|
DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/15/2013 6:46:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.
As insurance premiums rise, employees pay a bigger share
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/10/11/bisb1011.htm
[image]local://upfiles/502828/4BD0250702F147A7A9E3786CE2A14F67.gif[/image]
You're not whining. At least, not that much. [:D]
Premium share has risen from 17.62% to 22.49%.
To make the numbers really more telling, or to call into question the veracity of the article (not claiming intentional misrepresentation), you have to compare employee total spend to the total care cost. The table shown has "Annual Cost" as the second category, yet the article claims those numbers are the annual cost of premiums. Thus, the total cost of employee care has to be the cost of premiums + employee out of pocket. And, if this means the employer pays nothing more, then we can stop right there. But, if the employer is "self-insured" and the insurance company only steps in when stop-losses are hit, then that's an entirely different story.
To manipulate the table a bit, I'm going to put the data in this format: Year - Premium + Out of Pocket (% employee pays compared to the total amount spent for care).
2004 $7,110 (29.80%)
2005 $7,850 (31.02%)
2006 $8,513 (32.07%)
2007 $9,000 (33.80%)
2008 $9,603 (34.82%)
2009 $10,182 (34.96%)
2010 $10,962 (35.58%)
2011 $11,998 (36.56%)
The burden on the employee has still increased, as a %, but to think the employer isn't paying more, would be wrong. From 2004 to 2011, the employee's costs have risen $2,267, and the employer's costs have risen $2,679.
My last employer covered 60% of my premium costs, and then I had co-pay's for Dr. visits and prescriptions. I think I went to the Dr. maybe once/year, and wasn't taking any prescription medications. So, my total care cost was $8420 ([$140/pay * 24 pays/yr.]/0.40 + $20) and my portion of that was 40.14%. I spent over $3300 for a doctor visit. You're welcome, everyone else in my risk pool.
My ex's employer covers 100% of premium costs. There is a $200/person deductible, $800 family max deductible, and then it's 80/20 employer/employee split for the next $1000 of care (not including $15/visit co-pays) for a max out of pocket spend of $400/person or $1600 family max, not including co-pays. Medications are strictly $10/$15/$20 co-pays for the employee. Stop-loss is set at $75k/family/year. In 2011, they only had a 15% increase in monthly premiums compared to what they paid in 2010. What a bargain! And to add insult to injury, the Federal Government, under Obamacare rules, will tax them because this is considered a "Cadillac Plan." At $2k/employee and 250 employees, they would have to pay $500k in penalties for not covering their employees at all. The "Cadillac Tax" will be more than that. Management sent out a memo stating that they believed in getting coverage for their employees and would pay the Cadillac Tax rather than the penalty for not covering their employees. What a bunch of ebil fatcats, eh?
|
|
|
|
