LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 122
0 members and 122 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-04-2004, 04:31 PM   #11
ltl/fb
Registered User
 
ltl/fb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Flyover land
Posts: 19,042
Gangsta.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF, however, each person were provided with a $300 stipend (tax free) with which to purchase health insurace as part of their employment package, how many would use the full $300 for health care?

And if there were no obligation/expectation to pay that $300 stipend, how many more people would the employer hire, either part time or full time?
$300 would work OK for the young and healthy with no kids, not so well for older people or people with families, particularly if anyone in their family were not healthy.

A lot of larger companies do structure things so that you have a choice between cash and benefits, though if you take cash it is taxed. However, most of these companies do not permit their employees to go coverage-free -- if they decline any health care, they are required to show they have other coverage. Perhaps such employers are overly paternalistic, perhaps they sense that their employee retention will be higher if people have health coverage.

Ask Wal-Mart re: that $300 thing. They have no doubt crunched the numbers.
ltl/fb is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46 PM.