Quick Update

[weaktwos]

I just had to re-enroll for my benefits for 2006. Single people are now paying more per person for their benefits, whereas families are paying less. I'm glad for the families, but yet, I am now subsidizing groups of people who are more likely to get ill and have increased health costs, as one person in the family gets sick, the others are sure to follow. While, if I get sick, I can quarantine myself.

In my case, it's no big deal, but I feel sorry for the single person who makes a 4th of what I do here at work. My company does give you the option to sell annual leave to pay for your health benefits, though. For the first time, ever, I sold 3 days, 2 hours of leave time to avoid having to pay for benefits out of my paycheck.

In other news: wine tasting tonight! Yay!

The Election: bizarre. I need to reflect more on certain issues before I expound.

Comments

[reannon.livejournal.com]

Bizarre. My company went the other way. Single people pay 25 percent of their premium; families (including employee plus one) pay 30 percent. So not only am I paying a higher premium for me and the kiddo, I'm paying a larger percentage for me and the Kiddo. We honestly feel it's an attempt to get people not to insure their families, as if we have a freakin' choice.

Wanna hear something really hilarious? I pay more for the Kiddo than I do for myself. If I were a young single lass without a dependent, I would pay $85.21 a month. Employee plus one: $216.12. They can't even say I'm subsidizing the families with nine kids, because familes pay an even higher premium. So why is it adding only one person causes nearly triple the premium? (And shouldn't I get a discount for the fact that he's a disgustingly healthy six-year-old who goes to the doctor about once a year?) :)