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

[OutHouse]

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

I work for a large multi-national and LTD or STD is not a benny. If we want it we have to pay for it.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm wondering why DCal430 hasn't started paying her salary or medical premiums yet.

 

[her209]

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.

That's not a layoff. That's a termination.

 

[Vic]

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

I've worked for 3 different Fortune 25's and LTD has been a free or low cost benefit at all of them for all FTE's.

 

[DCal430]

I'm wondering why DCal430 hasn't started paying her salary or medical premiums yet.

I am not a wealthy employer like this so called doctor.

 

[DCal430]

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.

By being laid off she is has to pay for her medical coverage on her own with no subsidies, until Jan of 2015 when the medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania kicks in. Now she probably gets about $500 a week in unemployment, about $200 of this is probably going to medical premiums and expenses.

He could prevented all of this by continuing her pay, and paying for her medical insurance. Now she barely has enough to live on.

 

[halik]

Um... pancreatic cancer?!!! That a fucking death sentence. I can't believe she would be in the least bit worried about her job now. The chances of her being alive two years from now are just about nonexistent. She should be more worried about extracting some joy from life with the time remaining to her.

HA this. At some point you should realize there are more important things in life, especially if you're life is ending.

 

[dmcowen674]

By being laid off she is has to pay for her medical coverage on her own with no subsidies, until Jan of 2015 when the medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania kicks in. Now she probably gets about $500 a week in unemployment, about $200 of this is probably going to medical premiums and expenses.

He could prevented all of this by continuing her pay, and paying for her medical insurance.

Now she barely has enough to live on.

That's the whole point.

Republicans just want the sick to die.

 

[KK]

Wtf she gets unemployment but loses her medical insurance. F-ed up.

Where does it say that she had medical insurance thru this employment? oh yeah, it doesn't.

 

[BoberFett]

By being laid off she is has to pay for her medical coverage on her own with no subsidies, until Jan of 2015 when the medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania kicks in. Now she probably gets about $500 a week in unemployment, about $200 of this is probably going to medical premiums and expenses.

He could prevented all of this by continuing her pay, and paying for her medical insurance. Now she barely has enough to live on.

You could continue to pay her too. Step up, big man.

Why aren't you paying her salary?

Oh right, because you're a pissant, a piece of shit.

I am not a wealthy employer like this so called doctor.

So I guess the wealthy ARE the job creators?

 

[xBiffx]

I am not a wealthy employer like this so called doctor.

How do you know he is wealthy? Who said anything about having to be an employer to pay her salary? You want him to pay her to do nothing. Employment doesn't seem to matter then.

 

[realibrad]

That's the whole point.

Republicans just want the sick to die.

I would say its a bipartisan issue. Both seem to depend on the sick dying. Republicans dont want to pay and Democrats make a system so convoluted that resources are squandered that price people out of the system, and could have been used to save people.

Outcomes are the same, no matter the party.

 

[xBiffx]

I would say its a bipartisan issue. Both seem to depend on the sick dying. Republicans dont want to pay and Democrats make a system so convoluted that resources are squandered that price people out of the system, and could have been used to save people.

Outcomes are the same, no matter the party.

The issue really is that when some people are presented with a problem, they bring up the government most of the time.

/smh

 

[Vic]

You could continue to pay her too. Step up, big man.

Why aren't you paying her salary?

Oh right, because you're a pissant, a piece of shit.



So I guess the wealthy ARE the job creators?

Actually, he is going to pay for her health care and living expenses. As will you and I and every other taxpayer. Congratulations!

 

[BoberFett]

Actually, he is going to pay for her health care and living expenses. As will you and I and every other taxpayer. Congratulations!

I thought that's what the left wanted? Government healthcare, one person at a time.

 

[Vic]

I thought that's what the left wanted? Government healthcare, one person at a time.

So why are you helping to make that happen? Honest question.

Assuming she had health care coverage through her employer (and most health care professionals do), she had paid into the system for years only to have her coverage taken away the moment she needed to make a major claim. And because she's not just going to roll over and die, the government will pick up the cost. And this isn't some rare anecdote, it happens every day.
But hey, who am I to point out that your ideology literally helps to create the big government you claim to hate.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

If FMLA doesn't apply (and I somewhat doubt it does, given the nature of the practice), then, it seems to me, she would not have been eligible for unemployment if she hadn't been going to work and was unable to carry out her duties at work. At least, I think that if most of us just stopped going to work for a month, when we went to the unemployment office, I think they say, "get lost." Though, I'm no expert on that. So, in the absence of a long term disability (which I guess we have to assume), laying her off makes her eligible (I think) for unemployment. Firing her for not coming to work over a few weeks would not make her eligible. Legally, he's not obligated to pay her wages and her health insurance - that would strictly be charitable.

And, it seems those protesting this expect all businesses to be a charity when an employee gets sick.

(Personally, I'm in favor of single payer; our system is idiotic.)

 

[Fern]

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

I've checked into it, and as others have said it's very expensive.

But there's always SS disability. However, that does take quite a while to kick-in.

Fermn

 

[Fern]

If FMLA doesn't apply (and I somewhat doubt it does, given the nature of the practice), then, it seems to me, she would not have been eligible for unemployment if she hadn't been going to work and was unable to carry out her duties at work. At least, I think that if most of us just stopped going to work for a month, when we went to the unemployment office, I think they say, "get lost." Though, I'm no expert on that.
-snip-

Here's how it works in my state: The (ex)employee goes to the Unemployment office and files a claim for benefits. The Unemployment office notifies the former employer to see if they object. (The employer's unemployment rate may be adjust upwards for valid claims. Similar to other types of insurance, the more claims you have the higher your premium.) If there is no complaint/objection by the employer benefits will be paid.

The Unemployment office is, shall we say, 'favorable' to paying benefits to anyone unemployed. I've only seen them look into claims when an employer objects.

I.e., no matter the details, she'll get unemployment benefits because the (former) employer is not going to object.

Fern

 

[DCal430]

Would people prefer she gouge her own eyes out, then she would automatically get SSDI. If she shouldn't get unemployment, what else do people expect her to do.

 

[KK]

So why are you helping to make that happen? Honest question.

Assuming she had health care coverage through her employer (and most health care professionals do), she had paid into the system for years only to have her coverage taken away the moment she needed to make a major claim. And because she's not just going to roll over and die, the government will pick up the cost. And this isn't some rare anecdote, it happens every day.
But hey, who am I to point out that your ideology literally helps to create the big government you claim to hate.

She didn't have coverage thru the employer.

 

[Vic]

She didn't have coverage thru the employer.

Link?

 

[Engineer]

Link?

https://beavercountian.com/content/...agnosis-incites-outrage-and-calls-for-support

Although Carol Jumper worked full-time for Dr. Visnich, her fiancé said she did not have employer provided healthcare — the woman was able to get insurance on her own through an Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) health plan.

 

[DCal430]

https://beavercountian.com/content/...agnosis-incites-outrage-and-calls-for-support

At least being employed she qualified for subsidies, but those without employment do not qualify for tax payer subsidies.