Forums | MacLife

Find a new employer.
Sounds like they have really crappy benefits.

btw - are you talking full coverage, or coverage with a deductable?

If your employer offers coverage with a deductable for less out of your paycheck, it often saves you money to go that route. Put the difference into your "rainy day" savings account - and within a year or so, you'll have more than enough money in there to cover the deductables yourself, thus enabling yourself to take home a bigger paycheck.

Do they still teach stuff like this in school?
It's basic home economics.

resedit wrote:

Find a new employer.
Sounds like they have really crappy benefits.

btw - are you talking full coverage, or coverage with a deductable?

If your employer offers coverage with a deductable for less out of your paycheck, it often saves you money to go that route. Put the difference into your "rainy day" savings account - and within a year or so, you'll have more than enough money in there to cover the deductables yourself, thus enabling yourself to take home a bigger paycheck.

Do they still teach stuff like this in school?
It's basic home economics.

My employer does not offer a deductable.  In addition many employers in the US offer worse plans then this.  What rock do you live under?  It's a take it or leave it plan.  Plus I don't need to go to school, I can think on my own thank you.  Are you trying to pick a fight?  I'm only stating facts here?  Sound likes you have a PhD and can't even find a job.  Stand in line and wait for your food stamps fool

lex2010 wrote:

My employer does not offer a deductable.  In addition many employers in the US offer worse plans then this.  What rock do you live under?  It's a take it or leave it plan.  Plus I don't need to go to school, I can think on my own thank you.  Are you trying to pick a fight?  I'm only stating facts here?  Sound likes you have a PhD and can't even find a job.  Stand in line and wait for your food stamps fool

I live in California - every employer has offered several levels of coverage.

Basic - where you pay $50 for office visits, deductible on generic medication, deductable on emergency room visits and ambulance services - to intermediate and full coverage plans.

If you are single, you can get the full coverage w/o additional taken out.
If you are married with children, you lose some from your paycheck - a lot for full, not so much for deductable (IE you pay certain amount for doctor visits and medications).

Maybe it just the employers I have had. But it has been that way for every job I've worked - from private security to computer tech to computer consultant to computer programmer.

Now with the private security job - the insurance plan was actually provided by the post I worked at (a country club) as part of the deal, but if you worked full time and your post didn't provide coverage - it wasn't that expensive to get it from the security company.

Maybe California just has better laws for coverage and employer responsibility.

Now part time jobs I've worked - they never have provided benefits.

resedit wrote:

lex2010 wrote:

My employer does not offer a deductable.  In addition many employers in the US offer worse plans then this.  What rock do you live under?  It's a take it or leave it plan.  Plus I don't need to go to school, I can think on my own thank you.  Are you trying to pick a fight?  I'm only stating facts here?  Sound likes you have a PhD and can't even find a job.  Stand in line and wait for your food stamps fool

I live in California - every employer has offered several levels of coverage.

Basic - where you pay $50 for office visits, deductible on generic medication, deductable on emergency room visits and ambulance services - to intermediate and full coverage plans.

If you are single, you can get the full coverage w/o additional taken out.
If you are married with children, you lose some from your paycheck - a lot for full, not so much for deductable (IE you pay certain amount for doctor visits and medications).

Maybe it just the employers I have had. But it has been that way for every job I've worked - from private security to computer tech to computer consultant to computer programmer.

Now with the private security job - the insurance plan was actually provided by the post I worked at (a country club) as part of the deal, but if you worked full time and your post didn't provide coverage - it wasn't that expensive to get it from the security company.

Maybe California just has better laws for coverage and employer responsibility.

Now part time jobs I've worked - they never have provided benefits.

Wonders when res will realise he has those choices because of "liberal" requirements set by state law.
The fundamental problem with the government of the USA is that 50% of the voting population has abdicated their responsibility as citizens. Thus the rise in power of what had been fringe groups like the Fundamentalists. Any group that can highly motivate its followers has a disproportionate influence because so many voters are too fat, stupid, lazy and apathetic to pay attention to anything outside their own little world.
We have bad government because as a people we deserve bad government.

Last edited by Pariah (2006-03-28 6:56 am)

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Wonders when res will realise he has those choices because of "liberal" requirements set by state law.

I'm not opposed to laws just because they are "liberal".
Reasonably priced health insurance from the employer is a good thing.
Universal health insurance is not a good thing.

Universal health insurance will drive prices up and quality down, and it will be paid for by the tax payer. Communism doesn't work.

You are brainwashed beyond belief.

Universal health care will set limits on what pharma companies can charge. It will set limits that will force research people to rein in costs. It will set limits on concerns like UPMC, who is involved in ongoing construction efforts and real estate investments and is too busy sheilding itself behind the not-for-profit status the University of Pittsburgh enjoys and not paying taxes. It will set limits because people need to see to basic health requirements such that they can work.

Many are forced to use emergency rooms and will default on balances because they can't pay.

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Mankind did, but individuals didn't.

It's not even insurance that people seem to want. They want first-dollar coverage, and they want to call it insurance.

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Wonders when res will realise he has those choices because of "liberal" requirements set by state law.

I'm not opposed to laws just because they are "liberal".
Reasonably priced health insurance from the employer is a good thing.
Universal health insurance is not a good thing.

Universal health insurance will drive prices up and quality down, and it will be paid for by the tax payer. Communism doesn't work.

Did you miss the thread comparing health care statistics? Where the US paid HUGE amounts more per person than countries with universal health care, yet had equal or worse benifits? I dont know why people say Universal Health Care doesn't work, when it has been shown to work very well in many different cases.

Farmerkev wrote:

It's strange isn't it, mankind survives for eons without medical insurance and now it's a critical necessity.

Back in the old days, if you broke your leg, the doctor would come over and patch it up for a reasonable fee and be on his way. Medical expenses remained affordable because they were controlled by a free market economy.

Insurance companies changed this by joining forces with pharmacutical companies and tampering with the prices. They jacked up the prices of pills, medical equipment, and malpractice insurance, which drove the price of medical expenses beyond the reach of the average patient. They also used connections in Washington to cement their hold on the industry through protectionist regulations and laws. Your broken leg now costs as much to fix as a downpayment on a reasonably-sized, middle-income house.

Personally, I don't want insurance. I think it's a mafia-esque scam -- pay now in case you'll get hurt later. But with prices the way they are, there isn't much choice. I don't know if universal health care is the answer, but the medical industry needs some sort of reform, and the insurance and pharmacutical industries need to taken down a few pegs.

Resedit ignorantly complains about communism, but the current system is about as protectionist and anti-free market as it gets.

Last edited by Sternum (2006-03-28 8:46 am)

isaly wrote:

You are brainwashed

Please omit personal attacks.

HSAs don't help much if you are poor. They are weighted more toward the rich. But most things are.