OT: Anyone hear the NPR interview about the person getting dependant care coverage from parents

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal]This has been an issue for years. My brother, upon receiving his masters from UC Berkeley, had 2 part time jobs at the university. His undergrad degree was architecture, his grad degree was landscape architecture. He was unable to get a job with local architecture firms… although one offered to let him work there for free. (You need to work under a registered architect for some number of hours/years before you can start taking the exams to get registered yourself.) He kept his two part time jobs because they paid the rent. They were funded differently, though… So even though he was working 50+ hours per week, he was considered part time and did not qualify for benefits. This was in the 80’s. Since he was a cancer survivor (Had melenoma while an undergrad) he was uninsurable on the private market.

Eventually he was able to get a job with a licensed architect – and get paid and insurance. But he is an example of someone who would have benefited from the change in the law.[/quote]

Edit…I just re-read what you wrote. Sorry, my bad.
I think in your particular case, your brother had a preexisting condition, I can see where this would make sense in that case.

I’m wondering about the person in the article though, because apparently she says she’s healthy.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=AK]Yeah, I guess it’ll drive up costs for employers and policyholders.
[/quote]

Not necessarily. Employers can simply ask for more employee contribution to make up for the cost.

I always felt that married employees with kids were getting unfair benefits. They are getting benefits that cost more than for single employees. Employees with multiple kids are getting more benefits.

I think that employer health care contribution should be the same amount for single or married employees. Anything over and above an amount should be picked up by the employee.

If an employee doesn’t need/use health benefits, he/she should get a commensurate increase in salary, net of taxes benefits.

[teaboy]

[quote=meadandale]Yeah…I don’t either.

I have a hard time understanding how this new ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants all kinds of free stuff and doesn’t want to work…or at least that hard…is going to be able to support SS in 30 years with their payments. It’s all gonna come crashing down sooner rather than later…[/quote]

Yeah, this new ‘entitlement’ generation sucks.
I much prefer the old ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants to retire at 55 and enjoy 50+ unproductive years watching reruns of MacGyver while collecting government pensions, medicare, etc, because they’ve toughed out their 9-5 for 30 years behind a desk at the DMV.

tb

[teaboy]

[quote=meadandale]Yeah…I don’t either.

I have a hard time understanding how this new ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants all kinds of free stuff and doesn’t want to work…or at least that hard…is going to be able to support SS in 30 years with their payments. It’s all gonna come crashing down sooner rather than later…[/quote]

Yeah, this new ‘entitlement’ generation sucks.
I much prefer the old ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants to retire at 55 and enjoy 50+ unproductive years watching reruns of MacGyver while collecting government pensions, medicare, etc, because they’ve toughed out their 9-5 for 30 years behind a desk at the DMV.

tb

[teaboy]

[quote=meadandale]Yeah…I don’t either.

I have a hard time understanding how this new ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants all kinds of free stuff and doesn’t want to work…or at least that hard…is going to be able to support SS in 30 years with their payments. It’s all gonna come crashing down sooner rather than later…[/quote]

Yeah, this new ‘entitlement’ generation sucks.
I much prefer the old ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants to retire at 55 and enjoy 50+ unproductive years watching reruns of MacGyver while collecting government pensions, medicare, etc, because they’ve toughed out their 9-5 for 30 years behind a desk at the DMV.

tb

[teaboy]

[quote=meadandale]Yeah…I don’t either.

I have a hard time understanding how this new ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants all kinds of free stuff and doesn’t want to work…or at least that hard…is going to be able to support SS in 30 years with their payments. It’s all gonna come crashing down sooner rather than later…[/quote]

Yeah, this new ‘entitlement’ generation sucks.
I much prefer the old ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants to retire at 55 and enjoy 50+ unproductive years watching reruns of MacGyver while collecting government pensions, medicare, etc, because they’ve toughed out their 9-5 for 30 years behind a desk at the DMV.

tb

[teaboy]

[quote=meadandale]Yeah…I don’t either.

I have a hard time understanding how this new ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants all kinds of free stuff and doesn’t want to work…or at least that hard…is going to be able to support SS in 30 years with their payments. It’s all gonna come crashing down sooner rather than later…[/quote]

Yeah, this new ‘entitlement’ generation sucks.
I much prefer the old ‘entitlement’ generation, that wants to retire at 55 and enjoy 50+ unproductive years watching reruns of MacGyver while collecting government pensions, medicare, etc, because they’ve toughed out their 9-5 for 30 years behind a desk at the DMV.

tb

[blahblahblah]

In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.

[blahblahblah]

In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.

[blahblahblah]

In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.

[blahblahblah]

In the USA it is important that outrage and anger be directed at those at or near the bottom. Anger and outrage should never be directed upwards, unless it is towards one of the officially recognized political divisions or disposable public figures.

Clearly the person in this story is an irresponsible brat who doesn’t know how to manage their money and is looking for a free ride. Having graduated from college, she might be able to extend her twisted scam for as many as 4 years before she reaches the age of 26! Think of the chaos and damage this will undoubtedly cause.

I will coin a descriptive new phrase for such people here, we’ll call them “Insurance Freeloaders.” I encourage everyone to post to this thread and to create new threads about how these insurance freeloaders are ruining our society.

[Author]

Posts