6 ms·

I found this a little strange. Isn't it generally cheaper per employee for a company to secure group health insurance than it is for each employee to get their

I found this a little strange. Isn't it generally cheaper per employee for a company to secure group health insurance than it is for each employee to get their own? Even if the employee was paying 100% through an employer-sponsored plan, they would save 25-30% right off the bat due to it coming out of pretax income, right?

droithomme 15y ago
Yes, that is correct, rates are considerably cheaper per person in a group. But crucially, if you have preexisting conditions you can actually get covered. Insurance companies won't insure people with many preexisting conditions, and when they will insure them the rates can be completely impossible to swing. So let's say you have a stable job with insurance but you have diabetes, or perhaps you are a cancer survivor. If you switch to this job, you will have no insurance and you will not be able to get any. Or consider that you are unemployed. Now you might have state Medicaid insurance. Taking this job means you lose it AND you can't get insurance since they don't offer it. Or something less serious. A developer who is pregnant for example is basically uninsurable as an individual except also by state Medicaid, which is available to the poor in the US. What if you have AIDS taking long term drug therapy, or you are a paraplegic developer? You will not be insurable as an individual. A disabled developer, or a pregnant one would not be able to take this job with no benefits. In some cases this sort of no insurance policy can work well as a way of screening out candidates that some software companies may consider undesirable, including women of child bearing age, the disabled, and other groups.
- mey 15y ago
  In theory this will improve in 2014, as long as Congress doesn't make another radical course shift (so yeah...) http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/01/preexisting.html http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/01/preexisting.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- anamax 15y ago
  > Insurance companies won't insure people with many preexisting conditions, and when they will insure them the rates can be completely impossible to swing. Yes they will IF you don't let your coverage lapse. How many people don't know about their preexisting conditions? If their preexisting conditions are serious, why are they letting their coverage lapse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_an...
  - neild 15y ago
    How many people don't know about their preexisting conditions? If their preexisting conditions are serious, why are they letting their coverage lapse? If you look up the cost of individual medical coverage and the amount of money provided by unemployment insurance, you may find yourself with the answer to that question.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > If you look up the cost of individual medical coverage and the amount of money provided by unemployment insurance. I've not only looked up the cost, I've paid it while being unemployed (and "old"). What's your relevant experience? Yes, it cost money, but so does housing and other essentials. My "not healthcare" expenses are very low and yet healthcare wasn't what would push me over the edge. I didn't even bother to shop.
      - eli 15y ago
        If you have a serious pre-existing condition, it's unlikely that any insurer will offer you coverage at any price, unless they are obligated to. I had a good friend with a relatively minor pre-existing condition get flat-out denied for coverage
  - tptacek 15y ago
    We've just recently had this discussion (you & I), and I'm reasonably sure that this is not in fact universally true: that there are plenty of places where continuous group coverage does not translate to insurability on the private market.
- orangecat 15y ago
  So let's say you have a stable job with insurance but you have diabetes, or perhaps you are a cancer survivor. If you switch to this job, you will have no insurance and you will not be able to get any. Yes, which is one of many reasons why employer-provided insurance is a horrible system. If individual policies were the norm, most people with expensive chronic conditions would have been covered before developing those conditions, and then wouldn't be trapped in their jobs or completely screwed if they were laid off.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
Nutella2 15y ago
It is extremely expensive in the US for small companies to provide health insurance for employees. Not as horribly expensive as individual insurance, but still outrageously high.
- bphogan 15y ago
  Plus the plan has to be something nationally available if you're dealing with remote workers.
- martingordon 15y ago
  Which is exactly my point. The job description states that the salary is higher to compensate for the lack of health insurance, which doesn't make sense to me because the increase in salary would cost the company more than offering health insurance through a group plan. I do take bphogan's point, in that it might not be possible to find a single group plan that spans the entire country, or that those nationwide plans cost more than individual plans.

droithomme 15y ago

Yes, that is correct, rates are considerably cheaper per person in a group. But crucially, if you have preexisting conditions you can actually get covered. Insurance companies won't insure people with many preexisting conditions, and when they will insure them the rates can be completely impossible to swing. So let's say you have a stable job with insurance but you have diabetes, or perhaps you are a cancer survivor. If you switch to this job, you will have no insurance and you will not be able to get any. Or consider that you are unemployed. Now you might have state Medicaid insurance. Taking this job means you lose it AND you can't get insurance since they don't offer it. Or something less serious. A developer who is pregnant for example is basically uninsurable as an individual except also by state Medicaid, which is available to the poor in the US. What if you have AIDS taking long term drug therapy, or you are a paraplegic developer? You will not be insurable as an individual. A disabled developer, or a pregnant one would not be able to take this job with no benefits. In some cases this sort of no insurance policy can work well as a way of screening out candidates that some software companies may consider undesirable, including women of child bearing age, the disabled, and other groups.

mey 15y ago
In theory this will improve in 2014, as long as Congress doesn't make another radical course shift (so yeah...) http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/01/preexisting.html http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/01/preexisting.html
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
anamax 15y ago
> Insurance companies won't insure people with many preexisting conditions, and when they will insure them the rates can be completely impossible to swing. Yes they will IF you don't let your coverage lapse. How many people don't know about their preexisting conditions? If their preexisting conditions are serious, why are they letting their coverage lapse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_an...
- neild 15y ago
  How many people don't know about their preexisting conditions? If their preexisting conditions are serious, why are they letting their coverage lapse? If you look up the cost of individual medical coverage and the amount of money provided by unemployment insurance, you may find yourself with the answer to that question.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > If you look up the cost of individual medical coverage and the amount of money provided by unemployment insurance. I've not only looked up the cost, I've paid it while being unemployed (and "old"). What's your relevant experience? Yes, it cost money, but so does housing and other essentials. My "not healthcare" expenses are very low and yet healthcare wasn't what would push me over the edge. I didn't even bother to shop.
    - eli 15y ago
      If you have a serious pre-existing condition, it's unlikely that any insurer will offer you coverage at any price, unless they are obligated to. I had a good friend with a relatively minor pre-existing condition get flat-out denied for coverage
- tptacek 15y ago
  We've just recently had this discussion (you & I), and I'm reasonably sure that this is not in fact universally true: that there are plenty of places where continuous group coverage does not translate to insurability on the private market.
orangecat 15y ago
So let's say you have a stable job with insurance but you have diabetes, or perhaps you are a cancer survivor. If you switch to this job, you will have no insurance and you will not be able to get any. Yes, which is one of many reasons why employer-provided insurance is a horrible system. If individual policies were the norm, most people with expensive chronic conditions would have been covered before developing those conditions, and then wouldn't be trapped in their jobs or completely screwed if they were laid off.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

Nutella2 15y ago

It is extremely expensive in the US for small companies to provide health insurance for employees. Not as horribly expensive as individual insurance, but still outrageously high.

bphogan 15y ago
Plus the plan has to be something nationally available if you're dealing with remote workers.
martingordon 15y ago
Which is exactly my point. The job description states that the salary is higher to compensate for the lack of health insurance, which doesn't make sense to me because the increase in salary would cost the company more than offering health insurance through a group plan. I do take bphogan's point, in that it might not be possible to find a single group plan that spans the entire country, or that those nationwide plans cost more than individual plans.