Open Thread: Looking at Employer-Based Health Insurance as Part of a Salary Package
Posted: February 19, 2012 Filed under: just because, open thread | Tags: Birth Control, contraception, employee benefits, framing, health insurance, lunch breaks, sick days, vacation days 41 Comments
Since it’s a slow news day, I thought I’d throw out a question.
The argument about Obama’s birth control mandate for employers is based to some extent on who will be paying for an employee’s health insurance. As I understand it, health insurance is part of a compensation package offered by the employer in order to attract employees. The package might also include retirement benefits, life insurance, paid vacation, paid sick days, and paid holidays.
Obviously, I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that if health insurance is part of the employee’s salary, then the employee should have some control over it. My boss can’t tell me that I have to buy certain kinds of food with my salary or that I have to live in a certain place. It’s my money, because I earned it by working.
I’ve never had an employer try to tell me where I could go on my vacation time, even though the employer was paying me for the time. No, that vacation pay is part of my salary package. So is health insurance. I’m sure employers calculate salaries based on the total cost of the employee, including benefits. So the benefits should belong to the employee.
According to salary.com, benefits are part of an employee’s salary.
Compensation is more than just base pay. It is a total package that should address your overall well-being – financial, physical, emotional, even spiritual. As companies compete for talent in tight labor markets, many are rolling out better benefits to attract and retain the best workers. Companies often strive to make it easy for employees to balance their work and family lives by offering family-friendly benefits, cafeteria plans, and other flexible options.
Benefits can significantly increase the value of the compensation package. The costs to employers for providing benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, training, vacation and personal days, and perks such as concierge services could be a significant percentage of each employee’s salary. Because benefits boost the value of compensation, always take benefits into consideration when evaluating a job offer or a promotion.
In addition,
Some benefits are required by law. There are also many government regulations that set the minimum standards employers are required to make available to employees.
For example, states can require employers to provide paid sick days and holidays and a minimum amount of paid vacation time. Most states mandate a 10-15 minute break for every 4 hours of work and at least a 30 minute lunch break. Thanks to unions, there are also laws that employees can’t be forced to work more than a certain number of hours per day and week without overtime pay. There are many constraints on employers.
So what is so bizarre about the government requiring that health care plans offer preventive health care that is appropriate for women as well as men? Even though the employer is arranging for the health insurance and I’m getting a better deal as part of a large group, the insurance is still something I’m earning through my work. The employer doesn’t need to know what choices I’m making about my health care and shouldn’t pry into my choices unless they somehow affect my ability to do my work.
The Obama administration is not requiring that any individual use birth control or even that they have to get prenatal testing. But why shouldn’t they be able to specify that these services be available for people to use if they wish? If you look at the question in this way, the Catholic bishops really don’t have a leg to stand on.
Wouldn’t this be a better way for the administration to frame the argument? Am I nuts? What do you think? Feel free to use this as an open thread as well.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Go ahead. Explain to me why I’m wrong.
I think you’re right. That’s basically what David Boies said on O’Donnell’s show, that it was a settled matter of labor law. He thought it would have a hard time making it into the courts.
Really? Then why doesn’t Obama get his people out there and make that argument. I don’t see how the Catholic bishops can claim they are “paying for” birth control. They are paying for an employee who “owns” the health insurance as part of the contract with the employer.
Well, Boies made the argument, the EEOC made the point when they released their statement about this so-called issue. Unless I’m mistaken Obama has mentioned that this was making sure that employees weren’t discriminated against.
Yet the stories from the right wing keep coming. That’s why I think big money is pushing this as a political agenda for November. If the Bishops gave in, it wouldn’t stop the BS at this point.
But, don’t you think that the Repugs are concerned about the low turnout they’ve seen for the primaries & caucuses? They need an issue to get people out to vote, since they don’t have any candidates that a large group of people like and aren’t likely to go out & vote for. I mean, with the Super Pacs it has turned into an adolescent name-calling primary. You know, “you’re a dickwad”, “well you’re an asshole”, “and your mother wears army boots.” It’s all so childish on one end and fascist on the other.
I think you’re absolutely right, BB. Every year my husband and I review our health insurance package, decide what features we want, what features we do not need, how much we’ll set aside for ‘outside medical expenses.’ The cost for that is then calculated–what the company pays and what we ultimately pay. Each and every year those packages are reviewed, checked and recalculated. My husband works for a large company. That’s how it’s always been done since we’ve been working. We make the choice and contribute accordingly.
We get a far better deal [though it’s still expensive] through a large group than if we picked up our health package privately. My sister who had to quit work recently is now paying on her own. She pays through the nose with a huge deductible just for basic coverage. It’s better than nothing but it really ticks her off. It’s also scary because she’s 58 and her doctors think she’s exhibiting early Alzheimer’s symptoms.
And no, I don’t think the Bishops have any defensible position. This is just a desperate grabbing for an organization that has lost moral authority in the Sexual Wars. Santorum? He may be sincere but that doesn’t make him right. He’s a throwback to a 19th century’s attitude about women and reproduction.
Hello? This is the 21st!
As for the GOP? They’ve got nothing else to hang their hat on. Catholic charities, hospitals and universities are already on board with the compromise.
This is a lose/lose for the Bishops, Santorum and the Republican Party. You’re right; they’re wrong.
Okay, I found this: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/empspria/empspria.htm I don’t have enough time right now to read it. It looks like a comprehensive survey/report.
Obviously, if employees paid for portable insurance, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I’ve handled insurance coverage for my employer. We have an agent who brings us a couple of options each year. We are a non-profit, but try to get the best coverage at the lowest cost. When the economy was better & our donations were higher, we paid 100% for employees. Now we pay 80%. Our agent told us that most employers don’t pay more than 50%.
One of the Republicans suggestions a while back was to tax the insurance benefits by adding that to an employee’s total income. And, yes at least where I work, the cost of benefits for each employee is looked at as overall cost for each employee but aren’t taxed, of course.
Most places offer the option of having insurance premiums deducted as pre-tax. I can’t remember which legislator said, in the past week, that this should be stopped because the Federal government is losing tax revenue. I do remember that it was a Republican.
Right. Nowadays, some employees have to pay a huge part of their insurance coverage. The only “benefit” they are getting is lower cost as part of a group.
Well unless you have either 20 or 25 employees the total cost isn’t divided by the number of employees. And coverage for women is much, much higher for women. My premium doubled when I turned 60. It’s now over $1500 a month. Not much of a group discount. The only good thing – I ended up in the hospital in 2010 & the bill was nearly a quarter of a million dollars. My cost was basically the rest of my $1000 out of pocket expense. But, at least the insurance company had to pay a big bill. I truly hate insurance companies even more than I despise Republicans.
I guess insurance co’s are complaining about it now. I think all birth control should just be sold over the counter anyway.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/211563-insurers-could-take-hit-from-birth-control-mandate
Is this actually possible? Aren’t there varying doses of the hormone levels? And if it’s for a specific condition, wouldn’t that require a special type of contraception? It’s been so very long since I’ve had to think about birth control, I’m really out of the loop.
And the whole big pharma & insurance company machinations are Machiavellian.
Many if not all large corporations (G.E. etc.) self insure — that is they are playing insurance company — it is cheaper for them and yes they bean counters include what the corporations pay for health insurance as part of employees wages. Most of these huge corporations do use health insurance companies to administer as Human Resources the funds set aside.
So if the read beanie squad manages to pull the “religious freedom” crap then other major corporations will probably attempt the same BS. There is a good possibility that the Catholic church combine funds and also self insure — especially the very large Urban Catholic districts. If this is the case — that the Catholics self insure and use insurance companies to administer the deals — then the Catholics may in fact not pay any of the birth control and women would be left holding the bag again.
This is information from friends who have worked for mega huge corporations and others who have worked for large religious organizations.
I do believe the Catholic Church does self insure. I’m pretty sure I heard that during the discussions about the free contraceptives.
No. Birth control pills can be deadly to some women. There are blood tests to identify genetic clotting factors that should be given to all women before they take BCPs. At the very least, a thorough family history can tell a doctor if the tests are advised before prescribing.
OK, whatever. I guess a lot of women are just going to have to use condoms then. The “experts” recommended that Plan B be sold over the counter.
I’m not talking about Plan B, I’m talking about birth control pills. Even prescribed by a doctor, they almost killed my daughter and actually did kill a friend of hers. Not everyone can take them safely.
I don’t get why there is silence on the part of Obama and the rest of the Dems…(aside from a few who are really the only vocal ones about losing women’s rights. )
It seems like they could be talking this up like you said BB, but it is just getting more and more ridiculous.
Douchehat made a point today about abortions are higher where they are allowed than were they are not…no shit.
Political Animal – BREAKING: Where Abortion is Available, More Abortions Take Place Than Where It’s Not
Bachmann is talking crap about the GOP is Bachmann: GOP is extremely ‘pro-women’ – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs
Wasn’t there something about Obama getting out front of some issue last year?
Seems like he is sitting back…I don’t know the whole thing just pisses me off.
And really, all the fuss about who pays for insurance, well the workers are the ones who earn it…so you are right.
Look at this from Paul Ryan: Obama contraception ruling reveals ‘paternalistic, arrogant’ attitude
But it’s not arrogant and paternalistic to mandate that a woman be penetrated with a large object for no medical reason in order to scare her out of having an abortion?
I just saw that BB, paternalistic? Are you fucking kidding me? Geez, these people are full of shit!
This cartoon did make me laugh however…
Mr. Fish from Truthdig.com
And more from the a-hole gallery: Lou Dobbs: Friess’ Remarks Aren’t Vulgar Because They Wouldn’t Receive an ‘R’ Rating | Video Cafe
Why can’t all these old bitter misogynistic men shut the hell up. Oh, I should also add Dana Loesch to that group as well…misogynistic women are the worst.
Ron Paul: ‘I Think It’s A Losing Position’ For Republicans To Focus On Social Issues | Mediaite
And he’s supposed to be the crazy one.
I guess I should have quoted what he said:
This from a man who wants to control all women’s reproductive rights and reproductive health in the US…the pot calling the kettle black. (And that is one loaded cliche to describe Mr. Paul.)
This has nothing to do with lady parts:
I can’t get it to embed…
Are you sure this has nothing to do with Lady Parts? I’m pretty sure there’s a 10 year Congressional plan under way to put together a timelapse of our vajayjays…
Now that is funny Wonk.
😉
How’s your Dad? Kids? Everyone in the Minx-household ok? xoxo
Dad is okay, no more dizzy spells. Let’s see what the mri says. My daughter had her first movie date yesterday, and today the kid hasn’t called her…I know he is a good kid, I think they go to church twice on Sundays. All other beasties are doing fine. Thanks for asking Wonk…;) xoxo back at ya.
Hahaha! Good one, wonk.
That video is spectacular, minx. Instant calm down, too. Your mind just drifts along with the wonder of it.
Nice!
One of the places where the time lapse exposures were made was in Canyon of the Ancients. In the four corners region — they say in Colorado — we’d cross the state lines several times in one day while looking for ancient ruins. At 1:19 you can see the red rocks typical of Hovenweep and other ruins. The night sky in this area is awesome.
I knew the GOP wouldn’t give the payroll tax cut without getting something in return: Congress Gives States the Go-Ahead to Drug Test for Unemployment Benefits | Drugs | AlterNet
who’s supposed to pay for this??? If it isn’t bad enough to lose one’s job — next you have to pee in a cup — probably in front of someone to make sure you don’t cheat.
Make the politicians pee in a cup — I swear they are all on drugs of some kind.
It is a step towards making those on SNAP and government assistance have to do the same damn thing to get their benefits. And we have seen what comes of this down in FLA…
And the results in FL show that those on public assistance have a lower percentage of drug usage than the that of the general public. Yet, our wonderful governor still refuses to believe it. It’s much like the voter fraud red herring.
right after GeorgeW got into office, the local radio talk shows had the topic of ‘Should we take the vote away from women?’ or ‘should women give up the right to vote?’. I know the callers were paid to call in but I think that and removing women from the workforce and removing our abortion and birth control are their goals. I do not really know why but they want us to go back to the world of the 50s or what they think the 50s were. Leave it to Beaver etc. Maybe that is their method to restore a low unemployment rate, but isn’t it stupid? There must be some fundamental reason why they view women as the enemy.
Women aren’t as easily fooled into voting for those asshats as men. If I were to hazard a guess as to why they are doing this.
Using their “logic” — that would be logical.
The establishment fought tooth and nails to keep women from getting the vote. Seem like the GOP is taking pages from an old playbook.
Well, I didn’t say it was logical but then a lot of those guys think with the lizard brain only.
It’s a good concept – the employee having some control on his insurance package. The reality is that employers have all the power. You don’t have to come on board if you don’t like it and with the job market being this bad, they can do whatever they want, practically-speaking.