Does your job pay 100% for your health insurance?

[CdnCarrie]

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=7938095&page=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5631874

 

[GAN]

Thanks for explaining.

I'd say they probably had a good chance at getting unemployment (or at least their case being heard), in this hypothetical scenario they were let go because legally they can be let go but were they let go for good cause or for an arbitrary reason. I'm not sure it would have looked favorably upon the company if the DOL saw they were letting go because of the number of kids and just that.

The cost to the company could then be reputation, potentially looked upon more closely by the DOL, and increase in their unemployment insurance costs.

It's an interesting topic that I doubt many of us really considered. I'm like the other poster in that I get it but at the same time it's like a tsk tsk moment ya know? To know that you were blocked employment because of the number of your children.

This person had a job. We were trying to "reel" them in, but the cost was too high. When I was a kid I caught a small shark, I really wanted to pull him in but he was beating the heck out of the hull ...so we had to cut him loose. It was a win-win. In this case, it was more like I want $100k and you need to insure my 10-kids ...the answer is, we aren't interested anymore.

 

[aprilgail]

I just found out this is a thing for some people, to have their employer pay 100% of their health insurance? Anyone hear of this?

Mine has always been paid 100% by my employer- and when I retired they continue to pay 100% of it. My daughter is also covered under me which is also paid by my old employer 100% until she is 26.

 

[GAN]

At will wouldn’t necessarily override the laws that protect prospective employees based on familial status.

https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-status-or-number-children

I’ve had HR tell me that they really don’t want to know anyone’s family history during interviews and counsel managers to never do anything to probe familial status.

And we/I would never ask. The person brought it up in casual conversation so it became "common" knowledge at that point.

There's more to the story, without going into great detail... I don't run that part of the business anymore. I'm getting close to retiring and had been driving over an hour one-way for 5-years, so I took a position with the same Company MUCH closer to home. The person that replaced me up there recently hired this same person -so now they work for us. I have no idea what the particulars were, but probably they negotiated a lower salary in lieu of the healthcare ...he didn't have to take it -I assume they put an offer on the table and he accepted.

 

[mefordis]

Mine has always been paid 100% by my employer- and when I retired they continue to pay 100% of it.

This saves a bundle. Like about 1k a month for us.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This person had a job. We were trying to "reel" them in, but the cost was too high. When I was a kid I caught a small shark, I really wanted to pull him in but he was beating the heck out of the hull ...so we had to cut him loose. It was a win-win. In this case, it was more like I want $100k and you need to insure my 10-kids ...the answer is, we aren't interested anymore.

Oh I know they were a perspective employee. I was going with the conversation that had gotten brought up if they had been an employee so action after the fact sort of thing.

In all honesty though if I found out a company didn't want me just because of the amount of kids I had I might if I felt strongly enough about it make a complaint to the DOL of the state. I would have no way of knowing if that would do anything but it could put the company on radar. I'd find that sort of practice, be it an outright question or a casual utterance for how the information came to be known, to be something unsavory of a business to do. It's quite similar when you get down to it looking at someone's familial life and making employment judgements based on that. You may have not outright asked how many kids they had but once you knew it was the reason to deny employment.

Then again I worked for a company that was sued by the DOL and had to backpay for 10 years worth of pay to prior employees because they had them sign into their computers to load up programs prior to their shifts. The DOL said employees should be paid for all work they do. It went to a system of paid by the minute (and pros and cons came with that) and no work prior to the start of your shift, no talking work during lunches (unpaid) but breaks as they were paid it wasn't against policy to talk work. You better believe the company was quite careful with how they paid their employees after that lawsuit.

 

[Kimkimba]

Neither dh or I are offered insurance. We have to buy it off the Marketplace (Pennie in Pennsylvania).

 

[iheartglaciers]

My company pays for essentially 100%. I pay $1 per pay period (I think it’s $2-3/pay period to cover your whole family, but I don’t have kids)... I'm guessing there's some tax reason.

 

[SandyinMonterey]

I was in the health care field (RN) and even going back to the 90's, my health insurance wasn't covered 100%.

 

[mumto3girls]

DH and I own 2 small businesses. We buy our health insurance through the marketplace for our family of 5. We also buy dental. We pay about $1300 per month.


We don’t have other employees although we do pay some independent contractors for some part time work.

 

[mefordis]

DH and I own 2 small businesses. We buy our health insurance through the marketplace for our family of 5. We also buy dental. We pay about $1300 per month.


We don’t have other employees although we do pay some independent contractors for some part time work.

When I priced out buying on the marketplace, just out of curiosity, I came up with $2400 for a family of four. I guess it depends on the type of insurance and deductible.

 

[longboard55]

When I priced out buying on the marketplace, just out of curiosity, I came up with $2400 for a family of four. I guess it depends on the type of insurance and deductible.

when you pay for it yourself, you are going with the highest deductible possible. All insurance has similar coverage for the big items, it is the little visits that will not be covered. People with they juicy group plans do not understand how good they have it

 

[dez1978]

You aren't covered by your husbands plan as well?





So you have to pay $1200 then get covered for $4K and then it's back to oop?




So you have to pay for $5000 yourself before the benefits kick in? And you have to pay $1200 a month on top of that?

No, the max OOP I pay on any given year regardless of medical treatment is 4K. At that point insurance would pick it up 100%. It's awful compared to the plan we had 13 years ago which was just 10$ month and a $25 copay per visit. Like if I'd have had my baby that year, I'd have paid a total of $325 for a c section and 4 day stay bc it was 300 for hospital stay and all prenatal care was counted as 1 appt. But when I got pregnant the next year we'd gone to $600 deductible and then 20% coinsurance after that and a $1500 per person oop max, so I paid 1500 twice bc my pregnancy was over 2 calendar years so I had to meet the max twice. And each prenatal appt was billed seperately and all tests/labs, whereas before that was all lumped together. But it sounds like its better than a lot of other ppls insurance. I mean a 5K deductible is basically just for if you have a hospital stay or ongoing medical condition. I very rarely spend that much in a given year unless I've had to have surgery or a baby. This year we haven't even spent the 4K (thankfully). And thats the combined family oop max.

 

[dez1978]

When I priced out buying on the marketplace, just out of curiosity, I came up with $2400 for a family of four. I guess it depends on the type of insurance and deductible.

I did the same thing out of curiosity to see if I could really afford to quit my job (by the time I pay daycare and insurance and gas I only make about 200 a check) but for 4 of us it was like 1800 with a 5K deductible. What is the point of that and how is that affordable?

 

[bcla]

Then again I worked for a company that was sued by the DOL and had to backpay for 10 years worth of pay to prior employees because they had them sign into their computers to load up programs prior to their shifts. The DOL said employees should be paid for all work they do. It went to a system of paid by the minute (and pros and cons came with that) and no work prior to the start of your shift, no talking work during lunches (unpaid) but breaks as they were paid it wasn't against policy to talk work. You better believe the company was quite careful with how they paid their employees after that lawsuit.

Wouldn't it be easier to just classify employees as salaried?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No, the max OOP I pay on any given year regardless of medical treatment is 4K. At that point insurance would pick it up 100%. It's awful compared to the plan we had 13 years ago which was just 10$ month and a $25 copay per visit. Like if I'd have had my baby that year, I'd have paid a total of $325 for a c section and 4 day stay bc it was 300 for hospital stay and all prenatal care was counted as 1 appt. But when I got pregnant the next year we'd gone to $600 deductible and then 20% coinsurance after that and a $1500 per person oop max, so I paid 1500 twice bc my pregnancy was over 2 calendar years so I had to meet the max twice. And each prenatal appt was billed seperately and all tests/labs, whereas before that was all lumped together. But it sounds like its better than a lot of other ppls insurance. I mean a 5K deductible is basically just for if you have a hospital stay or ongoing medical condition. I very rarely spend that much in a given year unless I've had to have surgery or a baby. This year we haven't even spent the 4K (thankfully). And thats the combined family oop max.

That sounds somewhat similar to what we had growing up when it was HMO as far as copay. I remember the highest it got before HMO was stopped with my mom's company when I was younger was $200 copay for an ER visit.

My mom had a $1,500 deductible I forget what the OOP max was but she purposefully planned her total knee replacement surgeries for both knees to be in the same year in 2019 that way she didn't have to pay twice. She hit her OOP max with just the first surgery of course.

 

[bcla]

And we/I would never ask. The person brought it up in casual conversation so it became "common" knowledge at that point.

There's more to the story, without going into great detail... I don't run that part of the business anymore. I'm getting close to retiring and had been driving over an hour one-way for 5-years, so I took a position with the same Company MUCH closer to home. The person that replaced me up there recently hired this same person -so now they work for us. I have no idea what the particulars were, but probably they negotiated a lower salary in lieu of the healthcare ...he didn't have to take it -I assume they put an offer on the table and he accepted.

I get that it's incredibly difficult to prove that someone wasn't hired because of some protected status. That usually doesn't become an issue unless there's a whistleblower or there's a pattern that can't be chalked up to randomness.

It is kind of tricky because I know some employers might be hesitant to hire someone if they feel that family obligations might distract an employee. However, most people in the workforce have families and children, so avoiding it would seem to be counterproductive.

 

[LYSE]

And we/I would never ask. The person brought it up in casual conversation so it became "common" knowledge at that point.

There's more to the story, without going into great detail... I don't run that part of the business anymore. I'm getting close to retiring and had been driving over an hour one-way for 5-years, so I took a position with the same Company MUCH closer to home. The person that replaced me up there recently hired this same person -so now they work for us. I have no idea what the particulars were, but probably they negotiated a lower salary in lieu of the healthcare ...he didn't have to take it -I assume they put an offer on the table and he accepted.

I just have to say again this sounds like a company or team I wouldn't want to work for, if the company doesn't want to pay for a big family they just need to have that written into the benefits, employee + spouse covered at x percent, kids 1-3 @ x kid 4+ at employee expense etc..

My company now doesn't care and even covers ivf/other fertility treatments or adoption expense support..happy employees tend to perform well..and we all share equity in the business.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Wouldn't it be easier to just classify employees as salaried?

I'd doubt it. The company has thousands and thousands of employees (over 3,000 were just in one area in our metro). If they didn't make the switch then they had a good reason not to.

 

[GAN]

I just have to say again this sounds like a company or team I wouldn't want to work for, if the company doesn't want to pay for a big family they just need to have that written into the benefits, employee + spouse covered at x percent, kids 1-3 @ x kid 4+ at employee expense etc..

My company now doesn't care and even covers ivf/other fertility treatments or adoption expense support..happy employees tend to perform well..and we all share equity in the business.

I'm sure we have employees with large families -but don't be so naive to think people who interview for jobs aren't ruled in or out based on their compensation requirements. Healthcare is part of a benefits package that could be (within the constraints of law) pulled away at an employers discretion. Many employers don't have to offer healthcare, and no employers have to offer a "specific" package. Many only offer to cover the employed individual -no family. I'm not sure where you're going with this. I work for a really great Company. Where I wouldn't want to work, is for a Company that would hire a new employee at the expense of existing employees. All businesses/departments work within the framework of a budget to some degree -if one thing goes up, another goes down. I'm sure you're looking at it from your work experiences -we're all different. The set up I work in ..offers GREAT benefit for achievements over and above a certain criteria. My job was effectively to help a team be financially successful by managing all aspects of the business. I'm not going to jeopardize that by bringing in a new person unless I feel it will help, not hurt, my employees. And that's what I would always do.