Woman tells boss she has been diagnosed with cancer, he responds by firing her

[LTC8K6]

You must have earned income at least above poverty to qualify for tax credit. Medicaid expansion was suppose to cover people like this, but the right wing in Pennsylvania have denied the expansion.

I don't qualify for a subsidy. I make too much money.

My premium is $339 a month and my out of pocket yearly maximum is $6,350.

Pennsylvania has expanded Medicaid:

http://www.care2.com/causes/pennsylvanias-medicaid-reform-looks-like-a-medicaid-expansion.html

 

[DCal430]

I don't qualify for a subsidy. I make too much money.

My premium is $339 a month and my out of pocket yearly maximum is $6,350.

Pennsylvania has expanded Medicaid:

http://www.care2.com/causes/pennsylvanias-medicaid-reform-looks-like-a-medicaid-expansion.html

She won't get medicaid until Jan when the plan starts, at least they finally decided to expand it. She may not even live to see the expansion though.

Lets say she gets $2,000 a month in unemployment, after tax that would be about $1,850 a month, then less a $350 a month premium, that leaves her $1500, she probably spends about $500 a month on out of pocket medical expenses such as deductions and co-pays, leaving her with just $1,000 a month to live on. Not enough.

 

[DCal430]

To be clear him paying her wage and providing her medical coverage and her performing her job duties are not connected. He can pay her wage and provide her medical coverage while she is not working. He chose not to,.

 

[Vic]

To be clear him paying her wage and providing her medical coverage and her performing her job duties are not connected. He can pay her wage and provide her medical coverage while she is not working. He chose not to,.

Or LTD insurance is cheap and helps avoid unpleasant public opinion?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I suspect unemployment pays more than most LTD plans.

 

[Mandres]

You're living in a fantasy world. There is no employer in the world that would continue to pay wages and benefits for someone with a terminal disease who is unable to work

 

[himkhan]

Tough one. Wouldn't FMLA protect her job? FMLA for your own serious health condition usually goes for 6 months where your job is guaranteed if you are able to come back within the time frame. Him saying... when you feel better come back doesn't sound like a guarantee and I am pretty sure FMLA laws protect her job. Him laying her off does free her up to make some money while she is down though since I would imagine he does not offer his employees short term or long term disability where she would be entitled to reduced percentage wages for the duration of her FMLA after the one or two week waiting period. But I have known a few people in my life who when diagnosed with cancer went off FMLA, took the short term disability that came with their job benefits, and came back within 6 months after treatment, continued on with their life while employer minded own business until of course after the mandatory time frame comes and goes and you are still too sick to come back...... tough cookies. Your job is no longer guaranteed.

 

[DCal430]

You're living in a fantasy world. There is no employer in the world that would continue to pay wages and benefits for someone with a terminal disease who is unable to work

Not everyone is heartless like you.

 

[Vic]

I suspect unemployment pays more than most LTD plans.

LTD generally pays 66% of pre-disability compensation and you keep your benefit plan. I suspect you have no clue what you're talking about.
And I'll say this one more time: a person cannot collect unemployment benefits while being physically unable to work. To do so would be fraud.

 

[Vic]

You're living in a fantasy world. There is no employer in the world that would continue to pay wages and benefits for someone with a terminal disease who is unable to work

I don't think that you understand the core concept behind insurance.

 

[Brainonska511]

LTD generally pays 66% of pre-disability compensation and you keep your benefit plan. I suspect you have no clue what you're talking about.
And I'll say this one more time: a person cannot collect unemployment benefits while being physically unable to work. To do so would be fraud.

In some cases, LTD is also tax-free income, which would make it worth more than simply being 66% of pre-disability income.

 

[DCal430]

LTD generally pays 66% of pre-disability compensation and you keep your benefit plan. I suspect you have no clue what you're talking about.
And I'll say this one more time: a person cannot collect unemployment benefits while being physically unable to work. To do so would be fraud.

How the F is she supposed to pay for health insurance, or treatment without money from unemployment.

FYI I think laying her off for being unable to work due to a illness is a violation of the FMLA.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

That lady deserves to spend an eternity in hell.

I agree. It is people like this who should be convicted for life for a crime they never committed, and without recourse.

 

[Exterous]

Maybe he could provide LTD leave like almost almost every other employer does?

Source? I have worked for a fair number of companies including several large corporations and only one has provided LTD free of charge but with a $500\month cap. Obviously this is a small sample size but this seems to be backed up by a sources I have found like this one:

only 47 percent of employers offer long-term-disability coverage to their employees, according to Limra, a financial services trade association. (Companies with at least 100 employees are almost certain to offer some sort of disability benefit, say experts.)

Of employers that do offer disability coverage, just 37 percent paid the entire premium last year, down from 49 percent in 2002, according to Limra. At the same time, voluntary programs for which the employee pays the entire premium now make up half of all long-term-disability offerings, up from 41 percent in 2002.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/michelle-andrews-on-disability-coverage.aspx

It sounds like he is a small business where it appears to be the norm to not to offer LTD leave

There is also the possibility he could have offered it at a subsidized price and she declined the coverage

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LTD generally pays 66% of pre-disability compensation and you keep your benefit plan. I suspect you have no clue what you're talking about.
And I'll say this one more time: a person cannot collect unemployment benefits while being physically unable to work. To do so would be fraud.

My LTD is 40%. I pay $7/month to increase it to 60%.

 

[DCal430]

Here in California LTD is mandatory, and always paid by the employee. This is a state run program paid by 1.0% tax, which it self is deductible.

 

[Cozarkian]

Here in California LTD is mandatory, and always paid by the employee. This is a state run program paid by 1.0% tax, which it self is deductible.

Isn't that short-term disability?

 

[Cozarkian]

How the F is she supposed to pay for health insurance, or treatment without money from unemployment.

FYI I think laying her off for being unable to work due to a illness is a violation of the FMLA.

Option #1: She could have purchased disability insurance that would provide income to make payments for health insurance premiums.

Option #2: She could have properly saved 3-6 months expenses as an emergency fund in accordance with prevailing financial wisdom. That would enable her to have coverage for at least 6 months (if she is the only source of income she should have saved 6 months, if she has a spouse with separate income, she might have saved only 3 months, but would only need to pay for half of the monthly expenses out of savings, so it would last 6 months).

 

[Londo_Jowo]

FYI I think laying her off for being unable to work due to a illness is a violation of the FMLA.

Nope, FMLA is unpaid protected leave.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

Family and Medical Leave Act

Overview
The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:

• Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
  • the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
  • the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
  • to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
  • a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
  • any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or

• Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I believe FMLA only applies to companies with 50+ employees as well, but could be wrong.

 

[BoberFett]

To be clear him paying her wage and providing her medical coverage and her performing her job duties are not connected. He can pay her wage and provide her medical coverage while she is not working. He chose not to,.

You can pay her wage and provide medical coverage too. Why aren't you?

 

[DrPizza]

Why did this story go viral? Why are people debating it? Under FMLA, which probably wouldn't apply anyway due to the size of the company she worked for, she would simply be allowed to stay home, without pay. By laying her off, she was able to get unemployment, rather than no pay. He did her a huge favor.

Only question: disability insurance?? Though, sometimes it takes a little while for that to kick in and to get payments.

 

[Cozarkian]

Why did this story go viral? Why are people debating it? Under FMLA, which probably wouldn't apply anyway due to the size of the company she worked for, she would simply be allowed to stay home, without pay. By laying her off, she was able to get unemployment, rather than no pay. He did her a huge favor.

Only question: disability insurance?? Though, sometimes it takes a little while for that to kick in and to get payments.

If Fmla applied the employer would be required to continue paying its portion of her insurance premium. Then she could collect unemployment when she is laid off after her leave expires, assuming there is some job she is physically capable of doing.

If FMLa doesn't apply, then he neither helped nor hurt her, unless she was still able to work and he terminated her prematurely.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

He didn't lay her off because she has cancer. He laid her off because she is no longer able to perform her daily duties. I feel bad for her, but why should the employer have to take the hit? Maybe YOU should hire someone who can't perform their basic job duties.

 

[OutHouse]

Or LTD insurance is cheap

LTD plans are very expensive. ive looked into it and feel free to go to aflac or other companies to see for yourself.