3 ms·

Pre-tax contributions is certainly a benefit, but the true benefit is that premium for employment based benefits are much lower than for individuals. One emplo

by dudul 6y ago

Pre-tax contributions is certainly a benefit, but the true benefit is that premium for employment based benefits are much lower than for individuals. One employer represents many employees, the employer deals with a broker, the broker represents many employers and the broker negotiates with carriers to lower premiums based on the fact that they represent a significant amount of potential members. This is the kind of weight that you don't have as an individual shopping for health insurance.

matwood 6y ago
Absolutely. I was really just curious why the person I responded to was forced to buy insurance. I don't think that's the case nationally, but may be something state specific. > the employer deals with a broker, the broker represents many employers I need to look into this again, but it wasn't the case last I checked. Larger employers (those who can really move the negotiating needle) don't want to help smaller companies by being the anchor in a group situation because the larger employers see insurance as a competitive advantage. It's been a few years, but the last time I checked going through broker they were just negotiating for the individual company and not a group. I clearly need to revisit or maybe find a different/better broker.
- dudul 6y ago
  I spent 3 years in the health insurance/benefits industry building tools for employers/employees/brokers to organize their respective workflows around benefits. For sure, very big employers will have a different setup, but SMB definitely use brokers to get better deals for themselves and their employees.
- NoblePublius 6y ago
  Obamacare requires me to pay for health insurance directly for my 279 employees otherwise I must pay a ~$4k/head penalty to the IRS. The entire point of my original comment was to refute the notion that counting benefits as income is a “very Republican” idea, because it was a Democrat would thought of it and made it a law.
  - souprock 6y ago
    I know a business owner who just pays the penalty. It's actually better for his workers in Massachusetts, since they get state-subsidized healthcare that is better than what he could get for the cost of the penalty. So, consider doing that. Taking the $4000 penalty from the $7800 you currently pay, that leaves $3800 that can be split between you and the worker. (split it as needed to attract and keep talent) Depending on the state you are in, the workers needing insurance might do better having some portion of that $3800 than having the insurance you can get for them. You may even have workers who get insurance from elsewhere, such as a parent or spouse, and they'd much prefer a portion of the $3800 saved.
NoblePublius 6y ago
Yes, and this is part of the problem. I should not have to join a PEO (or employ 10k+ people) to provide my employees the best possible insurance rates. For that matter, nobody should have to work anywhere to get the best possible rates. The original point is that income inequality is not nearly as big of a deal as some would want to believe because of the chicanery of benefits systems. New York State provides about $140k of services (direct cost to the state government) to a family of 4 making $39,500. Yet this is not considered income to the family. Why?

by dudul 6y ago

matwood 6y ago

Absolutely. I was really just curious why the person I responded to was forced to buy insurance. I don't think that's the case nationally, but may be something state specific. > the employer deals with a broker, the broker represents many employers I need to look into this again, but it wasn't the case last I checked. Larger employers (those who can really move the negotiating needle) don't want to help smaller companies by being the anchor in a group situation because the larger employers see insurance as a competitive advantage. It's been a few years, but the last time I checked going through broker they were just negotiating for the individual company and not a group. I clearly need to revisit or maybe find a different/better broker.

dudul 6y ago
I spent 3 years in the health insurance/benefits industry building tools for employers/employees/brokers to organize their respective workflows around benefits. For sure, very big employers will have a different setup, but SMB definitely use brokers to get better deals for themselves and their employees.
NoblePublius 6y ago
Obamacare requires me to pay for health insurance directly for my 279 employees otherwise I must pay a ~$4k/head penalty to the IRS. The entire point of my original comment was to refute the notion that counting benefits as income is a “very Republican” idea, because it was a Democrat would thought of it and made it a law.
- souprock 6y ago
  I know a business owner who just pays the penalty. It's actually better for his workers in Massachusetts, since they get state-subsidized healthcare that is better than what he could get for the cost of the penalty. So, consider doing that. Taking the $4000 penalty from the $7800 you currently pay, that leaves $3800 that can be split between you and the worker. (split it as needed to attract and keep talent) Depending on the state you are in, the workers needing insurance might do better having some portion of that $3800 than having the insurance you can get for them. You may even have workers who get insurance from elsewhere, such as a parent or spouse, and they'd much prefer a portion of the $3800 saved.

NoblePublius 6y ago

Yes, and this is part of the problem. I should not have to join a PEO (or employ 10k+ people) to provide my employees the best possible insurance rates. For that matter, nobody should have to work anywhere to get the best possible rates. The original point is that income inequality is not nearly as big of a deal as some would want to believe because of the chicanery of benefits systems. New York State provides about $140k of services (direct cost to the state government) to a family of 4 making $39,500. Yet this is not considered income to the family. Why?