It's been my experience that many (most?) companies include an employee's health benefits as part of their total compensation. If they don't offer any health coverages through the company, they often need to provide higher wages to attract and retain quality employees.
It's usually in a companies best interests to help keep their employees healthy, both physically and mentally. Part of that would logically include helping subsidize their healthcare, especially preventative care. Healthy employees are generally happier, more creative, and more productive.
Even if a employee's malady/injury was not "on the job" (that's workman's comp), if they include partial or full healthcare coverage a part of the employees' compensation, they should still cover it. That helps insure company loyalty. I know a lot of friends who stay with a bleh or outright crappy job just for the healthcare benefits. If those were taken away or phased out... that's a lot of empty chairs in the office.
|
If you are injured or Die on the Job or in transit to/from it, you are usually covered by company insurance payouts. Recently there has been a trend to change the nature of the employer - worker relationship to one of a SUBCONTRACTED labourer so that insurance is your responsibility.
Watch out for any such comments in any Employer - Worker relationship Contract.
My Grandfather was once President of the Miscellaneous Workers Union in NT, Australia. :)
...Recently there has been a trend to change the nature of the employer - worker relationship to one of a SUBCONTRACTED labourer so that insurance is your responsibility.
Watch out for any such comments in any Employer - Worker relationship Contract.
Yep. Making an employee into a subcontractor also makes him responsible for quarterly payroll payments/paperwork to the IRS, workman's comp, liability insurance, city/county/state business licenses (and many cities won't let you you run a business out of your home anymore).
Then you are left signing binding contracts with Large Companies and you're often stuck being your own legal advisor...
But the Large Company managers get big bonuses for saving Large Company money.
|
|
...Recently there has been a trend to change the nature of the employer - worker relationship to one of a SUBCONTRACTED labourer so that insurance is your responsibility.
Watch out for any such comments in any Employer - Worker relationship Contract.
Yep. Making an employee into a subcontractor also makes him responsible for quarterly payroll payments/paperwork to the IRS, workman's comp, liability insurance, city/county/state business licenses (and many cities won't let you you run a business out of your home anymore).
Then you are left signing binding contracts with Large Companies and you're often stuck being your own legal advisor...
But the Large Company managers get big bonuses for saving Large Company money.
See...we are geniuses...I bet andy thought we would Troll him to death. RASPBERRY :P PHUTTTT!
|
I don't think healthcare is the employer's responsibility. Instead, I think it's each individual's responsibility to make sure they provide their own healthcare (to themselves and any dependents). Whether that health coverage comes as part of a benefits package, or as an out-of-pocket expense is six of one or half a dozen of the other.
If an individual makes the conscious decision not to get health coverage from somewhere, then they had better be prepared to deal with the consequences when something happens. To me, it's a matter of personal responsibility.
That said, I think there are some things we here in the States could change to make it easier and some concessions the government could make that would lighten the burden on people.
-Skeld
PS: I say this as someone who has excellent health coverage provided by my employer as part of my benefits package. I realize some people aren't as fortunate.
See...we are geniuses...I bet andy thought we would Troll him to death. RASPBERRY :P PHUTTTT!
Me, a genius? No. These days I'm running about 80%-85% idiot and the remainder equal parts savant and snark. :)
|
|
I don't think healthcare is the employer's responsibility. Instead, I think it's each individual's responsibility to make sure they provide their own healthcare (to themselves and any dependents). Whether that health coverage comes as part of a benefits package, or as an out-of-pocket expense is six of one or half a dozen of the other.
If an individual makes the conscious decision not to get health coverage from somewhere, then they had better be prepared to deal with the consequences when something happens. To me, it's a matter of personal responsibility.
That said, I think there are some things we here in the States could change to make it easier and some concessions the government could make that would lighten the burden on people.
-Skeld
PS: I say this as someone who has excellent health coverage provided by my employer as part of my benefits package. I realize some people aren't as fortunate.
Like millitarizing medicine and the Housing and Wages of medical personell and making sure that every one gets free treatment so as to end the social disorder and disruption that untreated illness has caused (and cost your economy).
|
|
How do you feel--should employers be required to provide health insurance?
Is it an employer's responsibility to ensure you are insured?
If the employer didn't cause your injury or malady, why is it their responsibility?
Honestly curious. No Trolls allowed!!
I don't think it's my employers responsibility to provide health coverage. My boss is responsible for paying me an honest wage for the work I do, nothing more. What I do with the money is up to me. I am a firm believer in paying my own way, not expecting anyone else to look after me or my family, this is not to say I am against my taxes being used to help those less fortunate. Just the way I see it.
How do you feel--should employers be required to provide health insurance?
Is it an employer's responsibility to ensure you are insured?
If the employer didn't cause your injury or malady, why is it their responsibility?
Honestly curious. No Trolls allowed!!
No, employers should not be required to provide health insurance.
No, it is not the employer's responsibility to ensure that you have health insurance. My employer doesn't make sure I have auto insurance, nor life insurance, nor long term care insurance, nor house insurance, nor an umbrella policy to protect myself even further since I actually have assets, so why should health insurance be any different?
I have often wondered if employer supplied health care has conspired to break the foundations of American industry....well at least health care coupled with our litigious society. All of those costs need to be absorbed. They are absorbed as overhead and then shifted into product cost. This increases the base cost of American goods and then when the requisite return on investment profit percentage is computed and slathered on top to determine the goods msrp we end up with more expensive American products.
So what is the alternative? Employers subsidize health care costs. How does the American worker bear the cost of the ridiculous health care prices? My employer doesn't offer health coverage. My wife was going to add me to her policy at work and they wanted a ridiculous extra 100 dollars a week. 400 a month so I could have health coverage? I am 32. I don't get sick. I have been to the doctor twice in twelve years. I split my lip when I was a kid and my grandfather sowed it back together with a needle and thread. I don't go to the doctor unless one of my limbs has turned black. So the choice is disposable income or health coverage. Yay!
edit: oh and to answer why is it the employers responsibility....
once upon a time when there was demand for employees and companies competed for talent and there were unions.... items like the legendary pension, and the mythical retirement plan, and health care were incentives to attract employees. Now that the attitude at many work places is.... "If you don't like it, find another job!" there is no longer a need to offer these perks to employees.
As someone who works in a medium-sized company's benefits department and someone who can't get health insurance on her own, yes, I believe it is the employer's responsibility to provide health insurance.
Or, we need a better system in place (and that may not be government) to help those of us who can't get health insurance get it at a reasonable price.
I have leukemia, and my medicine that keeps the disease in check and prevents me from needing a bone marrow transplant costs $125 a day. I have to take it every day for the rest of my life or until it fails. (That's an extra $30,000+ a year just for that one medicine, not to mention all the other medicines that deal with the side effects from this one.)
So it's easy for people who don't have health issues to say it should be the individual's responsibility, because they don't have to worry about it. For those of us who struggle with health issues, we don't have a choice. If we aren't covered by group health insurance, we don't have coverage. Period.
I think too there may be a misunderstanding on what employer-provided health insurance does. It spreads the risk to the insurance company among a much larger group, which means, yes, that the healthy people are paying for the sick people like me.
With all the debate on health care reform, what I don't understand is why the government doesn't treat health insurance like it treats flood insurance. If you live in an area that has a lot of floods, you have to get flood insurance, but it's often exorbitantly priced. So the government has a program that reduces the premiums those people pay who chose to live in flood areas. Why can't we have that for health insurance?
|
So it's easy for people who don't have health issues to say it should be the individual's responsibility, because they don't have to worry about it. For those of us who struggle with health issues, we don't have a choice. If we aren't covered by group health insurance, we don't have coverage. Period.
100% agree.
I provide access to a group plan for my employees. I pay half their premium if they choose to take advantage of that. It's my moral responsibility to the extended family that helps my business succeed. However, I reject any notion that it is my legal responsibility, and resent any notion of the government meddling and telling me how to run my business and the relationship with my employees.
Hmm, social responsibility versus legal. Oftentimes there's a large gap there.
One of our company's hot buttons is to attract and retain top talent. Health benefits play a large role in that. More for some than others. Still, the employees that take part in the plan share in those costs. Even at my salary the full cost of health coverage for an entire family would be a big pill to swallow.
Normally, people choose companies based on the total compensation. This cesspool of an economy has reduced those choices greatly, increasing the fear amongst the workforce, especially the unemployed, and increased the desperation for health care reform. Vicious cycle. Companies didn't create the mess, but the have a fiscal responsibility to ensure business continuity by investing in their employee's health., and minimizing training costs.
I think too there may be a misunderstanding on what employer-provided health insurance does. It spreads the risk to the insurance company among a much larger group, which means, yes, that the healthy people are paying for the sick people like me.No, that's a benefit of group policies in general, whether they are paid for by those who are covered or their employees. The fact that most employer provided plans will be group policies is irrelevant.
I think you're missing the point that there aren't large to medium sized groups available for individuals to join who can leverage buying power with their numbers. There is an advantage to having larger numbers to seek insurance for.
With all the debate on health care reform, what I don't understand is why the government doesn't treat health insurance like it treats flood insurance.They do. Medicare, Medicaid. Aid for those who can't afford to pay, right?
Not exactly. There are very stringent entry requirements for these programs, particularly for anyone who is under the age for mandatory coverage. Like all insurance, they do not cover everything. If you are not over the mandatory age, and you become disabled, it can take years to qualify for Medicare, and many people need legal aid to get through the Byzantine application process. Private health insurance as a value (as opposed to a direct cost) is better than Medicare since more is covered for treatment and pharmacy options.
To the original question? No my employer has no legal obligation to do so. However, I think it's in their interests to provide for me and mine. Many are now deciding to take the "like your job or shove it, I'll get someone else" approach. Frankly, although I understand that I'm not a person anymore, just a corporate asset or piece of equipment, I think it's a poor position to take as we are all human beings.
How do you feel--should employers be required to provide health insurance?
I find the question 'should employers be required to provide health insurance' a bit odd. After all, there are plenty of countries in the world that have alternative systems to employer based healthcare, so I don't think any informed individual could ever say that it's the only option available.
I think a better question would be can you fix employer based healthcare and/or replace it with a better system? I think that's a tougher question because whatever you do, it's going to upset someone. After all, businesses get a tax break for providing health insurance to their employees, insurance agencies make a living providing insurance to employers, pharmaceutical companies can charge high prices for drugs due to a lack of transparency in prices, and doctors make money based on the number of procedures they perform. You also have politicians who have a stake in whether or not healthcare reform passes, because if it passes then it's a victory for Democrats, and if it doesn't then it's a victory for Republicans.
By the way, if you're interested, they did a show on This American Life that talks about the origins of the United States healthcare system. It's a pretty interesting story. It's about nineteen minutes into the show. Take a listen.
Hrm. Responsiblity is a pretty serious word. As liberal as I am, I think it is more important for me to look at the benefits I am being offered as part of a position instead of simply assuming I get health care, which is where many(although certainly not all) people get caught without insurance. That said, an employer really needs to think about what happens if an employee gets seriously ill(or god forbid in some kind of accident) off duty. Can they afford to simply replace them, or is it more worth their time and money to offer them some kind of insurance plan? Maybe a middle ground, like the one used by Chatdemonrich, is a good option. Also, I would add that he(or she?) shares the same insurance as everyone else is impressive, especially considering the hellstorm that health care reform is going through right now.
|
|
Blue cross and other public programs are a good example. Yes, there are some requirements, and restrictions on coverage, especially for pre-existing conditions, but it's affordable and available to almost everyone.
And that's a big problem, those requirements and restrictions can prevent a lot of people from getting affordable coverage or even any coverage at all if they were on their own.
Blue cross and other public programs are a good example. Yes, there are some requirements, and restrictions on coverage, especially for pre-existing conditions, but it's affordable and available to almost everyone.And that's a big problem, those requirements and restrictions can prevent a lot of people from getting affordable coverage or even any coverage at all if they were on their own.
Is this where the debate over preexisting conditions comes from? Would removing that stipulation go a long way towards healing the divide we're experiencing on this issue or not?
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.
|
|
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.
Your state may have some assistance programs to look into.
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.
Yeah COBRA's nice, isn't it? Pay twice as much for health insurance, while making half as much through unemployment. Such a benefit.
|
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.Yeah COBRA's nice, isn't it? Pay twice as much for health insurance, while making half as much through unemployment. Such a benefit.
Indeed. I think the main benefit of COBRA is felt by people who have expensive chronic conditions, like the one described upthread, as well as people on dialysis, people with HIV, etc. For them, COBRA coverage is still less expensive than paying out of pocket.
For most people, though, those premiums are absolutely jaw-dropping.
I am not trying to troll or to tease, but i realized how my people were lucky when i came to live in US and lost all the health benefits we have in France, such as social security, cheap or free medicine and hospitalization, and maybe even more importantly : Actual care and professionalism from doctors.
And you have all these rights whether you are employed or not.
Here in US, medicine is a business.
Health insurance as a product is one of the greatest cons ever pulled on the American people. It's a product with infinite demand.
I'm somewhat reminded of the following quote from Bladerunner (final cut version):
Tyrell: What... what seems to be the problem?
Batty: Death.
Tyrell: Death; ah, well that's a little out of my jurisdiction. You...
Batty: *I want more life, father!
To speak to the OP's question, no I do not believe that an employer should be required to provide benefits. I think that a lot of US companies would be more competitive, and would be able to offer higher wages if the companies could, in good faith, shed their expensive benefit plans.
I also think that state level regulation of health insurance is an epic fail, and just serves to keep individual pools small and costs to the insured high.
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.
What state are you in? I may have some information for you.
What state are you in? I may have some information for you.
Ohio.
Is this where the debate over preexisting conditions comes from? Would removing that stipulation go a long way towards healing the divide we're experiencing on this issue or not?Options for people with pre-existing conditions, and removing interstate restrictions on buying insurance (Allowing me, in florida, to buy a policy in texas if it was cheaper, for example) would indeed go a long way towards constructive reform of the system. A far better option than blanket control by the government, IMO.
Noone disagrees that reform is needed. It's all a matter of how much reform, and the manner of reform.
My mind is addled right now, but I'm not sure what the problem was with interstate restrictions on insurance. There was something brought up many moons and threads ago that made me go "thank god we don't do that!" but I'm not sure what it was.
I wish we could all truly agree more on that last part. Right now it's more a stick than a carrot in bipartisan politics(and by stick I mean the one you use to beat in a rival's kneecaps when they're locking up shop for the night).
Given the election results in Massachusetts, I have a bad feeling that any decent chance for universal health care coverage progression is going to go down in flames. Apparently, bipartisan cooperation is lost upon the super egos.
Urizen, this is all I can do right now. Unfortunately I live in NY, not OH, so I don't have much for you. These are the basics when it comes to Medicaid.
Given the election results in Massachusetts, I have a bad feeling that any decent chance for universal health care coverage progression is going to go down in flames. Apparently, bipartisan cooperation is lost upon the super egos.
You don't want to know what some of the papers ran here. It reminds me why I line birdcages with newsprint.
Urizen, this is all I can do right now. Unfortunately I live in NY, not OH, so I don't have much for you. These are the basics when it comes to Medicaid.
That's ok. I tagged the link and will look at it. Thanks!
You don't want to know what some of the papers ran here. It reminds me why I line birdcages with newsprint.
Heh.
Seriously ... all that I ask is that I get the same health care perks and benefits that a united states congressman or senator receives. What can be so confusing about that? Oh yeah, the lack of lobbyists and special interests to line up one's pocket with dough. *sighs*
I have leukemia, and my medicine that keeps the disease in check and prevents me from needing a bone marrow transplant costs $125 a day.I mean no offense here, but I must ask something. I assume you had that condition when you started your current job? Did you inform the employer of the condition pre-hire? If you're claiming that it's now his/her responsibility to provide for your insurance, is it not your responsibility to provide full disclosure?
It is illegal to refuse to hire a person because he or she has a medical condition that would affect your health insurance premiums.
But to answer the original question. I had been working for this employer for 3 years before I was diagnosed, and I did notify my manager at the time I was diagnosed.
If I were to search for a new job, I would NOT notify the employer before I was hired that I had a serious health condition. Until I'm hired, it's not their business -- and as I mentioned earlier, it is against the law. Once I'm hired, then my illness becomes part of the interactive process of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It's also against the ADA to ask someone questions about their health before hiring. This is the problem with asking an HR person these questions! :)
I think it's great that you help your employees with health insurance. I know how difficult it can be for small businesses to offer health insurance. I'm hopeful that one of the proposed changes that will pass is the opportunity for small businesses to join together to form a larger "group" in order to receive better pricing from health insurance companies.
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.
HR person again. :) Were you terminated involuntarily? They laid you off or fired you? As long as you weren't terminated for gross misconduct, you may qualify for reduced premiums under ARRA, which is 35% of the regular COBRA premium. The law recently changed to extend the period of ARRA-reduced premiums to 15 months from the original 9.
I suggest finding your COBRA notice and calling the contact person to see how you apply for ARRA-reduced premiums. I hope this helps!! I'm sorry to hear that you lost your job. I really hope you get back on your feet soon!!
Having recently lost my job, I'm a bit perplexed as to what to be able to do with regard to insurance as I carried it for myself and the missus. COBRA is just waaaaay too expensive to pay into given what paltry funds I will receive on a weekly basis from unemployment (if I qualify). I was told that Medicaid is a possibility; how does one even qualify / submit for that? And is it cost effective? I hate to roll the dice on being uninsured since I had 5 hospitalizations in a matter of 12 months, but been alright since May of '09 w/o any future hiccups.Yeah COBRA's nice, isn't it? Pay twice as much for health insurance, while making half as much through unemployment. Such a benefit.
HR person again. :) I'd just like to point out this is the amount your employer paid for you for your coverage. COBRA law only allows employers to charge an additional 2% for "administrative costs," which comes nowhere near to covering all the costs.
I know that really doesn't make a bitter pill any easier to swallow, but I think it's eye-opening for some people (and not necessarily you!!) to see what health insurance really costs.
HR person again. :) Were you terminated involuntarily? They laid you off or fired you? As long as you weren't terminated for gross misconduct, you may qualify for reduced premiums under ARRA, which is 35% of the regular COBRA premium. The law recently changed to extend the period of ARRA-reduced premiums to 15 months from the original 9.
I suggest finding your COBRA notice and calling the contact person to see how you apply for ARRA-reduced premiums. I hope this helps!! I'm sorry to hear that you lost your job. I really hope you get back on your feet soon!!
In layman's terms, I was fired. I accessed the internet for non-business purposes, which was mainly here, MSNBC, Wikipedia, etc. as well as e-mail exchanges. What's ironic is that I've been doing it for at least 6 years and received no prior write-up or warning on it. They refered to a company code of conduct that we re-sign annually. The hypocrisy is there's a whole lot of people that consistently do it in similar fashion, but why was I targeted? I honestly believe it had everything to do with the change in management structure and it's that time of year to budget for supplies & salaries. I was in a position that was not as essential and made more money than the average person my job grade. If I'm not granted unemployment benefits, I am debating legal action. Being previously in management structure, code of conduct or not, I am very familiar with the steps involved that will lead one to termination. I had no previous warnings. I didn't do or access anything that was unethical or illegal. There are others that have been getting the axe as well; I'm curious who else got affected besides myself. It was just last Thursday, so I'm still waiting for the necessary paperwork to arrive. <crosses fingers>
Sorry, U. We've been having lots of that up here in MI.
Sorry, U. We've been having lots of that up here in MI.
What industry?
|
|
My sister would love to be able to buy her own health insurance, but no one will sell her a policy for any amount of money she could offer because she has a pre-existing genetic condition (Crohn's Disease).
She HAS to get health coverage from her job, and if she loses that, her necessary, life-saving medicines and doctors visits will all be out-of-pocket.
If she worked at a job where she didn't get health insurance, I don't know if she could earn enough money to cover both her living and medical expenses and have anything left over for savings.
Does the world OWE her a policy? No. But I think it's cruel that based on your genetics - which you have absolutely no control over - the world can say "This one gets health care, and this one does not." They are even doing that for babies now. Isn't it sick?