Health Insurance Premium Question - new twist [vanity]

me | 11/9/05 | self

[doc30]

I have a question for the many, knowledgeable freepers out there regarding employer health insurance. Open enrollment is upon us and this year, and the company I work for has sprung a new twist that shockeked myself and my coworkers.

As in past years, we are expected to shoulder more of the burden of our health insurance premiums and this year is no different with an $80 to $120 increase in our protion of the monthly premiums. Nobody likes it, but it's a fact, but that's not what concerns me.

We are offered employee+spouse and family plans, each with its own, higher, repective premium. THis year, our employer is charging an additional $50 per month for a spouse or family plan if the spouse works and has health insurance, regardless of cost or coverage, offered as a benefit from their employer. This is in addition to the higher premium for just having a spouse! We are expected to turn in an affidavidt signed by the employee and their spouse providing the name and HR contact for our spouse's employer or stating that the spouse is non-working. Our employer claims that it is spouses that are responsible for most health care usage and want to charge spouses that decline benefits elsewhere.

What do you fellow freepers think about this? Is it even legal?

[edcoil]

The employer hires you not your spouse - there really is no requirement to cover your family.

I pay over $850.00 a month for my health insurance. I could get cheaper but an not allowed to opt-out of the companies plan.

[TN4Bush]

Yes it is legal and our company does it too. Wave of the future. It is to try and foist the cost of healthcare to her employer instead of having to cover her themselves. This saves money and moves risk to someone else.

[libertarianPA]

There's really no law that requires employers to pay your health insurance. Unless you have a union contract.

[RushCrush]

Your employer is charging your spouse for declining health insurance through their employer? Sounds like a fake surcharge to me.

What doesn't sound legal is charging the fee to a spouse who does not work or has no other opportunity for insurance.

[kpp_kpp]

that is a new twist that i've not seen before.

do you know if this is an expense that the company is passing on from the insurance provider or is this an administration expense that the company is adding on?

[JustAnotherOkie]

Personally I think it is ridiculous that this the responsibility of employer in the first place. Just as stupid as the SSN matching. The number 3 stupid thing was George Bush Senior changing the tax witholding tables (but not underlying tax rate) to spur the economy.

[VeniVidiVici]

The number 3 stupid thing was George Bush Senior changing the tax witholding tables (but not underlying tax rate) to spur the economy.

Huh? I hear MD20/20 is cheap.

[phatoldphart]

Who knows why they do it?

Most insurance companies are paranoid that you will have double coverage and get paid twice for a claim (which is what you pay 2 premiums for). Years ago that was a common practice so long as one insurer did not find out about the other one.

Then it became one plan would pay what the other did not.

I recently faced a similar choice. I called both carriers and found out in spite of double coverage, you will be paid no more than the insurance you pay for would pay. In other words, with these companies, double coverage was a waste of money.

Check with you spouse's carrier.

[eyespysomething]

We do that where I work.

[RushCrush]

Actually I agree with you. I don't believe an employer should get involved in the health care business to begin with. Unfortunately what began as a fringe benefit has now become almost required and expected by employees, hence the misuse and expense.

[newcthem]

We had to do the same........ Typically the spouse was working and covered and covered again under our policy....Anyone who has a problem with employers and their health insurance should get to write out the monthly checks. In our small manufacturing company, health insurance is the third largest expenditure per month, after payroll and materials.

[lovecraft]

Yup it's legal, some companies even require that if your spouse is employed and her company offers benefits you are not permitted to carry them.

[Nachum]

I sell health insurance in California so I cannot be sure about Florida law, but to my knowledge, no employer can require you to pay for spousal coverage if your spouse is employed and insured with another employer.

You should be able to go to your employer and decline coverage for your spouse if the spouse is insured through another employer sponsored health plan and you can document it. With your declination, your employer has no right to ask you for any additional premium other than the percentage or specific amounts for the employee premium only.

This sounds like fuel for a lawsuit if you ask me. I know some attorneys that make a good living on employee related violations of ERISA, TEFRA, DEFRA, not to mention violations of the tax code. Your employer is playing with fire here. You should have the right to demand that the return of any premium deducted from your pay.

[GarySpFc]

I pay $963 for my wife and myself, and that with a $1,000 deductible.

[AppyPappy]

Huh? Are you complaining because you get a lower refund or something?

[JustAnotherOkie]

Check it out. GB Sr. ordered the IRS to lower the standard tax witholding tables so paychecks would be larger in the late 70's.

He did this as an immediate cash infusion for the economy.

There were a lot of disappointed people who got smaller refunds as the amount owed never changed.

I hate to use this as a source but there is very little available on this. In fact this is kinder than I would be to GHB on the matter.

An exerpt The new Bush Administration has learned something from the old one, though: when George H. Bush similarly ordered a reduction in withholding, he did so without actually having all the tax cuts necessary to support it passed through Congress. When some failed to pass, withholding had to rise again, and tax refunds for many taxpayers was actually lower than they anticipated. (And since many low-income and poorly educated workers count on tax refunds as a matter of course, their reduction caused a nasty bit of political fallout for the ill-fated Bush re-election effort in 1992.)

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/features_section/2001-01/taxreduction.asp

[lilylangtree]

Beats me. I don't have any health coverage.

[JustAnotherOkie]

Check it out. GB Sr. ordered the IRS to lower the standard tax witholding tables so paychecks would be larger in the late 70's.

He did this as an immediate cash infusion for the economy.

There were a lot of disappointed people who got smaller refunds as the amount owed never changed.

I hate to use this as a source but there is very little available on this. In fact this is kinder than I would be to GHB on the matter.

An exerpt The new Bush Administration has learned something from the old one, though: when George H. Bush similarly ordered a reduction in withholding, he did so without actually having all the tax cuts necessary to support it passed through Congress. When some failed to pass, withholding had to rise again, and tax refunds for many taxpayers was actually lower than they anticipated. (And since many low-income and poorly educated workers count on tax refunds as a matter of course, their reduction caused a nasty bit of political fallout for the ill-fated Bush re-election effort in 1992.)

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/features_section/2001-01/taxreduction.asp

[joebellis]

It is caused by new trend of employers paying a rebate to employees that opt out of health care coverage.