The next question...

[curmugeon]

I know that those without employer paid health care might find this question
somewhat annoying, but I'm union, so I get paid health care.

It's health plan open enrollment time here at work and I always wonder why
employers give a larger contribution to employees with dependents for health
insurance? This has always irked me, as I see this is another case of
discrimination. The employer hires the employee, not their dependents, so
why should I get an employee contribution of only $305 a month, but a person
with two dependents gets $794? I wonder if these benefits are considered
compensation, and if they are, why aren't I getting equal compensation?

Comments

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Wait, do you mean that your employer pays $305 a month to your HMO or other health organization for your health benefits? If so, wouldn't it make sense that your employer would pay $794 a month for an employee plus his/her two dependents? At least the second figure isn't 3 times (or $915) what your individual (as opposed to family) benefits cost your employer.

Don't you also pay something for your health benefits? If so, it's probably a lesser amount for the single plan than for the family plan.

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

I pay $2.80 and if I had two dependents the amount would be $7.33. We get our health benefits through PERS, usually Kaiser, is the cheapest rate. The employer kicks in $305 if single and $794 if you have two dependents. The numbers are proportional. I look at the amount spent per 'employee', and I get $485 dollars less in benefits. I'd like this difference to be able to put it in deferred comp, or some other program.

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

But this amount spent by your employer per employee isn't going to your paycheck, it's going to pay Kaiser for providing your medical care. It may cost the employer less to cover you, but you're still getting the same full medical benefits as someone with dependents.

The employee with 2 dependents puts in more and the employer puts in more for that employee. That doesn't mean that you're getting *less* than you should be getting, it just means that employees with 2 dependents cost more for the employer.

I had the single health plan before R was born, now I have the family plan because she's my dependent. I pay more and my employer pays more to cover R's health. But I'm not getting anything extra, nor taking anything away from those on the single health plan.

Besides, what would be the alternative? For all employees to be on the single health plan and have to pay for our dependents' health insurance separately, out-of-pocket? No one with dependents could afford that!

My suggestion

[n6vfp.livejournal.com]

I think it would be fair to have a cafeteria system, where the employer contributes a set amount, to cover health, vacation, and sick leave. You would then make a choice, fund your health insurance, buy an amount of vacation or sick leave, and any excess funds could be used for deferred comp.

A friend used to work for an aero-space firm and had a cafeteria benefits program. The employer gave each employer enough funds to cover the employee and two dependents. Because she was single, she could purchase coverage for herself, and have enough left over that she could put $500 a month into deferred comp. Those with dependents had enough to cover their needs, but all employees received the same amount of benefit dollars , regardless of marital or dependent status. I think that is just. In that fashion all employees were treated equally, with no 'group' given more than any other.

Re: My suggestion

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Employees with dependents might object that such a system greatly favors employees without dependents. They might protest: "Why should someone get an extra $500 in deferred comp just for not having dependents?" That would be like penalizing employees for having dependents! Putting this money into deferred comp for the employee to be able to use later is quite different than having the employer pay for ongoing dependent health benefits. In your (and my) system, employees with dependents aren't getting any extra money at all - the employer is simply paying a larger portion of their family's health benefits.

Think of it this way: If your mom couldn't provide for her own medical benefits (or you thought she'd get better coverage through your health plan) and you listed her as a dependent, you'd get no more money than you get now. Your employer would pay more, but in doing so would take nothing away from any other employee.

Sometimes it's not really our choice but our obligation to have dependents benefits come from our paychecks. For example, some people provide benefits for older parents who can't provide for themselves. Or say a parent of dependents who once had single package benefits then got a divorce, maybe sole custody, and had no choice but to provide for the children through the employer. Dependents cost a lot of money. People without them don't have to spend as much, so why should they further benefit from more money into their own deferred comp?

I've had both single and family medical benefits and have always thought our system is fair. I pay a little more and my employer pays a little more to cover my daughter's medical benefits. In fact, those benefits are the main reason I stay employed full-time. I want desperately to work part-time, and could manage the cut in salary but probably not the cut in benefits.

Still, I can't help wondering if universal implementation of the cafeteria-style system might be an incentive toward birth control and reducing family size! :)