OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Y2HH]

When you hire someone you are looking at the total cost of their salary plus all benefits. How you want to divide that number is up to the employer. If I want to give you $20,000 in salary and $5,000 in benefits or $21,000 in salary and $4,000 in benefits, doesn't really make a difference. I don't think it means the CEO is a dick. Plus, I was responsible in two companies for compensation plans for the salespeople so I am well aware of the fully loaded cost of employees.

 

That's not quite how it works, though.

 

We aren't simply shifting cost like that. We aren't giving you 20k in salary and 5k in benefits. We are giving you the same salary, but charging you far less for your benefits, and charging the CEO a lot more. Essentially, we subsidize the employees that are making less, so they have the same coverage as we do.

[Y2HH]

So they can leave out testicular cancer in policies that are written for women?

 

That's essentially the same as ovarian cancer...so not quite the same.

[Jenksismyhero]

And i'm sure insurance companies could do that, but I doubt they break things down by cancer type. I'm sure it's just cancer treatment as part of your coverage.

[cabiness42]

When you hire someone you are looking at the total cost of their salary plus all benefits. How you want to divide that number is up to the employer. If I want to give you $20,000 in salary and $5,000 in benefits or $21,000 in salary and $4,000 in benefits, doesn't really make a difference. I don't think it means the CEO is a dick. Plus, I was responsible in two companies for compensation plans for the salespeople so I am well aware of the fully loaded cost of employees.

 

Depending on the size of the company, it can make a big difference. Bigger employers get good deals from insurance companies to provide coverage to their employees. If I give employees $1000 more in salary instead of $1000 worth of health insurance, the employees are not going to get anywhere as good of coverage for that $1000 buying it on their own than they are going to get by me spending that $1000 for them.

 

[illinilaw08]

It is, and I think it's a fair/good idea.

 

How insurance works, I'm not sure you know or not (so don't take this as preaching), is you will come to us, and show us your employment roster...what's the average age of your employees, etc...the premium cost is based on these factors...and the negotiated group cost is then given to your employer.

 

Now, how your employer divides that cost is completely up to them. That said, any employer that charges everyone the same amount of money, IMO, aren't being very nice. If you're CEO is paying the same for healthcare as your janitor, for example...you're CEO is a dick.

 

Partners at my law firm pay nothing. Staff and associates pay... a lot.

 

BCBS' model is admirable and one I wish more companies followed...

[Jenksismyhero]

Partners at my law firm pay nothing. Staff and associates pay... a lot.

 

BCBS' model is admirable and one I wish more companies followed...

 

They're paying a lot more than you for your coverage though. And maybe they get their insurance through a spouse? Or do you know for certain what they pay?

[Texsox]

That's not quite how it works, though.

 

We aren't simply shifting cost like that. We aren't giving you 20k in salary and 5k in benefits. We are giving you the same salary, but charging you far less for your benefits, and charging the CEO a lot more. Essentially, we subsidize the employees that are making less, so they have the same coverage as we do.

 

yes it is. There is a cost associated with every employee. When you build a compensation plan ALL costs are included. When their benefits cost more there is less to pay in salary.

 

Think about this, if you have $30,000 to hire an employee, you can't pay him $30,000. Those benefits cost the company something. So subtract the cost of benefits from $30,000 and that is what is available for salary.

[Y2HH]

yes it is. There is a cost associated with every employee. When you build a compensation plan ALL costs are included. When their benefits cost more there is less to pay in salary.

 

Think about this, if you have $30,000 to hire an employee, you can't pay him $30,000. Those benefits cost the company something. So subtract the cost of benefits from $30,000 and that is what is available for salary.

 

Again, that's not what we are doing.

 

We are shifting the burden for health benefits on the higher paid employees, we pay more, and it has nothing to do what's left to pay them in salary. In effect, the benefit package the lesser paid employees receive is actually better.

 

Salary works in ranges, if you are a level 10 employee for example, you can make anywhere from 30-60k, which will overlap a level 11 and 12 to a great degree.

 

They aren't paying them less money because their benefits are lower in this case.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

Again, that's not what we are doing.

 

We are shifting the burden for health benefits on the higher paid employees, we pay more, and it has nothing to do what's left to pay them in salary. In effect, the benefit package the lesser paid employees receive is actually better.

 

Salary works in ranges, if you are a level 10 employee for example, you can make anywhere from 30-60k, which will overlap a level 11 and 12 to a great degree.

 

They aren't paying them less money because their benefits are lower in this case.

 

 

Why can't you make $65,000 and have all of your insurance paid for?

[Y2HH]

Why can't you make $65,000 and have all of your insurance paid for?

 

That's not an answerable question, as I don't create the plans/salary range/benefit packages where I work. In the system in which I work, everyone pays a portion of the health insurance costs, whith a much higher burden shifted onto the higher paid employees than on the lower.

 

Also, a system designed as you are asking about always benefits the richer employees.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Y2HH

[cabiness42]

That's not an answerable question, as I don't create the plans/salary range/benefit packages where I work. In the system in which I work, everyone pays a portion of the health insurance costs, whith a much higher burden shifted onto the higher paid employees than on the lower.

 

Also, a system designed as you are asking about always benefits the richer employees.

 

That's a very odd system. Most places I've heard of, the employer pays a fixed percentage of insurance premiums for all full-time employees, regardless of salary.

 

 

[Y2HH]

That's a very odd system. Most places I've heard of, the employer pays a fixed percentage of insurance premiums for all full-time employees, regardless of salary.

 

Apparently it's not widely used, but I think it's a superior system than most.

 

To put this in another way, there are only three ways I know of to implement health care costs in an organization.

 

1) Nobody pays anything, and the costs are all baked into negotiated pay and are paid in full by the company.

2) Everyone pays the same amount.

3) A progressive tax like scale.

 

1 and 2 always benefit richer/higher paid employees, for obvious reasons.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://gawker.com/documents-reveal-the-ter...re-g-1456675306

 

According to documents obtained by CBS News from the House Oversight Committee, just six people enrolled in the program using its website during the first 24 hours, despite the Obama administration's claims of 4.7 million unique visitors to the site over the same time period. And the second day wasn't much better: just 248 people were able to enroll nationwide.

[Iwritecode]

I work for one of the largest employers in the world. Our group health plan does not depend on how much you make. I've honestly never heard of that anywhere.

 

My previous employer did that. My wife and I worked there at the same time so we had the insurance under her name rather than mine because she made less.

[cabiness42]

Apparently it's not widely used, but I think it's a superior system than most.

 

To put this in another way, there are only three ways I know of to implement health care costs in an organization.

 

1) Nobody pays anything, and the costs are all baked into negotiated pay and are paid in full by the company.

2) Everyone pays the same amount.

3) A progressive tax like scale.

 

1 and 2 always benefit richer/higher paid employees, for obvious reasons.

 

I don't necessarily see how everybody paying the same amount benefits the higher paid employees. They are not getting better coverage for their money.

[Texsox]

That's not an answerable question, as I don't create the plans/salary range/benefit packages where I work. In the system in which I work, everyone pays a portion of the health insurance costs, whith a much higher burden shifted onto the higher paid employees than on the lower.

 

Also, a system designed as you are asking about always benefits the richer employees.

 

And what I am trying to explain, from being the guy that has created plans. There is a maximum amount a company can pay an employee. (In your example it is $60,000 plus a portion of their benefits). That pay includes everything. First there are certain costs that can not be changed. Contributions for Social Security, taxes, etc. Then there are costs that can be changed, salary and benefits. Your employer established a system where they will cover $X of a given employees health insurance.

 

Employees cost the employer money. How much they pay someone is something the company controls. They have options in how they pay. They can pay someone hourly, a salary, they can offer 100% commission, a base salary plus commission, offer a draw against commission, etc. They can offer to pay 100% of their insurance costs, they can pay zero. It's up to them for the most part.

 

Now, if you are the guy hiring a new CEO and you offer a base salary of $9850,000 and explain they pay 100% of their insurance costs of $15,000 annually. They can counter and say they will pay their insurance but they won't take the job for less than $1,000,000. You agree on a $1,000,000. Is the CEO really paying 100% of their insurance if they receive a raise to pay for it?

 

Likewise, you have an employee at Coke earning $50,000 and paying none of their $15,000 insurance policy. Another employee at Pepsi is paying all of their insurance, but earning $65,000. Who has the better deal? Which employee is costing more to their employer? The person at Coke or the person at Pepsi?

[Texsox]

I don't necessarily see how everybody paying the same amount benefits the higher paid employees. They are not getting better coverage for their money.

 

A lower prcentage of their compensation goes towards their benefit.

[Texsox]

http://gawker.com/documents-reveal-the-ter...re-g-1456675306

 

Isn't there a difference between viewers and people who sign up? Isn't it to be expected that people will view the site without buying right away?

[Balta1701]

Isn't there a difference between viewers and people who sign up? Isn't it to be expected that people will view the site without buying right away?

Yes to both.

 

However, none of this changes the fact that the site design is a complete failure and should be a fireable offense for a lot of people.

[StrangeSox]

Really? Every employee pays the exact same rate? The CEO making 5 million a year pays the same as the mail clerk making 15/hour?

 

I'd have to look over the plan documents again, but I believe everyone was given the same rate information. The plan costs $X, the company subsidizes y%.

 

What companies might change based on salary level would be how much the company contributes. That doesn't change the actual policy cost.

[StrangeSox]

I don't necessarily see how everybody paying the same amount benefits the higher paid employees. They are not getting better coverage for their money.

 

If you assume that the total plan cost for 1000 employees is a fixed cost, then you could split the total cost evenly across 1000 people, or you could come up with a progressive cost distribution, which would lower the cost to those at the bottom of the salary scale and raise it for those at the top.

 

 

[cabiness42]

If you assume that the total plan cost for 1000 employees is a fixed cost, then you could split the total cost evenly across 1000 people, or you could come up with a progressive cost distribution, which would lower the cost to those at the bottom of the salary scale and raise it for those at the top.

 

OK, I get what you're saying. I guess as I'm looking at it from the standpoint that we are going to spend X on employee benefits and then what we have left in the budget goes to employee salaries, so the amount that you spend on an employee's benefits is independent of their salary.

[cabiness42]

Yes to both.

 

However, none of this changes the fact that the site design is a complete failure and should be a fireable offense for a lot of people.

 

The site needs a "Buy It Now" button. It did wonders for eBay.

[Balta1701]

The site needs a "Buy It Now" button. It did wonders for eBay.

 

(Based on the performance of the contractor that built the website...I'd assume that a "buy it now" button would actually send you to the national parks service homepage).

[Texsox]

OK, I get what you're saying. I guess as I'm looking at it from the standpoint that we are going to spend X on employee benefits and then what we have left in the budget goes to employee salaries, so the amount that you spend on an employee's benefits is independent of their salary.

 

Salary and benefits cannot be separated. Each person you add increases the cost, each employee dropped decreases. Plus not all employees take the benefits. So they must be factored per employee.