3 ms·

You're free to buy privately and cancel your employer insurance. I have never heard of an employer that won't let you cancel your insurance.

etchalon 5y ago
When we were a smaller group, we had to forbid it, because otherwise our group wasn't large enough to qualify for a group plan.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- phil21 5y ago
  This is very strange, it's not even remotely rare to decline employer coverage - probably half my team either has their spouse on our company coverage, or no company coverage since they are covered by their spouse.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    In my jurisdiction this practice (forced insurance) would almost certainly be illegal if any unauthorized payroll deduction were included.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    It's not rare. About 1/3 of my team has declined coverage now. But when were six people, and the minimum for BCBS to cover us was six people, we asked everyone to commit to the coverage so we could do it.
munk-a 5y ago
Negotiating as an individual in a market made up by large blocks makes you very easy to ignore. If everyone moved off employer insurance and into the market then, assuming we didn't have massive market corruption (which I think is a pretty big assumption), we'd all be on an even playing field. Asking individuals to do this independently is just a recipe for them to fail.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I did this exact thing (bought privately) for awhile because I wanted to decouple my insurance from employment. It's actually very easy.
- ihumanable 5y ago
  I think auto insurance is a good indicator of how it would play out if you made everyone do individual insurance. Insurance would still likely need to be legally mandated, like auto insurance, so that the insurance market would be solvent. From there, insurance would likely break down into high cost / high coverage, mid cost / mid coverage, low cost / legally mandated minimum coverage. The poor would end up with the low cost / minimum coverage plans as cost would likely end up being the main motivating factor. Given that 6-in-10 Americans can not afford an unexpected $500 bill (https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-d...), this would likely be the coverage level chosen by about half of Americans. These policies would be affordable, but I expect the deductibles and co-pays would be high enough to make it prohibitively expensive for policy holders to actually get much utility from them. The other half would end up with the better plans, unless they were more comfortable with risk and elected for the cheaper plans. Their lot is probably pretty similar to today.
  - jandrewrogers 5y ago
    That article says that 60% of Americans don't have $500 in a savings account, not that they don't have $500. Savings accounts are an anachronism, it is like saying Americans don't have phones if they don't have a landline. By that standard, I'm flat broke. Americans can afford a $500 expense just fine. The median American household has ~$1000/month left over after all ordinary living expenses, per the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
    - bagels 5y ago
      That article isn't the original research, and I don't think the original research specifically asked about "savings accounts". I think they're drawing on this series of studies: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-americans-contend-with-unexpected-expenses/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-american...
maxerickson 5y ago
Most employers don't offer to pay the premium out instead of the coverage, so they usually offer a much better deal than the alternatives. Like if your contribution to your insurance is a few hundred a paycheck there is a pretty good chance that the employer is paying in quite a bit more than that. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2021-employer-health-benefits-survey/ https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2021-employer-health...
croutonwagon 5y ago
Most companies (and employees) consider this part of the compensation package. In most cases there is not an avenue to recover any lost compensation if you opt out of health insurance. If an employer offered a higher base pay for those not on their insurance plan, you probably WOULD see a much higher rate of those securing their own plans in the open market.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Complaining about benefits would be a weird flex though. The alternative of not having employer tied is still available. A more rational phrasing may be: "I can buy insurance isolated from my employment, but I am priveleged to have the benefit and OPTION of taking advantage of employer benefits."
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    Maybe. But with employer provided benefits that comes at a cost to the employer. Thats why its a benefit and a part of a compensation package. (IE: you work for us and we pay you x, give you x in retirement and subrogate x on these healthcare initiatives). If i am freeing the employer of that burden....should that not reflect back on my compensation? Surely you dont mean the employer should then be able to save more and basically lower their compensation for employees and expect the same return? There are plenty of packages on the open market that are generally better than what an employer offers. But you are essentially making extra sacrifices by opting out with no benefit to you and all the benefit of the company. It would make more sense for a company to even offer a HSA where they contribute as much as they would to a plan to a savings account and allow the employee to also contribute their share pre-tax. And apply that to plans available on the open market.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Inflexibly benefit offerings are why I generally prefer structuring my employment as 'contractor' / B2B, but I realize many people are unable to structure their employment that way. You're right that it would be advantageous if total compensation were better understood so that employees and employer could negotiate what works for them. >It would make more sense for a company to even offer a HSA where they contribute as much as they would to a plan to a savings account and allow the employee to also contribute their share pre-tax. And apply that to plans available on the open market. Agreed

etchalon 5y ago

When we were a smaller group, we had to forbid it, because otherwise our group wasn't large enough to qualify for a group plan.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
phil21 5y ago
This is very strange, it's not even remotely rare to decline employer coverage - probably half my team either has their spouse on our company coverage, or no company coverage since they are covered by their spouse.
- notch656a 5y ago
  In my jurisdiction this practice (forced insurance) would almost certainly be illegal if any unauthorized payroll deduction were included.
- etchalon 5y ago
  It's not rare. About 1/3 of my team has declined coverage now. But when were six people, and the minimum for BCBS to cover us was six people, we asked everyone to commit to the coverage so we could do it.

munk-a 5y ago

Negotiating as an individual in a market made up by large blocks makes you very easy to ignore. If everyone moved off employer insurance and into the market then, assuming we didn't have massive market corruption (which I think is a pretty big assumption), we'd all be on an even playing field. Asking individuals to do this independently is just a recipe for them to fail.

notch656a 5y ago
I did this exact thing (bought privately) for awhile because I wanted to decouple my insurance from employment. It's actually very easy.
ihumanable 5y ago
I think auto insurance is a good indicator of how it would play out if you made everyone do individual insurance. Insurance would still likely need to be legally mandated, like auto insurance, so that the insurance market would be solvent. From there, insurance would likely break down into high cost / high coverage, mid cost / mid coverage, low cost / legally mandated minimum coverage. The poor would end up with the low cost / minimum coverage plans as cost would likely end up being the main motivating factor. Given that 6-in-10 Americans can not afford an unexpected $500 bill (https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-dont-have-500-in-savings https://www.cbs19news.com/story/34248451/6-in-10-americans-d...), this would likely be the coverage level chosen by about half of Americans. These policies would be affordable, but I expect the deductibles and co-pays would be high enough to make it prohibitively expensive for policy holders to actually get much utility from them. The other half would end up with the better plans, unless they were more comfortable with risk and elected for the cheaper plans. Their lot is probably pretty similar to today.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  That article says that 60% of Americans don't have $500 in a savings account, not that they don't have $500. Savings accounts are an anachronism, it is like saying Americans don't have phones if they don't have a landline. By that standard, I'm flat broke. Americans can afford a $500 expense just fine. The median American household has ~$1000/month left over after all ordinary living expenses, per the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics.
  - bagels 5y ago
    That article isn't the original research, and I don't think the original research specifically asked about "savings accounts". I think they're drawing on this series of studies: https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-americans-contend-with-unexpected-expenses/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-american...

maxerickson 5y ago

Most employers don't offer to pay the premium out instead of the coverage, so they usually offer a much better deal than the alternatives. Like if your contribution to your insurance is a few hundred a paycheck there is a pretty good chance that the employer is paying in quite a bit more than that. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2021-employer-health-benefits-survey/ https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2021-employer-health...

croutonwagon 5y ago

Most companies (and employees) consider this part of the compensation package. In most cases there is not an avenue to recover any lost compensation if you opt out of health insurance. If an employer offered a higher base pay for those not on their insurance plan, you probably WOULD see a much higher rate of those securing their own plans in the open market.

notch656a 5y ago
Complaining about benefits would be a weird flex though. The alternative of not having employer tied is still available. A more rational phrasing may be: "I can buy insurance isolated from my employment, but I am priveleged to have the benefit and OPTION of taking advantage of employer benefits."
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  Maybe. But with employer provided benefits that comes at a cost to the employer. Thats why its a benefit and a part of a compensation package. (IE: you work for us and we pay you x, give you x in retirement and subrogate x on these healthcare initiatives). If i am freeing the employer of that burden....should that not reflect back on my compensation? Surely you dont mean the employer should then be able to save more and basically lower their compensation for employees and expect the same return? There are plenty of packages on the open market that are generally better than what an employer offers. But you are essentially making extra sacrifices by opting out with no benefit to you and all the benefit of the company. It would make more sense for a company to even offer a HSA where they contribute as much as they would to a plan to a savings account and allow the employee to also contribute their share pre-tax. And apply that to plans available on the open market.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Inflexibly benefit offerings are why I generally prefer structuring my employment as 'contractor' / B2B, but I realize many people are unable to structure their employment that way. You're right that it would be advantageous if total compensation were better understood so that employees and employer could negotiate what works for them. >It would make more sense for a company to even offer a HSA where they contribute as much as they would to a plan to a savings account and allow the employee to also contribute their share pre-tax. And apply that to plans available on the open market. Agreed