Health Insurance Tip

[momeason]

This is something I never thought of in all the years my husband was the breadwinner. It is obvious to me now that I am in this business.

When only one spouse has employer insurance available, it is often not the best option to sign the other spouse and the children onto the employer group plan.

Employers have been subsidizing their employees health insurance for many, many years. Insurance available to spouse and dependent children is rarely subsidized and is often at a much higher rate than purchasing individual plans. If the employee has 3 or more children adding the children to employer coverage is probably the best call. Two children it may be close. If there is only one child, the group plan is rarely the best price.

Now that pre-existing conditions are not a rating factor, the non employed or entrepreneur spouse younger than 45 can usually purchase lower cost individual health plans. Good policies for children are usually $140-$200/mo per child.

I would recommend finding a good independent agent who can show you lots of options to possibly save you money.

 

[SMHarman]

My employee just added a $175/mo surcharge for adding a spouse who can get an employee subsidized plan elsewhere.
They also halved their contribution to 'be more in line with industry'
Finally increased the co
Pay and deductible.
Net effect is my family healthcare went from 220 o paycheck to 420 and the add deductibles (I don't get impacted by spouse surcharge) those that did would see the 220 hop to 595/pay check (hi monthly)
Ouch!

 

[Patri]

Such jumps in premiums certainly negate any pay raises, and will increase the number of working poor. I don't think this hits anyone working for a governmental body significantly, compared to the private sector. Around here the health insurance plans for public employees are outstanding, and they fuss if the elected officials put even a minimal increase in employee contributions into the budget for the coming year.

 

[bogey21]

Such jumps in premiums certainly negate any pay raises, and will increase the number of working poor.

Or will it just move the spouse from the Employer's Plan to a subsidized Obamacare plan?

George

 

[bogey21]

I would recommend finding a good independent agent who can show you lots of options to possibly save you money.

Are you an Independent Agent?

George

 

[Sugarcubesea]

Such jumps in premiums certainly negate any pay raises, and will increase the number of working poor. I don't think this hits anyone working for a governmental body significantly, compared to the private sector. Around here the health insurance plans for public employees are outstanding, and they fuss if the elected officials put even a minimal increase in employee contributions into the budget for the coming year.

This is why I'm looking for a new company to work at this year. Our company gives an across the board 2% yearly increase in pay no mater how heard you work and my healthcare is going to cost me an additional $600 a month to cover my family of 5 and along with that comes a very high deductible that is double that of last years.

I received a 2% increase in pay but I willow be paying 48% more in healthcare costs. I can't afford to work at this company any longer. In just this month 7 employees have given their 2 weeks notice and I know of 10+ that are actively looking because of this huge increase. I think what got the rank and file upset is that when they filed their 3Q results, printed in very fine print is that the executives in the C-Suite would be receiving a $10K bonus to retain these key individuals to help them with their healthcare costs in addition to their normal 20% bonus.

 

[Icc5]

Depends on each situation

This is something I never thought of in all the years my husband was the breadwinner. It is obvious to me now that I am in this business.

When only one spouse has employer insurance available, it is often not the best option to sign the other spouse and the children onto the employer group plan.

Employers have been subsidizing their employees health insurance for many, many years. Insurance available to spouse and dependent children is rarely subsidized and is often at a much higher rate than purchasing individual plans. If the employee has 3 or more children adding the children to employer coverage is probably the best call. Two children it may be close. If there is only one child, the group plan is rarely the best price.

Now that pre-existing conditions are not a rating factor, the non employed or entrepreneur spouse younger than 45 can usually purchase lower cost individual health plans. Good policies for children are usually $140-$200/mo per child.

I would recommend finding a good independent agent who can show you lots of options to possibly save you money.

Under my wife's plan (I'm retired and 63) it cost $20 a week to add me and another $10 a week for my 24 year old son. This covers medical, dental, eye care and prescription coverage.
Bart

 

[vacationhopeful]

This is why I'm looking for a new company to work at this year. Our company gives an across the board 2% yearly increase in pay no mater how heard you work and my healthcare is going to cost me an additional $600 a month to cover my family of 5 and along with that comes a very high deductible that is double that of last years.

I received a 2% increase in pay but I willow be paying 48% more in healthcare costs. I can't afford to work at this company any longer. In just this month 7 employees have given their 2 weeks notice and I know of 10+ that are actively looking because of this huge increase. I think what got the rank and file upset is that when they filed their 3Q results, printed in very fine print is that the executives in the C-Suite would be receiving a $10K bonus to retain these key individuals to help them with their healthcare costs in addition to their normal 20% bonus.

This is almost the "new norm" .... employees will be replaced by contract workers or temp-to-hire personal.

I bet your co-workers are getting Christmas seasonal jobs and then for the New Year, be filing employment claims against this "great company". I believe that prevents your current (which would be their former employer but not their last employer) to object to their claims.

 

[staceyeileen]

This is how our family of 3 has ended up on 3 separate insurance plans.

DH has his employer-sponsored plan. I have my employer-sponsored plan. We purchased an individual plan for 4yo DS because we did the math.

 

[momeason]

Not true about the government workers. The county school system here is charging over $500/mo. to add a spouse and over $500 to add dependent children. This is very tough on teacher or teacher aide salaries.
A good friend works as a town manager nearby and it is $500 to add her only child, a 16 year old daughter to her plan. I can sell her a good plan for less than $200/mo.

A good friend of mine is primarily a group benefits consultant. I deal only with individual plans. He told me this situation has been going on for many years.
Employers have never been required to subsidize health insurance for spouses and dependents. Many find this is the first place benefits are cut.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

This is almost the "new norm" .... employees will be replaced by contract workers or temp-to-hire personal.

I bet your co-workers are getting Christmas seasonal jobs and then for the New Year, be filing employment claims against this "great company". I believe that prevents your current (which would be their former employer but not their last employer) to object to their claims.

Your right it is the new norm that employees are being replaced by contract workers and /or temp-to-hire personal. The problem has been that when that temp leaves us he / she gives us no notice as they move to he next company.

I have worked in the automotive industry the bulk of my career and left it for this position but I'm heading back into automotive.

 

[Zac495]

So far keeping my family on my plan has been best -but they doubled what I pay for the highest deductible plan.

I wonder what it would cost to switch them. I should check. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Patri]

Not true about the government workers. The county school system here is charging over $500/mo. to add a spouse and over $500 to add dependent children. This is very tough on teacher or teacher aide salaries.

It is around here, which is what I said. Teachers, administrators, city, county employees etc. make out well. For non-professional workers, however, the shift has been to part-time only, or outsourced, so they are actually employed by another company. Then the school district does not have to worry about their health insurance. It stinks. I imagine most employees go with the spouse's plan, if they have one.

 

[Big Matt]

Make sure you are comparing apples to apples too. Look at the deductibles, etc.

Also think about the coverage that you need. Getting a high deductible policy may be the best bet for younger folks especially with no children. If you don't have health conditions it may be smarter to take the risk.

 

[geekette]

??? Filing employment claims prevents employer from objecting?

Would you please elaborate?

Not sure what employees quitting has to do with claims of any type, nor why their departure would prevent company from business as usual?

...I bet your co-workers are getting Christmas seasonal jobs and then for the New Year, be filing employment claims against this "great company". I believe that prevents your current (which would be their former employer but not their last employer) to object to their claims.

 

[vacationhopeful]

??? Filing employment claims prevents employer from objecting?

Would you please elaborate?

Not sure what employees quitting has to do with claims of any type, nor why their departure would prevent company from business as usual?

If employer has a reason "for cause discharge" firing (theft, absences, no show ups, threatening others), the employment claim can be withheld (penalized) or denied. Usually, the former employee has to appeal with a ruling issued before they MIGHT get benefits. A short term seasonal employee, usually that employer only gets 'hit' IF the employee has worked within the time frame of the "so many weeks" they worked for them (the 3-6 week seasonal Xmas job), but the long term employer gets the BIG HIT and has no right to appeal to the state unemployment board.

Additionally, if the former employer "claims" they left by their own choice and their "former" job is STILL available, the unemployment office can denied the claim for the claimant has a job (hence is NOT employed by their choice).

I am not in a legal professional nor have ever worked in any unemployment office .... I just spent time at the dinner table for years overhearing the WHY people would grab a seasonal job for several weeks - and would work at getting laid off. And the letters written regarding WHY unemployment compensation SHOULD NOT be granted. And then hear the outcome (and associated bitching). And, YES, laws may have changed AND laws maybe STATE specific ..... and this is the internet, too.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

If employer has a reason "for cause discharge" firing (theft, absences, no show ups, threatening others), the employment claim can be withheld (penalized) or denied. Usually, the former employee has to appeal with a ruling issued before they MIGHT get benefits. A short term seasonal employee, usually that employer only gets 'hit' IF the employee has worked within the time frame of the "so many weeks" they worked for them (the 3-6 week seasonal Xmas job), but the long term employer gets the BIG HIT and has no right to appeal to the state unemployment board.

Additionally, if the former employer "claims" they left by their own choice and their "former" job is STILL available, the unemployment office can denied the claim for the claimant has a job (hence is NOT employed by their choice).

I am not in a legal professional nor have ever worked in any unemployment office .... I just spent time at the dinner table for years overhearing the WHY people would grab a seasonal job for several weeks - and would work at getting laid off. And the letters written regarding WHY unemployment compensation SHOULD NOT be granted. And then hear the outcome (and associated bitching). And, YES, laws may have changed AND laws maybe STATE specific ..... and this is the internet, too.

I should have been more clear. At my company the employees are not being fired or laid off. They are leaving on their own to move to other companies with better benefit packages. I'm interviewing with a company next week that has only a $3K deductable for famy coverage and the pay is about $8K more than I'm making now.

 

[geekette]

If employer has a reason "for cause discharge" firing (theft, absences, no show ups, threatening others), the employment claim can be withheld (penalized) or denied. Usually, the former employee has to appeal with a ruling issued before they MIGHT get benefits. A short term seasonal employee, usually that employer only gets 'hit' IF the employee has worked within the time frame of the "so many weeks" they worked for them (the 3-6 week seasonal Xmas job), but the long term employer gets the BIG HIT and has no right to appeal to the state unemployment board.

Additionally, if the former employer "claims" they left by their own choice and their "former" job is STILL available, the unemployment office can denied the claim for the claimant has a job (hence is NOT employed by their choice).

I am not in a legal professional nor have ever worked in any unemployment office .... I just spent time at the dinner table for years overhearing the WHY people would grab a seasonal job for several weeks - and would work at getting laid off. And the letters written regarding WHY unemployment compensation SHOULD NOT be granted. And then hear the outcome (and associated bitching). And, YES, laws may have changed AND laws maybe STATE specific ..... and this is the internet, too.

Awesome, thank you, appreciate the details. Definitely, there will be variance by state.

I was always under the impression that quitting a job automatically prevents unemployment benefits because employee made the choice (else I could go around getting and quitting jobs to stay on unemp for decades; no need to "try to get fired" [**yikes** on that mindset!]).

Further, a lady I knew that had difficulty in keeping a job (chronic illness leading to high absenteeism, but not enough to qualify as disabled) told me that any new job would have to last 6 months to re-qualify for unemployment else you remain on the record of the previous employer, and the clock keeps ticking until max # weeks has been paid out.

Again, maybe varies by state, but around here I don't think a company gets to refuse unemployment compensation because it is not dispensed by them, they pay in with every payroll run. They can attempt to deny benefits but I don't think there is much incentive to do so unless they just want to retaliate against employee they fired.

I live in an At Will state so the employer generally holds all the cards.

Back to the original post that got us on this tangent, I would certainly be hitting the road when the message is clear that rank and file are not important, only the execs. Probably the IN YOUR FACE nature of it will cause more departures than would have occurred. Plenty others will be happy to get 2% raise every year and never leave, but high achievers could easily be motivated to find a new employer that will recognize and reward their efforts more than 2%.

I'm hoping their HR dept becomes alarmed by the exodus and starts asking questions of those resigning and fixes the problem. But, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[isisdave]

geekette,

In California at least, an employer has an "account" which is credited with the UI tax he pays and is debited with what a terminated employee may be awarded. The tax rate he pays depends on how positive or negative the "account" is, so that's the incentive for not being dinged for an ex- employee getting benefits.

The benefit is based on what you earned in the "base period" before you file, which is defined as "a specific 12-month period. For example, if a claimant files a claim that begins in April, May, or June, the claim is calculated based on wages paid to the claimant between January 1 and December 31 of the prior year." Some claimants who have worked recently but not a year ago can delay filing in order to have a better base period.

I think the benefit awarded is allocated to all employers worked for in proportion to either the total pay or total UI tax paid.

Remember that UI tax is only on the first $7000 of wages paid annually. Not very much, even though the rate is now over 5% because nearly everyone's "account" is overdrawn and the UI system itself is insolvent, and being propped up by the states and the feds. Because of this, an employer with few UI liabilities has a rate that's almost as bad as one with many liabilities, so there's currently less reason to avoid claims (although no one wants to drive his "account" to the bottom of the ocean, as it'll take longer to recover.)

 

[geekette]

Wow, Dave, this is interesting stuff! Thanks for the details.

If I'm understanding correctly, this would mean that an employer that is in some way ... undesireable to employees would end up paying for it eventually. Obviously this depends on the eligibility of the departed employee. Looks like built in penalities for being one of those "staff up/lay em off" cyclical firms.

Coupla questions

1) In CA, can temp/seasonal workers collect? Is there a minimum length of service?

2) Can a person collect by simply quitting a job? Here there are other requirements, usually amounting to "beyond the control of employee" (layoff vs fired for cause/resigning)

3) Is there a max weekly benefit? If you can collect off multiple previous employers, holy crap.... I believe our max weekly is $350 but you would have had to have a decent paycheck to earn that (graduated schedule) so many get much less. It always puzzles me when someone cracks about how lucrative it is to be unemployed. I don't see it.

geekette,

In California at least, an employer has an "account" which is credited with the UI tax he pays and is debited with what a terminated employee may be awarded. The tax rate he pays depends on how positive or negative the "account" is, so that's the incentive for not being dinged for an ex- employee getting benefits.

The benefit is based on what you earned in the "base period" before you file, which is defined as "a specific 12-month period. For example, if a claimant files a claim that begins in April, May, or June, the claim is calculated based on wages paid to the claimant between January 1 and December 31 of the prior year." Some claimants who have worked recently but not a year ago can delay filing in order to have a better base period.

I think the benefit awarded is allocated to all employers worked for in proportion to either the total pay or total UI tax paid.

Remember that UI tax is only on the first $7000 of wages paid annually. Not very much, even though the rate is now over 5% because nearly everyone's "account" is overdrawn and the UI system itself is insolvent, and being propped up by the states and the feds. Because of this, an employer with few UI liabilities has a rate that's almost as bad as one with many liabilities, so there's currently less reason to avoid claims (although no one wants to drive his "account" to the bottom of the ocean, as it'll take longer to recover.)

 

[isisdave]

I think you can find the answers here . The benefits are scaled to how much you made in the base period, but I don't think it matters which employer you earned them from.

You can't get benefits if you quit. Nor if you're fired for cause.

The minimum benefit is $40 per week and the max is $450. I agree with you about the size of the benefit ... it's "starving slowly" and if you had a mortgage and no other income, it's like watching an oncoming train while tied to the tracks. By the way, UI is federally taxable (a couple of years ago there was a suspension of this, but it's over), but not taxable for California income tax purposes.

Interestingly, you can get benefits if your work week is reduced in some cases. A long while ago, I worked for an employer who imposed several furlough days, and we got some tiny benefit for that, which I don't really understand because normally there's a one-week waiting period.

You don't collect "off the employers" .. you collect from the state, who has charged the employers a tax.

 

[Sugarcubesea]

Back to the original post that got us on this tangent, I would certainly be hitting the road when the message is clear that rank and file are not important, only the execs. Probably the IN YOUR FACE nature of it will cause more departures than would have occurred. Plenty others will be happy to get 2% raise every year and never leave, but high achievers could easily be motivated to find a new employer that will recognize and reward their efforts more than 2%.

I'm hoping their HR dept becomes alarmed by the exodus and starts asking questions of those resigning and fixes the problem. But, I won't be holding my breath.

I feel this is why so many of my colleagues are moving on toothier companies. I'm a high achiever, type a personality and my innovation and talent are being wasted at this company and when you factor in that this company has sub-parhelath care benefits its not wonder they have a very high burn and churn rate.

 

[momeason]

Or will it just move the spouse from the Employer's Plan to a subsidized Obamacare plan?

George

A subsidy is not available to someone who has access to employer coverage through their job or their spouse's.
I can sell an individual plan at full price which is often cheaper than the group plan, but subsidies are not an option.

 

[momeason]

This is how our family of 3 has ended up on 3 separate insurance plans.

DH has his employer-sponsored plan. I have my employer-sponsored plan. We purchased an individual plan for 4yo DS because we did the math.

Smart move

 

[momeason]

Make sure you are comparing apples to apples too. Look at the deductibles, etc.

Also think about the coverage that you need. Getting a high deductible policy may be the best bet for younger folks especially with no children. If you don't have health conditions it may be smarter to take the risk.

I am comparing apples to apples. For people under 40 the individual market is usually a better deal than being added as a spouse to an employer group plan.