Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should future benfits packages, public and private, only cover the worker and not the spouse? Some of these current benefits practices came about in a period of time when women were homemakers. With all the equality "stuff" why shouldn't the spouse be required to work to collect their own retirement benefits? What if social security was only paid to the people who paid into it?
Why shouldn't a spouse have to work to get health insurance? There could be some exception written into the law for people who can't work due to some disability. Or, how about this, if you are covered by your spouse's health insurance, the spouse pays double the insurance premium that single people pay?
Or, if your spouse expects to collect your pension/social security, the cost to you is double that of a single worker?
Any kids covered by health insurance of the parent, each kid costs the parent the same premium price as a single worker. How about that?
Should future benfits packages, public and private, only cover the worker and not the spouse? Some of these current benefits practices came about in a period of time when women were homemakers. With all the equality "stuff" why shouldn't the spouse be required to work to collect their own retirement benefits? What if social security was only paid to the people who paid into it?
For the most part, yes, people should have to pay for their own retirement. There are exceptions of course, some that can't really be fully addressed on a message board. Many pension plans offer "survivor benefits" so that should the working spouse with the pension pre-decease the spouse, the spouse can collect some portion of the pension that the household collectively paid into. This is not a "free ride". When you elect/opt to take the survivor benefits, you usually lose a chunk of your pension when you are alive. For instance, my husband will receive a retirement from the military when he is 62. We opted out of the survivor benefit because it took so much from his monthly pay out of the pension that it was a gamble we didn't want to take. This also holds true for the old federal CSRS pension if you elect survivors benefits. So, the spouse is not really getting over on anything.
Quote:
Or, how about this, if you are covered by your spouse's health insurance, the spouse pays double the insurance premium that single people pay?
Uh, isn't that already happening? At every company I've worked out in the private sector as well as for the federal government, a family health insurance plan is at least double of what the single plan premium is.
Quote:
Or, if your spouse expects to collect your pension/social security, the cost to you is double that of a single worker?
See my explanation above. There is usually a large hit out of the pension for survivors benefits.
Quote:
Any kids covered by health insurance of the parent, each kid costs the parent the same premium price as a single worker. How about that?
Again, a family policy usually costs double that of single policy. Those with large families obviously *make out* on this deal while those with just a spouse do not.
Should future benfits packages, public and private, only cover the worker and not the spouse? Some of these current benefits practices came about in a period of time when women were homemakers. With all the equality "stuff" why shouldn't the spouse be required to work to collect their own retirement benefits? What if social security was only paid to the people who paid into it?
Why shouldn't a spouse have to work to get health insurance? There could be some exception written into the law for people who can't work due to some disability. Or, how about this, if you are covered by your spouse's health insurance, the spouse pays double the insurance premium that single people pay?
Or, if your spouse expects to collect your pension/social security, the cost to you is double that of a single worker?
Any kids covered by health insurance of the parent, each kid costs the parent the same premium price as a single worker. How about that?
My company only covers your spouse or domestic partner if you show that they are not working, or their employer doesn't offer them healthcare.
In my case, my "domestic partner" (a woman, I just don't want to marry, sorry), doesn't work, stays at home, and is 8 1/2 months pregnant. So they cover her.
I think thats fair, and it decreases the companies overall costs.
My company only covers your spouse or domestic partner if you show that they are not working, or their employer doesn't offer them healthcare.
In my case, my "domestic partner" (a woman, I just don't want to marry, sorry), doesn't work, stays at home, and is 8 1/2 months pregnant. So they cover her.
I think thats fair, and it decreases the companies overall costs.
I agree that this is a fair way to do things.
I work for the federal government and have access to health insurance. My husband works for a private company. His health insurance is MUCH more affordable than what the federal government offers me, so we get the family plan through his employer which covers 4 people at a fraction of what my employer would charge me.
So far, there has been no provision by either company to make me choose a policy through MY employer. I do have to let my husband's employer know that I do have access to another insurance and whether or not I am taking it, but that's it.
For the most part, yes, people should have to pay for their own retirement. There are exceptions of course, some that can't really be fully addressed on a message board. Many pension plans offer "survivor benefits" so that should the working spouse with the pension pre-decease the spouse, the spouse can collect some portion of the pension that the household collectively paid into. This is not a "free ride". When you elect/opt to take the survivor benefits, you usually lose a chunk of your pension when you are alive. For instance, my husband will receive a retirement from the military when he is 62. We opted out of the survivor benefit because it took so much from his monthly pay out of the pension that it was a gamble we didn't want to take. This also holds true for the old federal CSRS pension if you elect survivors benefits. So, the spouse is not really getting over on anything.
Uh, isn't that already happening? At every company I've worked out in the private sector as well as for the federal government, a family health insurance plan is at least double of what the single plan premium is.
See my explanation above. There is usually a large hit out of the pension for survivors benefits.
Again, a family policy usually costs double that of single policy. Those with large families obviously *make out* on this deal while those with just a spouse do not.
When I was in the workforce, a married couple (worker and spouse) typically paid the same as a family of four, five or six and it isn't double a self-only premium.
I never said the working spouse provided a free ride to the surviving spouse. I just think the contribution of the working person should be double that of a single person if the spouse gets benefits. But that's not even my first choice. My first choice is to only pay benefits to workers. If the spouse wants to collect, they need to go to work, too, in my opinion. This isn't the 1950s anymore.
Probably, because the gay lobby is going to push same sex marriage and then any two people can claim benefits whether they are gay or not. Many will jump on the scam for free benefits (let's face it: health insurance is expensive and people will lie to get it).
When I was in the workforce, a married couple (worker and spouse) typically paid the same as a family of four, five or six and it isn't double a self-only premium.
Where I work, a family policy can cover a large amount of people so, yeah, a worker insuring just a spouse is paying for that.
A self-only premium here is $54 per pay period. A family premium is $161.00 pay period--more than double that of a single worker. Those averages seem to carry out through industry. The last company I worked for paid 80% of the premium for a single worker and only 70% of the premium for the family plan. Individual employers decide how much of the premium they want to kick so this could account for variances. For instance, in your experience an employer could have possibly kicked in more for the family policy than the single policy making a family policy less than double than the single plan.
Quote:
I never said the working spouse provided a free ride to the surviving spouse. I just think the contribution of the working person should be double that of a single person if the spouse gets benefits. But that's not even my first choice. My first choice is to only pay benefits to workers. If the spouse wants to collect, they need to go to work, too, in my opinion. This isn't the 1950s anymore.[/
I think it's probably pretty hard for a pension plan to collect "double" from an employee who thinks 30 years prior, they want to cover their spouse. That's why they have the survivor benefit plan that you choose upon retirement. Believe me, it's a HEFTY cost to the pension. I haven't run the numbers down to that detail but it wouldn't surprise me if someone lost nearly half their pension payout when they elect survivor benefits. For that very reason, my bosses' wife did not get survivor benefits on her husband. They just took out a very large life insurance policy on her in case she passed, he would be supported in retirement. It was tons cheaper to do that.
Should future benfits packages, public and private, only cover the worker and not the spouse? Some of these current benefits practices came about in a period of time when women were homemakers. With all the equality "stuff" why shouldn't the spouse be required to work to collect their own retirement benefits? What if social security was only paid to the people who paid into it?
Why shouldn't a spouse have to work to get health insurance? There could be some exception written into the law for people who can't work due to some disability. Or, how about this, if you are covered by your spouse's health insurance, the spouse pays double the insurance premium that single people pay?
Or, if your spouse expects to collect your pension/social security, the cost to you is double that of a single worker?
Any kids covered by health insurance of the parent, each kid costs the parent the same premium price as a single worker. How about that?
No. But thanks anyway for posting anther example of where the right-wingers want to take us, hey why not just go the way of Walmart, work their people 39 hours then pay no benefits at all, or is that what is on the table for the future if the right runs the show? No thanks I'll pass.
Oh, one more clue for the clueless: If both spouses are working and benefits are available they only pick one or the other since having full coverage from two seperate places would be expensive and pointless. Plus if the wife does not work and stays home like conservatives prefer then under the right-wing ideals they would not be covered, along with the chidren, let's not forget the children. I love it when Conservatives show their Compassion so everyone can see what the right really thinks of the Voters.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
