Skip to comments.
Wachovia health-benefits premiums tiered in price, Higher the salary, the higher the employees' cost
Winston-Salem Journal ^
| November 12, 2004
Posted on 11/12/2004 2:16:04 PM PST by Between the Lines
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Looks like big banking is adopting Communist ideals.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." -- Karl Marx
To: Between the Lines
The more we subsidize, the more we are asked to subsidize.
2
posted on
11/12/2004 2:18:30 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Between the Lines
Means testing comes to the work place.
3
posted on
11/12/2004 2:19:58 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(Get Out The Gloat!!)
To: Between the Lines
Sounds like it's time for the Higher Echelon to put out resumes and leave the nanny state higher managment and their welfare state toadies to go bankrupt together.
4
posted on
11/12/2004 2:20:55 PM PST
by
zzen01
To: fooman
Look at your own policy. Is there one price for family coverage? Do you pay the same price if you have 1 kid or if you have 20? Isn't that subsidizing?
To: Between the Lines
Although school officials said that the system has worked well, they are going to amend it next year to a graded system based not on salary but on household income. The change came after administrators found that some low-salaried employees have spouses with high incomes. Not only are communist, but they want to invade even more privacy(what business is this anyway) and encourage more lazyness.
6
posted on
11/12/2004 2:21:26 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Between the Lines
Marx would be thrilled to see the owners of capital embracing his ideas.
7
posted on
11/12/2004 2:22:01 PM PST
by
IStillBelieve
(G.W. Bush '04: Biggest popular-vote victory in history, and first popular-vote majority in 16 years!)
To: Drennan Whyte
dont know. I am on my wife's
8
posted on
11/12/2004 2:22:20 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Between the Lines
9
posted on
11/12/2004 2:22:31 PM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(Save Terri Schiavo!!!)
To: Between the Lines
At my Fortune 500 employer, we've had tiered maximum-out-of-pocket levels for quite some time. But, this is the first I've heard of tiered premiums.
I guess if progressive income tax rates are okay, the same should be true for workplace health insurance premiums. (In either case, it's not like the disgruntled payer has a lot of choice in the matter. ;-)
10
posted on
11/12/2004 2:22:51 PM PST
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: Between the Lines
My company has been doing this for years. Remember, it's the higher paid people who came up with this idea.
11
posted on
11/12/2004 2:23:23 PM PST
by
Mini-14
To: Mini-14
Not in that case of wachovia.
12
posted on
11/12/2004 2:24:17 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Between the Lines
Is this legal under ERISA? It's been a long time since I was in this business, but it seems to me that it is not.
To: Between the Lines
Most companies aren't going to have much flexibility in this regard. At some point, the combination of the company's contribution and an employee's out-of-pocket costs are going to exceed the cost of an individual insurance policy.
If a company pays $600 per month for an employee's plan, and a high-level employee is expected to pay $300 per month, then the total monthly cost for the policy is $900 per month. An employee may be able to get his own policy for less than that, which means he'd be better off with a cash bonus from the company in lieu of the insurance coverage.
14
posted on
11/12/2004 2:25:53 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
To: Between the Lines
I can see this coming to an end, from corporate Amerika to Government, when a court finds this AND tax laws discriminate. Watch, it will happen as this stuff gets pushed more and more. Where does it stop? There is no end, just incrementalism followed by collapse.
15
posted on
11/12/2004 2:26:16 PM PST
by
mpreston
To: Between the Lines
'Although school officials said that the system has worked well, they are going to amend it next year to a graded system based not on salary but on household income. The change came after administrators found that some low-salaried employees have spouses with high incomes.'
Hmmm, wonder how they are going to find out this information?
I can see this happening down the road:
Maybe the ones that have spouses with high incomes do not need that much of a raise this year.
And the ones with spouses that have high incomes should not feel bad if we lay them off first?
And the ones who have spouses with high incomes should not mind if we take part of their salary and give to those who make less money or are less fortunate, or to those who do not want to work, or to those who want to mooch off the efforts of others. After all they have high income spouses!
This is such a crazy Communist plan!
16
posted on
11/12/2004 2:30:13 PM PST
by
rawhide
To: rawhide
How about a radical idea like incentivizing healthy behavior...er...never mind.
To: Saundra Duffy
I like it!! So you think that you should be charged more for gas, food, clothing or anything else you buy because you make more money? Why health insurance?
18
posted on
11/12/2004 2:33:46 PM PST
by
Between the Lines
("Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.")
To: Between the Lines
I like what my wife's company does. They give each employee a benefits budget allotment. It shows up in your pay statement and each benefit cost is then backed out from the gross. It allows each based on their priorities to ala carte select what works best for them. Seeing that extra $1400 per month in benefits makes them stop their bitching and whining. When healthcare costs them $800 of that each month, they understand. Extra life insurance, dental, top shelf health insurance and crappy low budget HMO/PPO stuff as well.
19
posted on
11/12/2004 2:34:27 PM PST
by
blackdog
(Can we possibly have just one more "Kidz-Bop"?)
To: Between the Lines
This is nuts, and another example of why it's stupid that health insurance is tied to your employer.
20
posted on
11/12/2004 2:37:59 PM PST
by
ThinkDifferent
(A plan is not a litany of complaints)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson