March 4, 2016 at 7:43 am
This is not related to the ACA - companies I have worked with have been doing this since at least 2006.
March 4, 2016 at 7:44 am
TMiller 21949 (3/4/2016)
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?
You comment about the lie is accurate. Employers were doing this before that law got rammed down our throats.
I would love to agree with you on your second point, who doesn't hate paying more for the same thing, but we do get charged differently for single versus family coverage. I guess I find that fair.
What I think we need is a requirement that if you offer insurance you pay 100% of the cost, and simply negotiate on pay. However that would have a negative impact on jobs, so I got nothing. 🙁
Dave
March 4, 2016 at 7:49 am
Andy Warren (3/4/2016)
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!
Very nicely said, Andy, much nicer than I want to word it. 🙂
As a point in fact, I manage our HR/Payroll system including database, and frequently am asked to run queries to determine answers to questions that drive decisions on what our benefits will look like. Is your topic directly related to SQL Server? No. Is it close enough that my example makes it justifiable? Probably not. Do I care? Not in the least. Keep writing interesting articles on whatever topic you like. If I don't like the topic, I won't participate.
We can always argue that this is on topic because we all work, and insurance is usually part of that employment.
Dave
March 4, 2016 at 7:51 am
I look forward to the day when health insurance is handled along the lines of auto insurance - it's something I shop for and purchase. That takes it out of the compensation package/negotiation, which would even out eventually. The win (if there is one) is that when we change jobs we don't up end our life because Employer B has different insurance, coverage levels, etc, etc.
I've long suspected that group insurance hurts both sides. As employees we pay less than we would in the open market, so we don't complain. Employers pay some, but not 100% (mostly), and provide what they can afford/want to pay. Rarely do employers seem to look at the total cost/benefit and thats good for the insurance companies. I worked with a large team recently that self-insures and outsources the admin to an insurer - interesting, don't know if better.
March 4, 2016 at 7:52 am
barry.mcconnell (3/4/2016)
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.
Well that is not completely accurate from the standpoint that at least some employers take taxes out from the balance after health insurance is paid. Where I work they do just that.
They also have an interesting way of handling disability insurance, they tax you on the premium, both what you pay and they pay, so that if you use it you don't have to pay insurance on the benefits.
So, while you are correct that you can't deduct it on your taxes, some employers handle it so that you aren't taxed on it at all.
Dave
March 4, 2016 at 8:25 am
djackson 22568 (3/4/2016)
Very nicely said, Andy, much nicer than I want to word it. 🙂
I'll second that. I don't think Andy could have handled that any better. Very professional!
March 4, 2016 at 8:27 am
I would be interested to know if other companies are willing to pay your spouse the extra fifty bucks a pay period to keep them on your insurance, if you get charged for it by your employer.
I'm sure it's cheaper for them then buying insurance!
March 4, 2016 at 8:35 am
Our company also does this - at a whopping cost of $250/month. I get it - they are paying a percentage of a premium for your spouse even without the spouse working there. They are indeed trying to cut costs.
You think this is bad - watch out for the newest way to cut costs. They make you do biometric screenings and fill out mental health surveys. If your score gets too high, they jack your rates up. This is another trend I predict will continue.
I personally don't believe that an employer is obligated to provide this service. It is one of many means of compensation and used for attracting and keeping talent. All a part of doing business. However, once that expense gets to be too much, look for employers to dumping insurance altogether as a means of compensation. I know of a company that has already done that - just stopped providing medical insurance altogether. Another trend I predict will continue unless something major changes.
March 4, 2016 at 8:59 am
djackson 22568 (3/4/2016)
Very nicely said, Andy, much nicer than I want to word it. 🙂
This is meant to be about SQL Server, but djackson 22568 seems to prefer writing fiction:
djackson 22568 (3/4/2016)
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!
Every country has huge waiting lists? Name one developed country with a two-year waiting list to see an oncologist?
This is typical ignorant scare-mongering. There's only one developed country without some form of socialised medicine and, lo-and-behold it has a shorter average life expectancy than every one of the following developed countries with socialised medicine:
USA - 79
----------
UK - 81
Canada - 82
France - 82
Germany - 81
Greece - 81
Iceland - 82
Ireland - 81
Israel - 82
Luxembourg - 82
Netherlands - 81
Norway - 82
Spain - 83
Sweden - 82
Switzerland - 83
(Source World Health Organisation: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.680)
Has it every occurred to you that you are being lied to?
March 4, 2016 at 9:11 am
I couldn't agree more with the first reply. I read it waiting for the relevant SQL bit. There are plenty of other places I can go read about employment benefits. This is where I come to read about SQL server.
March 4, 2016 at 9:19 am
May I suggest to those who would prefer a different type of editorial that you submit your alternatives through the standard channel (look left and click on "Write for us").1
I will look forward to reading what anyone writes as an editorial here. It is a community site. 🙂
1Use the same link if you want to write a similar type of editorial too.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 4, 2016 at 9:24 am
So is it fair to assume that the spouse who is insured by their spouse's employer would receive an additional amount of equal to the employer cost of the insurance? Also what about the insured family members?
March 4, 2016 at 10:44 am
Personally, I think if you're going to reduce an existing benefit, there should be a commensurate increase in salary for those affected.
I also think the savings are short-sighted. It's a one-time reduction in compensation, relying on the fact that most people wouldn't resign over it.
I think what many employers miss about compensation is that the value of an IT employee can go up a lot faster than inflation (especially if the employee is rapidly acquiring new skills plus business knowledge). If market rates for a DBA go up 10%, and your base raise is 2%, you're already falling behind. If you then reduce that 2% to 1% because of a health insurance surcharge, your most highly skilled employees are in a position where they can walk out and get a huge raise.
In the immediate short-term, you'll realize the savings and keep your employees. But over the longer-term, don't be surprised if other companies start snapping up your most talented employees.
Leonard
Madison, WI
March 4, 2016 at 11:16 am
Leonard, that's the ticket! If you're getting insurance via the employer as part of your comp package, it's frustrating when they change it, whether its the spousal tax or a change in premiums/deductibles, etc.
March 5, 2016 at 6:16 am
cparks 3541 (3/4/2016)
So is it fair to assume that the spouse who is insured by their spouse's employer would receive an additional amount of equal to the employer cost of the insurance? Also what about the insured family members?
Agree completely with this, it goes both ways. In fact, my company does pay the employee an annual dollar amount if they get their medical insurance elsewhere. As of yet, we are lucky to not have the spousal surcharge (although I'd be lucky that it wouldn't apply to me as my wife and kids have no other coverage options), but I could see it coming.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply