Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Health Insurance?

When I worked in debt collection, the pay was terrible and I acerimmer07/22/18
Sadly it is typical. I’ve been on interviews were I was to mtbislife07/23/18
Just quit your jerb and go on Medicaid. david6198307/23/18
Mine is $318 a month for a $6,300 deductible. I think he kee fettywap07/23/18
yeah, my last one subsidized part of a high-deductible plan. dingbat07/23/18
Well, any company +50 employees has to offer health insuranc onehell07/24/18
acerimmer (Jul 22, 2018 - 3:07 pm)

When I worked in debt collection, the pay was terrible and I didn't even get a health insurance plan. Is that typical? How many lawyers, even real associates in real firms, don't get insurance benes do you think?

Reply Like (0)
mtbislife (Jul 23, 2018 - 1:34 pm)

Sadly it is typical. I’ve been on interviews were I was told there will be no health insurance and another where they were willing to throw me a couple hundred a month to arrange my own. There are plenty of associates getting 1099’d as well.

Reply Like (0)
david61983 (Jul 23, 2018 - 1:38 pm)

Just quit your jerb and go on Medicaid.

Reply Like (0)
fettywap (Jul 23, 2018 - 1:38 pm)

Mine is $318 a month for a $6,300 deductible. I think he keeps it that way on purpose because then the support staff can't afford it, but he can still pretend it's offered as a benefit and make himself feel good.

Reply Like (0)
dingbat (Jul 23, 2018 - 8:43 pm)

yeah, my last one subsidized part of a high-deductible plan. individuals had to cough up over six hundred bucks, family a lot more.

A prior employer before that did not subsidize at all, and had a basic plan and a Cadillac plan that only the owners could afford

Reply Like (0)
onehell (Jul 24, 2018 - 8:19 pm)

Well, any company +50 employees has to offer health insurance cuz Obamacare. Any company -50 does not, and in a way such companies are actively discouraged from offering health insurance because premiums will be out of control with a group that small. So unless the employer picks up a big share of the premium, the offerings will be unlikely to satisfy the ACA's definition of affordability which means employees who are savvy and might get subsidies might want to just decline and go on the exchange anyway, which further shrinks the group and raises the premiums.

So if you're a small employer and you offer coverage despite not being required to do so, now your employees need to demonstrate that the employee share of the employee-only premium wouldn't meet the ACA's affordability definition if they want to get any subsidies on the exchange for which they might otherwise qualify.

Some companies have a tradition of contributing substantially to employee-only premiums but contributing nothing towards family coverage. That can be even worse. If the employee-only premium is affordable but the family premium is not, now an employee who needs to cover a family is just screwed if a subsidized Obamacare plan would've been less than the employer plan after subsidy. That's because you can't qualify for subsidies based on non-affordability of family coverage. No matter how expensive family coverage might be, if the employee-only premium is "affordable" then no exchange subsidy for you.

Most law firms are -50 employees. So if they pay crappy wages, a lot of times it is paradoxically better for their employees (especially employees with families) if they do not offer coverage at all.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread