Employer paid healthcare

[MtnBiker]

I wanted to address this issue of employer paid healthcare and the misunderstanding of it. I have seen it mentioned on this site a few times as well as in the media. It is true that most people aquire their healthcare insurance coverage through their employer and the premium is either partially paid or their is no payment by the employee. I believe the misunderstanding comes when it is said the the employer pays for the healthcare insurance or at least pays for a portion of the insurance.

The correct way to understand this, is the employee earns the payment of the health insurance premium, it is part of their compenstation.

I actually had a disagreement with someone in my company's management. He said that we should be greatful that our company pays for our insurance, I had to correct him and let him know that we earned it. See an employee is an asset to a company. In a profitable business model (unlike the government) an employee will ultimately be a source of revenue to the company greater than the liability to employee him. If it is determind that the employee is a greater liability than an asset and that cannot be changed or there is to great of a risk then the employee will likely be terminated. So a company looks at the total cost of employing someone including wages, fica tax and possibly insurance costs as the total liability of an employee.

Employers do not pay for insurance, employees earn it!

[Kathianne]

I wanted to address this issue of employer paid healthcare and the misunderstanding of it. I have seen it mentioned on this site a few times as well as in the media. It is true that most people aquire their healthcare insurance coverage through their employer and the premium is either partially paid or their is no payment by the employee. I believe the misunderstanding comes when it is said the the employer pays for the healthcare insurance or at least pays for a portion of the insurance.

The correct way to understand this, is the employee earns the payment of the health insurance premium, it is part of their compenstation.

I actually had a disagreement with someone in my company's management. He said that we should be greatful that our company pays for our insurance, I had to correct him and let him know that we earned it. See an employee is an asset to a company. In a profitable business model (unlike the government) an employee will ultimately be a source of revenue to the company greater than the liability to employee him. If it is determind that the employee is a greater liability than an asset and that cannot be changed or there is to great of a risk then the employee will likely be terminated. So a company looks at the total cost of employing someone including wages, fica tax and possibly insurance costs as the total liability of an employee.

Employers do not pay for insurance, employees earn it!

Won't it be great depending on the government, whether or not you work hard? I mean up to recently, the more valuable one was to an employer the more one could hope for fair compensation. Now we don't need to worry about it, right?

What a great country we'll be, when we don't have to worry about showing up on time or turning out the best product. We can 'be ourselves.' Sigh.

[Immanuel]

You are absolutely correct MtnBiker. What people don't understand is that the employer is paying them more than just a salary. The additional benefits need to be included in their earnings.

My employer pays nearly $800/month of my health insurance for which I am extremely grateful; however, that along with my other benefits should actually be considered part of my earnings.

Would my employer pay me an additional $800/month if I did not take the insurance? No, but still it is something they are willing to pay to keep me working.

Immie

[cat slave]

I fail to see how "benefits" is the same as "income" which is subject to taxation.

[Mr. P]

I fail to see how "benefits" is the same as "income" which is subject to taxation.

The typical union member fails to understand this issue also.

The democrats don't, they would love to tax these "benefits" as income. IMO benefits are income, but I don't think they should be taxed..

[PostmodernProphet]

I fail to see how "benefits" is the same as "income" which is subject to taxation.

that is the fiction.....as a self employed person, who always had to buy his health insurance with after tax money (up until the Bush tax law changes), it always irked me that most got their health insurance tax free.....it OUGHT to be taxed the same as the other compensation that people get for working....

[Immanuel]

I fail to see how "benefits" is the same as "income" which is subject to taxation.

Most employers do not give you "benefits" out of the goodness of their hearts. They give you "benefits" because that is what it takes to hire good people in this country. Believe me, if they thought they could get away with hiring you and not paying for your medical or retirement benefits, they would do so and you would not see most of their savings in your paycheck.

"Benefits" are a cost of employing people. That is why they are income to you.

As for PMP's statement about benefits being taxed as his income, I'd turn that around and say that his health insurance should have come out as a business expense and not be taxed at all, as mine have been rather than me being taxed for it as he has been.

Immie

[MtnBiker]

I fail to see how "benefits" is the same as "income" which is subject to taxation.

I suppose there is some truth to your statement. A person cannot pay the mortgage with benifits, however it is an overall compenstation. And like others have mentioned employeers are not paying for this out of the goodness of their heart, it is a cost of employee good people for the right positions in the company. And again the employee earns that compensation. I do believe that is an important recogonization. All to often I see or hear it mentioned that employeers pay for health insurance, as if people are darn lucky to have it. Well it is not luck, they do a job and have earned that compenstation. It has been reported in polls that over 80 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with their insurance. They are doing the work to earn that insurance.

[gabosaurus]

What if your employer doesn't offer health insurance? Or what if it is not affordable, or the coverage is minimal at best?
What about all the self-employed people out there? Or those who are unemployed?

[Nukeman]

What if your employer doesn't offer health insurance? Or what if it is not affordable, or the coverage is minimal at best?
What about all the self-employed people out there? Or those who are unemployed?

Than instead of OVER HAULING THE WHOLE INDUSTRY, why don't we give them TAX BREAKS to afford it..


That wouldn't be realistic though because then the government couldn't take over 16% of the GDP......!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

Where will the tax breaks come from? Taxes pay for the country. In case you haven't figured that one out.

[Nukeman]

Where will the tax breaks come from? Taxes pay for the country. In case you haven't figured that one out.

Where will the freaking money come from to pay for this huge mess the Dem's call Obamacare???? Do you think he is just going to wave a magic wand and poof 1 trillion dollars comes out his ass??

lets look at that number $1,000,000,000,000.00 :poke:

Your telling me we can't come up with tax breaks for people but you think we can come up with the aforementioned number???

Ohh wait they can just "PRINT SOME MORE MONEY".

[Immanuel]

Where will the tax breaks come from? Taxes pay for the country. In case you haven't figured that one out.

Where will the money for this so called reform package come from?

It would be a hell of a lot less expensive to provide tax breaks for those who can't afford coverage than this plan being pushed down our throats.

Sorry, Nuke, I guess I should have read the last post before jumping in on this conversation.

Immie