Is it discrimination for a company to...

[Exterous]

heavily subsidize health care costs for one group of employees instead of another and irrespective (or perhaps in spite of) their risk/cost?

As I sit here thinking about the most recent health care changes to the plan offered by my wife's employer I can't help but be pissed off that a family of 3+ people is actually paying less than our family of 2

Now it could just be that its in the morning and I am not a morning person but it really irritates me that we will be paying notably (15-50% depending on plan) more for health care simply because we do not have kids

 

[jaedaliu]

same risk factors? same bargaining group? same position? same salary? Those can all change what you pay for health care. If everything's the same except the number of dependents, then that's fishy.

 

[highland145]

^^^
This.

 

[Exterous]

same risk factors? same bargaining group? same position? same salary? Those can all change what you pay for health care. If everything's the same except the number of dependents, then that's fishy.

Well - does having kids change your risk factor? I would think it would increase it but I don't know for sure. Other than that, same bargaining group - no distinction in positions. Doesn't matter if you are in charge of a group, have 30 years of exp or a new hire - you have kids you pay less than a couple without kids

 

[Uppsala9496]

So employee/spouse/dependents is less than employee/spouse?

Time to have kids.

 

[jaedaliu]

Well - does having kids change your risk factor? I would think it would increase it but I don't know for sure. Other than that, same bargaining group - no distinction in positions. Doesn't matter if you are in charge of a group, have 30 years of exp or a new hire - you have kids you pay less than a couple without kids

I would call HR and ask. If it's not a mistake, purchase for your "kid" and don't send in any paperwork. You should be able to get a few months out of it before they switch you back.

 

[Pheran]

Err, that doesn't make any sense, I've never seen any health plan that is less expensive if you don't have kids. Families with children are pretty much guaranteed to have higher health care costs, all else being equal.

 

[IronWing]

Pisses me off that we have a choice of self or family only. People cranking out kids pay the same rate as childless couples so we end up subsidizing their kids. It would be reasonable to have have self and self plus X persons with an incremental premium to cover each additional person.

 

[NoCreativity]

I sympathize. For ours there is no distinction between a couple or a couple with 1 or more kids, it's all the same "family" plan. At least our dental and vision differentiates between a couple and a family.

 

[Exterous]

I would call HR and ask. If it's not a mistake, purchase for your "kid" and don't send in any paperwork. You should be able to get a few months out of it before they switch you back.

No mistake. We called to confirm and a paperwork submission is required before enrolling in the family plan. And no a dog doesn't qualify us for the family section

 

[Exterous]

So employee/spouse/dependents is less than employee/spouse?

Time to have kids.

I think that might cost more than the health care savings

Err, that doesn't make any sense

We agree

 

[highland145]

I think that might cost more than the health care savings

What you lose in $$, you gain in wealth X1000

 

[lxskllr]

No mistake. We called to confirm and a paperwork submission is required before enrolling in the family plan. And no a dog doesn't qualify us for the family section

Get a cat.

 

[PingSpike]

Pisses me off that we have a choice of self or family only. People cranking out kids pay the same rate as childless couples so we end up subsidizing their kids. It would be reasonable to have have self and self plus X persons with an incremental premium to cover each additional person.

Every place I've worked has had self, self+spouse and family plans each with different set of copays, deductable rates and employee contributions.

 

[crabbyman]

Every place I've worked has had self, self+spouse and family plans each with different set of copays, deductable rates and employee contributions.

My current employer is like that (public) and so is my wife's employer (private).

Self = $XX a check
Self & Spouse = $XXX a check
Self & Unlimited children = $XXX a check
Self, Spouse, and & Children = $XXX a check.

Number not provided because I don't remember. But I do remember the self & spouse was close to 3x the cost of self & unlimited children.

And this is the reason my wife and I had to get different insurances. She has our daughter on her PPO and I am by myself on a crappy HDHP w/HSA. If one of us has to be on the other's insurance our price would be between 3x to 5x our current cost. So I took the shaft on insurance to save us money.

 

[sixone]

Does that family of three include a spouse, or is it employee + children only?

Regardless, it's not discrimination. People with children tend to be healthier and take less risks than those who don't.

 

[PenguinPower]

Discrimination - yes.

Illegal discrimination - no.

 

[CPA]

Two years ago my company went to a more personalized cost - the more kids the more it cost you.

I bitched about it to the VP-Benefits to no avail, as I had 4 kids. Fortunately I had a good enough report e with him that I could get away with it.

 

[Gibsons]

No mistake. We called to confirm and a paperwork submission is required before enrolling in the family plan. And no a dog doesn't qualify us for the family section

adding to what someone else said above - just add the dog as a dependent (give him a human name), don't send in the rest of the paperwork. I doubt they have a checkbox for "human." Let them sort it out. Although maybe it's illegal. :hmm:

 

[sjwaste]

Not at all. Employee + children is cheaper than Employee + spouse quite often, because the company is subsidizing the employee most heavily and probably children a little more than a spouse. My wife and I work for the same employer and we're on separate health plans because Employee + Children + Employee is cheaper than Employee + Family. It's because the employer subsidy for a spouse is considerably less, as presumably, we don't want to subsidize coverage for someone who may work and have their own employer subsidy available.

As for the child coverage subsidies, I probably don't have to tell you that sick kids mean parents miss work. So subsidize the shit out of their coverage so that you keep it and take them to the doctor for preventative care.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Our healthplan has the following and cost goes up in that order.

Employee
Employee + Spouse
Employee + Child/Children
Employee + Spouse + Children

 

[Pheran]

Not at all. Employee + children is cheaper than Employee + spouse quite often, because the company is subsidizing the employee most heavily and probably children a little more than a spouse.

You're missing the point - this isn't Employee + Spouse vs Employee + Children, it's Employee + Spouse vs Employee + Spouse + Children, with the latter being cheaper - which makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Gunslinger08]

My wife and I maintain separate insurance. It is quite a bit cheaper, as single person premiums are usually mostly covered by the employer.

 

[sjwaste]

You're missing the point - this isn't Employee + Spouse vs Employee + Children, it's Employee + Spouse vs Employee + Spouse + Children, with the latter being cheaper - which makes no sense whatsoever.

That could be a company subsidy on family coverage or the carrier charging a different rate for couples without children. My guess is a company subsidy. Some organizations make "family friendly" a priority.

Another question: Does the company provide same sex couples benefits under spousal coverage? Could be the higher rate covers that, although I'm unaware of same sex couples being a different risk.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Pisses me off that we have a choice of self or family only. People cranking out kids pay the same rate as childless couples so we end up subsidizing their kids. It would be reasonable to have have self and self plus X persons with an incremental premium to cover each additional person.

It pisses me off that my tax dollars go to subsidize public eduction even though I don't have kids or any family members who make use of it; it pisses me off that my tax dollars go to help pay for public transportation even though I don't use it; etc.

We contribute to stuff we don't use all the time...even for single people who are healthy are paying a higher premium than they should to subsidize single people who aren't healthy.