March 3, 2016 at 10:31 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Spousal Surcharges
March 4, 2016 at 12:08 am
What has this got to do with SQL Server? Of what interest is this to anyone outside the United States in any case?
What next? How about writing about kindergarten choices in your local area or airing your personal domestic problems?
This post doesn't add to SQL Server Central, it detracts from it. Better post nothing than irrelevant content.
March 4, 2016 at 1:42 am
Although from the UK, I don't mind such posts as it is relevant to employment. Yes it is more general than employment as a data professional but I like the take it or leave it approach to editorials most people have. I have the NHS (brag, brag - lets not have a UK "how in danger is the NHS?" debate here) but I do not think that this editorial was about just healthcare. It was more about the fairness of a trending change in employment benefits (in the US only - so far!!!) and was also about the application of changes of employment terms and conditions.
FWIW, it sounds as though it is a fair enough change as long as it is phased in for existing employees so that they can manage it.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 4, 2016 at 2:57 am
Like Gary, I'm not from the US either, but I find it interesting to see what benefits are commonly offered to IT professionals in other parts of the world.
I am in New Zealand. My previous employer offered superannuation with life insurance included, free health insurance for the employee and the option for the employee to purchase subsidised health insurance for their partner. My current employer offers none of these. Employer-run superannuation schemes are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. The last few years have been difficult for the local economy, and employers have taken the opportunity to trim costs by removing or outsourcing some of the formerly-available benefits enjoyed by their workers.
I'd say if you're getting any type of insurance paid for by your employer, you're better off than colleagues in some other parts of the world.
On the other hand, some of us get more paid annual leave than some of you 🙂
March 4, 2016 at 4:47 am
I am on my wife's insurance and want a bonus from my employer for not using our insurance here! I am saving them money.
March 4, 2016 at 5:08 am
Is it fair for me to be charged more because my wife doesn't work for the same company I do as opposed to a couple who both work for the same company?
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
March 4, 2016 at 5:44 am
erb2000 - there you go!
March 4, 2016 at 5:46 am
I'll go you one better. I'm not even eligible for my wife's insurance because I have access to insurance through my employer. There's no option to pay more for it - I'm not eligible at all.
To erb2000's point, a previous employer of mine did exactly that. If you don't use the company's health insurance, they gave you $50 a month. If you don't use the dental insurance, that's another $50.
I think it boils down to exactly what Andy pointed out - companies are trying to control costs at any cost.
March 4, 2016 at 5:58 am
First of all - these surcharges have NOTHING to do with the ACA. Slimy employers or HR/benefit managers may try to deflect blame for the practice by saying "the ACA made me do it," but that is a lie.
Second, if Employees X and Z are both married, but Z's spouse is not employed (by choice or not - doesn't matter), why should Employee X be charged $1,300/yr while Employee Z is not? And what if Z's spouse does work, but for a small firm that does not offer insurance benefits? Why should X and Z be treated differently?
March 4, 2016 at 5:59 am
iposner, good morning!
SSC has a long and rich history of editorials and many of those are NOT about SQL Server, because - in my opinion - because most of us here are more than just DBA's or dev's working with SQL Server. We touch other technical areas and we have careers to grow and manage, and lives beyond that. Certainly the editorial space could be constrained more (or less), that's a decision made elsewhere. I submit the occasional editorial piece that I think would be of interest to people in the industry (or maybe just people like me!) and will show them a new idea, or a different view of an idea, or on rare occasion just entertain them. Editorials will rarely speak to everyone. DBA's will perhaps be less interested in dev topics, or BI, and vice versa. People with no spouse may not care about this one, and so on. The same can be said of the technical content posted.
We can agree to disagree, easy enough. I'd hope that you see enough value here at SSC to continue participating, even if you do skip my non-technical editorials!
March 4, 2016 at 6:01 am
TMiller, it's all about where you stand I guess. Business survive to a degree by controlling costs. I don't always like the way they do it of course.
March 4, 2016 at 7:04 am
At least we have a choice. What gets me is when folks take the choice that costs them more money for basically the same level of service, and then they complain about paying more. If your spouse is employed and eligible for coverage on another plan, then it makes sense to have both spouses on separate plans. Not only are individual plans less expensive than employee + spouse plans, but each spouse can choose the level plan that makes the most sense for them. For example, one spouse may have a condition that requires them to see a physician in another city that is out of network, so they choose the more exensive plan, while the other spouse is healthy and only goes to the doctor once a year (at most), so they go for the cheapest plan with a high deductable that utilizes only local clinics.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
March 4, 2016 at 7:23 am
I understand controlling costs but let's also remember that the employer can deduct those expenses for insurance from their taxes while you can't deduct the portion you pay.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche
March 4, 2016 at 7:32 am
lshanahan (3/4/2016)
Is it fair for me to be charged more because my wife doesn't work for the same company I do as opposed to a couple who both work for the same company?
Surely each is covered anyway. Not as spouses.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 4, 2016 at 7:40 am
This is a thorn in my side! First, COBRA does indeed take effect on the loss of a job, whether insurance was involved or not. Although things were simpler before the obomanation we call health care law in the US.
As to why employers do this - let's not kid ourselves, employers are in business to make money. This is just another way to reduce costs. I don't like it, but it isn't the worst thing happening.
Employers are now requiring flu shots, charging extra for smokers, and even "charging extra/limiting health care plans" based on weight. This despite evidence that weight is not related to health care costs, and in fact, people who are 10-20% over weight actually tend to get sick less often. Remember H1N1? Athletes were more likely to die from it than people who didn't exercise!
What ever happened to group insurance?
The alternatives is to let the government run things right? However what the media doesn't tell you is that every country that has national insurance has huge waiting lists for lots of things, including as much as a two year wait to see an oncologist! Plus look at who runs our government now, and who is running for office, and I doubt anyone can honestly say we can trust the US government to run healthcare affordably.
Dave
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply