Originally Posted by spence (Post 714682)

This isn't news, it's exactly what we did at my wife's work when we moved onto my insurance.

-spence

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714694)

he just likes telling me I'm wrong:)

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714684)

But you were telling ScottW that he was wrong when he said that a company can afford to pay employees more if they didn't have to pay for health benefits. Yet, your wife was ablr to get more money in lieu of medical benefits?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 714697)

No, what I said was that the value attributed to the benefits wasn't equivalent to cash.

i.e. if I have a 12K health insurance plan, and my company says they "contribute" 9K, they're not going to give me the option to take a 9K raise if I opt out.

Also, the rules on this might be different for a larger or smaller company. Read my freaking posts will ya...

-spence

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714703)

The value of the insurance benefit is equivalent to cash when you factor a person's total compensation. If I choose not to get my company health plan, I can get the equivalent cash value added to my salary. It won't be the exact same amount because the insurance deduction is pre-tax. Some companies do this, while others may give a percentage back to the employee. One company I used to work for wouldn't give anything back in the form of salary adjustment for not taking medical benefits. It's all up to the employer as to what they want to do. In my company, if I choose not to take my company vehicle, I can actually make out. They base my vehicle allowance on a pretty nice car. If I were to opt out, I could downgrade the car and put extra cash in my pocket every week. Benefits do have a real cash value.

As for reading your posts, I read some of them every day. Since their all basically the same, I don't see the need to waste my time on all of them. I was keeping track of how often you were using the word "neocon", but it got out of control. I figured you'd have turned the page on your "Political Talking Points Word of the Day Calendar" by now.:smash:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 714706)

Read the thread again, you're still not up to speed.

-spence

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714696)

You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.

Originally Posted by Bocephus (Post 714718)

just for the record, Wikipedia is not a definitive source for anything. Its a reference point for terms and definitions, often giving vague and sometimes wrong answers. Should be used as a starting off point for research, not as a reliable source of info.

Originally Posted by Fly Rod (Post 714720)

If your plan is so terrible why would you switch your wife to your plan?

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714696)

You know he's frustrated when he starts with the petty insults. In his defense, it must get hard trying to play devil's advocate all day.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 714726)

And (for the millionth friggin time) I never said there wasn't!

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 714723)

I think this is the root of your problem, you're just making too many assumptions.

-spence

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714449)

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats....

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714449)

drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714731)

Were you on the debate team at your HS?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714730)

you inferred it...

your insurance company must LOVE getting phone calls from you :rotf2:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714676)

This is for Spence and JohnnyD. If an employee is smart enough, they should ask their employer for a higher pay rate if they decline the companies health plan. Many people don't realize this, but it is done in a lot of cases. A company pays a minimum of 60% of a health plans total premium and some pay much more. If a family plan costs an employer $600 per month and the employee declines coverage, the company saves that money. In some cases, the savings may not actually be $600 because depending on the total # of emplyees with the plan, mods are adjusted up or down. But, the savings will be pretty close to the $600 figure. If employers can save that money, it goes to the bottom line. JohnnyD should especially know this, as a business owner.

If an employee is smart and knows how to negotiate, they should ask for a higher salary in lieu of the medical benefits. In my wifes previous job, she negotiated a higher salary because she was on my medical insurance and didn't need it from her company. Because she was informed, she spoke to the HR person and was able to get almost the full cost of the insurance added to her pay.

Companies would rather people decline coverage because it's a big saving for them. The cost of medical and dental insurance, holiday pay, 401K contributions, etc... are huge for a company.

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 714734)

but something like smoking, a known carcinogen with a direct link to lung cancer, and has deleterious effects on others around you? Absolutely, make it undesirable, and if you still want to smoke, then lets raise some revenue on it!




, if it's so bad...ban it...

Originally Posted by justplugit (Post 714900)

Never happen, too many govt. taxes would be lost.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 714867)

All of this I am aware of.

However, in MA, I didn't think you could negotiate increased pay to an employee if they chose not to take the insurance. I thought health insurance had to be offered, under the same terms, to all employees in a similar position. All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 714917)

You're right in that you have to offer insurance to all people in a particular class if you offer it to one person in that class(ie. all salaried employees), but you can discriminate based on classes (hourly v. salary, full time v. part-time). You also can negotiate anything as far as compensation. No one can decide what a private company can pay their employees. Consider that women still lag behind men with the same experience and qualifications in pay rates for similar positions.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 714931)

That's what I thought. As such, in MA, you can't really negotiate to agree not to take health insurance for higher pay if you have anyone in the same class as you.

As such, scott's argument is invalid - like I said from the beginning.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714946)

I don't think that's what he said JD...

which of these is actually true???

JohnnyD;714628]

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue

All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 714946)

I don't think that's what he said JD...

which of these is actually true???

JohnnyD;714628]

Concerning:
I pay 100% of my health insurance because I own a business. On the other hand, my employees only pay *a portion* of their health insurance because *I* pay the other portion out of *my* (the business's) revenue

All my employees are long-time employees that get health insurance from their spouses, so I haven't really had to look into the details of it.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 715113)

The second is what is currently true can't be based on the first .But we have been in business for 11 years. Most of which was before the MA lawwhich one?. Doesn't change how the expense is treated. Nice try though.

I'll try and find a reference to what I mentioned above regarding negotiating pay.

Originally Posted by Fly Rod (Post 715118)

Scenario
company has 30-40 employees on assembly line making 20 bucks an hour, paid vacation, sick days, health plan and union. One employees wife has better health plan. In this scenario the assembly worker most likely will not be able to negotiate a higher wage.

machinist, carpenter, plumber in a non union shop of X number of employees, hourly or piece work, excellent at his job, paid vaction, sick days, health plan. Wife has better health plan. This person may be able to negotiate a higher wage if he goes on wives health plan. Depends on the value of worker.

Salesman is a top producer, may negotiate with employer for higher % split if wife has better health care.

Originally Posted by Joe (Post 718594)

Work hard, save, accumulate assets, play by the rules - you'll end up in nursing home next to an ex-con who never paid into anything, getting your ass roughly wiped by somebody who does not like your skin color.
The only difference is the government will make sure that the person who worked is good and broke before they let them in.