9 ms·

Those premiums are significantly above what corporate employees pay. My premiums at my current and last job were way below those figures. Keep in mind "private

Those premiums are significantly above what corporate employees pay. My premiums at my current and last job were way below those figures. Keep in mind "private employers" is a huge bucket and would encompass a wide range of companies, including smaller companies with likely small budgets. It is not reflective of many of the benefits many SWEs would get.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Again, I am talking about the total cost of insurance, not just the portion of the cost of insurance that an employer asks an employee to pay. Just because an employer is paying for $18k out of $20k of your annual health insurance premiums (again, check code DD box 12 of your W2), does not mean that health insurance costs (meaningfully) less for an employer. It is simply a portion of your total compensation, which both employer and employee prefer to go via the employer due to the ability to purchase it with pre tax money, hence an immediate savings of 30% on the insurance premium portion of one’s expenses. To go back to the root of this conversation, my purpose was to clarify that “healthcare via employer” is simply an artifact of the tax code and results in savings of tax rate * annual health insurance premiums.
- jorblumesea 5y ago
  I just think that's wrong. Private insurers pools are still less expensive, even if the employer was not going to pay some percentage of your premium. If you look at the plans that most large employers have (Microsoft, Amazon etc) their total premium cost is still far less. I understand what you're saying, it's just not correct for the vast majority of large company workers. Your total private insurer cost is all of the US, which includes many small businesses which are on inferior plans. But for an swe, your total premium cost is far less (regardless of how much your employer chips in) due to the fact that your private insurer pool is filled with relatively wealthy, educated workers. Private mom/pop pool != private Microsoft/Amazon pool. What you're saying is just...wrong...for most talented eng workers.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > If you look at the plans that most large employers have (Microsoft, Amazon etc) their total premium cost is still far less. Is this data available somewhere? I cannot find anything specifically related to big tech companies, although I did acknowledge about there might be some slight advantage due to population. But many of these tech companies are huge with tens and hundreds of thousands of employees. I highly doubt Amazon, with 1.2M employees, most of them not highly paid software engineers that sit in chairs all day, has a risk pool that is materially less costly than any random healthcare.gov plan. The only other way is if some people here employed by FAANG pipe in with what their W-2 says the employer paid portion of their health insurance costs were.
- brewdad 5y ago
  The employer's cost for my health insurance is largely irrelevant to me, the employee. There is zero reason that if my employer's cost was zero, that those dollars would be passed along to me unless the employment market forced them to.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Your specific total compensation is not affected by the employer paid portion of health insurance, but all compensation across all employees across all businesses is surely affected (the money for the health insurance has to come from somewhere). But back to my original point, is that the quality and cost of health insurance on healthcare.gov is comparable to what employers offer (many times it is the same product sold by same insurer). And it is at the same cost, just the tax treatment differs when an employer pays for a portion of it.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Again, I am talking about the total cost of insurance, not just the portion of the cost of insurance that an employer asks an employee to pay. Just because an employer is paying for $18k out of $20k of your annual health insurance premiums (again, check code DD box 12 of your W2), does not mean that health insurance costs (meaningfully) less for an employer. It is simply a portion of your total compensation, which both employer and employee prefer to go via the employer due to the ability to purchase it with pre tax money, hence an immediate savings of 30% on the insurance premium portion of one’s expenses. To go back to the root of this conversation, my purpose was to clarify that “healthcare via employer” is simply an artifact of the tax code and results in savings of tax rate * annual health insurance premiums.

jorblumesea 5y ago
I just think that's wrong. Private insurers pools are still less expensive, even if the employer was not going to pay some percentage of your premium. If you look at the plans that most large employers have (Microsoft, Amazon etc) their total premium cost is still far less. I understand what you're saying, it's just not correct for the vast majority of large company workers. Your total private insurer cost is all of the US, which includes many small businesses which are on inferior plans. But for an swe, your total premium cost is far less (regardless of how much your employer chips in) due to the fact that your private insurer pool is filled with relatively wealthy, educated workers. Private mom/pop pool != private Microsoft/Amazon pool. What you're saying is just...wrong...for most talented eng workers.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > If you look at the plans that most large employers have (Microsoft, Amazon etc) their total premium cost is still far less. Is this data available somewhere? I cannot find anything specifically related to big tech companies, although I did acknowledge about there might be some slight advantage due to population. But many of these tech companies are huge with tens and hundreds of thousands of employees. I highly doubt Amazon, with 1.2M employees, most of them not highly paid software engineers that sit in chairs all day, has a risk pool that is materially less costly than any random healthcare.gov plan. The only other way is if some people here employed by FAANG pipe in with what their W-2 says the employer paid portion of their health insurance costs were.
brewdad 5y ago
The employer's cost for my health insurance is largely irrelevant to me, the employee. There is zero reason that if my employer's cost was zero, that those dollars would be passed along to me unless the employment market forced them to.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Your specific total compensation is not affected by the employer paid portion of health insurance, but all compensation across all employees across all businesses is surely affected (the money for the health insurance has to come from somewhere). But back to my original point, is that the quality and cost of health insurance on healthcare.gov is comparable to what employers offer (many times it is the same product sold by same insurer). And it is at the same cost, just the tax treatment differs when an employer pays for a portion of it.