[afx114]

[quote=bearishgurl]I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.[/quote]

This is exactly my situation. I am a dependent on my wife’s employer’s plan. 100% of my premiums come out of my wife’s paycheck. This is still much cheaper than shopping for my own personal coverage as a self-employed contractor. Why? Because I join in as part of the larger POOL which brings down per-person costs as more people join it. Or at least it should bring down costs. This is how insurance is supposed to work.

It’s kinda like how it’s cheaper per-beer to buy a 24-pack than it is to buy a 6-pack. Overall you pay more but it averages out cheaper for the individual.

[afx114]

[quote=bearishgurl]I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.[/quote]

This is exactly my situation. I am a dependent on my wife’s employer’s plan. 100% of my premiums come out of my wife’s paycheck. This is still much cheaper than shopping for my own personal coverage as a self-employed contractor. Why? Because I join in as part of the larger POOL which brings down per-person costs as more people join it. Or at least it should bring down costs. This is how insurance is supposed to work.

It’s kinda like how it’s cheaper per-beer to buy a 24-pack than it is to buy a 6-pack. Overall you pay more but it averages out cheaper for the individual.

[afx114]

[quote=bearishgurl]I know of several SD employers who FULLY PAY the premiums of their employee but CHARGE TO THE EMPLOYEE the FULL group premium for any dependents they wish to cover.[/quote]

This is exactly my situation. I am a dependent on my wife’s employer’s plan. 100% of my premiums come out of my wife’s paycheck. This is still much cheaper than shopping for my own personal coverage as a self-employed contractor. Why? Because I join in as part of the larger POOL which brings down per-person costs as more people join it. Or at least it should bring down costs. This is how insurance is supposed to work.

It’s kinda like how it’s cheaper per-beer to buy a 24-pack than it is to buy a 6-pack. Overall you pay more but it averages out cheaper for the individual.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

[quote=flu]My understanding of how this works is the following. The “premium” one pays at a company is just a fraction of the cost of the insurance payments to ensure that person. The other part which is the larger of the two are is the 75%+ portion comping from the company itself. So doesn’t insuring one more person, just cost the company providing the insurance more…If so, do companies really just eat the cost or does it really just pass the cost on down to everyone else with higher premiums? (I think it’s the later, judging by all the letters I’m getting from our benefits office)…[/quote]

Assume I’m a young, healthy student, and my parents have been paying $200/month over 4 years to have me on their insurance policy while in college. I never once went to the hospital or made an insurance claim. Where did that $9,600 go? It went to pay claims of people in the pool who did file claims. Now what happens if you add 2 million students with the same parameters to the pool? There’s an extra $19,200,000,000 to go around. Granted, some of those 2 million new young subscribers will file claims, but certainly not $19bln worth. Unless we’re also adding 2 million additional older subscribers who file lots of claims, it seems to me the math works out as beneficial to bring more younger people into the pool.

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Theoretically, bringing more young into the system should drive down costs for everybody. The young don’t use insurance as much as the old, so if there are more under-25s buying into the system (on their parent’s account), there are more people putting money into the insurance pool than without this new provision. Theoretically, I said. Because whether or not the insurance companies pass on these savings to all of us remains to be seen. My guess is that it won’t happen unless regulations require it. But that would be tyranny, right?

[afx114]

Sddood,

What are your thoughts on the mandatory seatbelt law?

[afx114]

Sddood,

What are your thoughts on the mandatory seatbelt law?

[Author]

Posts