet earth would offer you those options. You're being obtuse. You guys are so fucking obstinate at disagreeing with me that it doesn't even matter what we're talking about.

I never suggested that you just go to your boss and say "Hey, why don't you go ahead and reduce my health plan and then if you feel like doing anything to make up for it that's on you bro." I said that unions and employee organizations should negotiate for more cash over improvements to the health plan. If your company was like "hey guys, we're going to cut your health benefits off but good news, your pay will stay the same" they would lose tons of employees. There is a market for jobs and if there wasn't they would just never give you a raise or cut your pay every year because they could. Obviously if they want to be competitive in the job market they can't pay exactly the same as their competitors and offer less benefits or you will get the bottom of the barrel for employees. All I've ever tried to say is that as an employee, you are better off getting more money than better health coverage because Cadillac health care is not worth what it costs in premiums.
 
C

Creslin

Trakanon Raider
2,505
1,151
One of the big things miss with employer healthcare is how socialized that cost is within the company. You can't say oh the employer would just pay you the amount in your wages if they didnt have to pay for healthcare. That kinda statement might have some truth but when you look at it case by case it is pretty murky. Your employer pays $300/m and you pay $100, a 75% match, for you for health insurrance, then you find a bitch and she whelps a litter of 4, you put um all on your healthcare. Now your employer is paying $1000/m and you are paying $333, same 75% match, but you just got a raise of like 8 grand per year.

It really isn't handled like other parts of your salary, it isn't merit based and large increases in your cost to the company are usually pretty much out of the companies hands. No where else in a company can you get that kind of increase in compensation with so little questioning.

That also brings me back to how you would be compensated if your employer cut all healthcare benefits and offered salary only compensation, you with the big family cost the company 1000/m, the other single guy still costs the company only 300/m, I am unaware of any economic theory that predicts you would get to keep making 700/m more than your equal counterpart were wages allowed to reach a new salary only equalibrium.

And that isn't even touching the averaging of rates that is done on the insurrance companies end. Since you and the diabetic 55 year old at the company might pay the same insurrance rates according to your paystubs, when reality is that is not actually a reflection of your true costs to the company.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,726
2,616
It's completely fair that having kids should increase your own costs and no one else's. If you can't afford to pay $1000 a month for health insurance, you shouldn't have had 4 kids.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,896
9,295
BrutulTM_sl said:
No one on planet earth would offer you those options. You're being obtuse. You guys are so fucking obstinate at disagreeing with me that it doesn't even matter what we're talking about.
Click to expand...
Who was even talking to you? I wasn't, I believe I...yes, I did, I quoted Cut, not you. Stop looking for an argument.

All I've ever tried to say is that as an employee, you are better off getting more money than better health coverage because Cadillac health care is not worth what it costs in premiums.
Click to expand...
No shit? No one ever disagreed with that, I agreed with you in a previous post about it. All I've ever said which for some reason threw sand in your vagina was that will never be an option and if it is elsewhere great, but it sure as hell never will be at the company i work for now.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,669
99,506
Creslin_sl said:
One of the big things miss with employer healthcare is how socialized that cost is within the company. You can't say oh the employer would just pay you the amount in your wages if they didnt have to pay for healthcare. That kinda statement might have some truth but when you look at it case by case it is pretty murky. Your employer pays $300/m and you pay $100, a 75% match, for you for health insurrance, then you find a bitch and she whelps a litter of 4, you put um all on your healthcare. Now your employer is paying $1000/m and you are paying $333, same 75% match, but you just got a raise of like 8 grand per year.

It really isn't handled like other parts of your salary, it isn't merit based and large increases in your cost to the company are usually pretty much out of the companies hands. No where else in a company can you get that kind of increase in compensation with so little questioning.

That also brings me back to how you would be compensated if your employer cut all healthcare benefits and offered salary only compensation, you with the big family cost the company 1000/m, the other single guy still costs the company only 300/m, I am unaware of any economic theory that predicts you would get to keep making 700/m more than your equal counterpart were wages allowed to reach a new salary only equalibrium.

And that isn't even touching the averaging of rates that is done on the insurrance companies end. Since you and the diabetic 55 year old at the company might pay the same insurrance rates according to your paystubs, when reality is that is not actually a reflection of your true costs to the company.
Click to expand...
but the union says
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,726
2,616
Tarrant_sl said:
Who was even talking to you? I wasn't, I believe I...yes, I did, I quoted Cut, not you. Stop looking for an argument.
Click to expand...
You were quoting him disagreeing with me and saying that he was right. You don't have to try to score points on technicalities.
 
Tarrant

Tarrant

<Prior Amod>
15,896
9,295
BrutulTM_sl said:
You were quoting him disagreeing with me and saying that he was right. You don't have to try to score points on technicalities.
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't. Though its like you're on some weird crusade here and frankly I'm not interested in taking part of it. You think what you think, I think what I think. Deal with it bro. If I was talking to you or refering to you in any way what so ever I would have quoted you.

Like I did just now.
 
Vlett

Vlett

Lord Nagafen Raider
817
69
I could've gotten on my state coverage when I aged out of my parents insurance but I saw the limitations and freaked. I ended up paying cobra for 2 years before the real job benefits kicked in. (Insulin dependent diabetic). Both the wife and I each have family plans and we pick and choose which coverage has the best savings. Hers has vision and dental, mine has better prescription drugs. Combined monthly is still less than $250, and for my drugs alone it saves me about $400 out of coverage costs. I'm healthy, in better shape at 30 than I was at 18 and you'd never guess I had diabetics if you didn't see me shoot up.
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,435
3,380
Quick question if anyone has experience with this or if someone reading this works in the benefits area...

My wife is currently in open enrollment (she is a teacher) and is on my health insurance through my work. Can she drop off my plan and join her own? Can I drop off my plan and join hers? What about when our baby is born? Does that count as a qualifying life event in the sense that she can leave my insurance and join her own employer's plan with her and the baby?

Asking here before I go down the HR rabbit hole at work...
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
With *most* companies that I'm familiar with, if you are legally married, and you have a child, you have to all go on a family plan. I.e. If she chooses the "family" enrollment option with her employer it is going to cover her, her spouse, and the child. I don't think you can opt-out the spouse at that point. The only point that you can both stick to your own plans is when you can both choose your own single plan. Once that family plan comes into the picture, its gotta cover EVERYONE in the household. I think the only exceptions I've seen to this is if the spouse is on some sort of goverment assisted healthcare related to disability/medicare/medicaid/etc. Other than that, everyone usually has to go together once married + child.

But also, yes, a birth is a qualifying life event for changes, so the plans can be switched at that time if needed.
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,435
3,380
Makes sense, I appreciate it.

What I was basically told is that you can leave an insurance plan at any time but can only join one during open enrollment or a qualifying life event. So we can leave my employer sponsored plan and join her employer sponsored plan at any time during her open enrollment period... which is what we are going to do since her coverage is better and less out of pocket for us.
 
Falstaff

Falstaff

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,435
3,380
Well, they've changed their tune. Turns out that because I am on a Section 125 Plan, due to IRS regulations, I may not be able to leave my plan at any time.

The only thing that may get me out of it is because my wife and I have different open enrollment times. That or some change due to the Affordable Care Act that they are checking on.
 
S

Soriak_sl

shitlord
783
0
Creslin_sl said:
That also brings me back to how you would be compensated if your employer cut all healthcare benefits and offered salary only compensation, you with the big family cost the company 1000/m, the other single guy still costs the company only 300/m, I am unaware of any economic theory that predicts you would get to keep making 700/m more than your equal counterpart were wages allowed to reach a new salary only equalibrium.
Click to expand...
Your new salary would be independent of your actual health care costs, because the company negotiates a group rate and thus pays the same per employee. However, keep in mind that you'd pay taxes on the additional income, whereas health insurance benefits are tax exempt. So if you got $300/month more in wages but had to pay $300/month more for insurance, you'd lose out based on whatever your tax rate is.

All things considered, the person with 4 kids would probably find the new wage offer less appealing and look for a company that offered insurance. Healthy people would find this a much better deal.
 
Joeboo

Joeboo

Molten Core Raider
8,157
140
And then comes the breakdown of that whole theory, as all the healthy single people opt out of the group plan, and the cost of the plan rises. You can't have a well functioning group health plan with only sick people and huge families with lots of kids in it. you need those young single people who are basically being overcharged for the benefit they receive to offset the people the insurance company is losing money on. That's why employers generally don't offer you more salary for declining to join the plan, and they want to encourage everyone to join.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.