View Full Version : Would this anger you?
How would you feel if you worked with someone who is doing this?
This person is pregnant and a full time employee. The company offers great benefits and all employees who work 30 hours or more a week are eligible for health coverage as of their 61st day of work. This person is choosing not to take the health coverage as the state will pay for all of her health care and she doesn't have to pay a dime.
MathSpeak
11-07-2007, 08:10 PM
Well, I'm not sure if there's a maternity clause in your state or if the state pays because she meets income guidelines. But, either way, I can't say that I'd be angry. I think the only way I could feel bothered by it is if I thought she'd be compromising the health of her baby to "save money"... which it doesn't seem is the case. If the issue is that she'd rather take a freebie than pay for something, it wouldn't bother me unless it came directly outta my pocket. And, yes, one could argue that by virtue of being a tax-payer, it is, but it's also coming out of hers since she works full time. The way I see it is she has a choice - whether it's because of economic guidelines or because she's prego... she's entitled to make the best choice for herself, which happens to be the free one. With the way the health care system is run, it's not people taking freebies that is driving up the costs, it's doctors and major pharm companies treating health care as a for profit business that is.
I hope I answered your question...
I am actually angered by it. She doesn't want to pay for the health care coverage out of her paycheck. I just looked up the eligibility rules and if someone(pregnant or not) can receive benefits though their employer then they are not eligible for the state program.
I don't feel it should be a choice. If she is having the state pay for her health care costs, that takes money out budget. What she pays out of her taxes is far less than the cost of her care. I know when we applied for waivers for Rai, we were eligible to have our health insurance premium covered by the state. It was far cheaper for them to make sure we kept our insurance for her than it was to foot the bill for medical care.
I know that people taking freebies isn't the nearly the largest problem with the health care system. I simply object to someone living off my tax dollars as well when they don't have right to do so.
BigDave
11-07-2007, 08:29 PM
I would be very angry. After all the taxes I pay for extraneous crap, this would just add one more thing for this state to raise my taxes on. If the company provides excellent benefits, and they are affordable, than the employee should take the benefits. Now if the benefits were bad then I would understand.
True it is the doctors and insurance companies raising costs, it is people leaching off the system that aid in this as well. If people were honest and not looking for a handout our economy would be better and we would not be looking at the option of a socialized health care system (if certain people get elected President).
I knew families when I was working as a Juvenile Probation Officer living in Section 8 housing, who had really good jobs making much more than I. They had big screen tv's, new cars, nice furniture, but they lived in subsidized housing.
Also let's look at Ol' Dirty bastard from Wu Tang Clan. On MTV they showed him pulling up in front of the welfare office in his tricked out Benz. he went in got a check and went to cash it. Laughing the whole time. While working at Hennepin County I saw people with Illinois and Wisconsin license plates pulling up to get subsidy checks, why, because MN allows it.
Working the system is not "cool". It is a drain on the system and takes away from people who really need it.
Christine
11-07-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't know. I've been in the situation where having to pay for private insurance has compromised the level of care I'm able to receive because I just can't afford the $30 copay plus the 20% of the cost after the deductible and all that crap. I've been in the place of having to take a $100 a week pay cut so we could qualify for Medicaid because the private insurance was going to cost us $200 a week for the premiums! The way the private insurance racket is now, there are people who simply can't afford to be on private insurance.
To be honest if your health system- state funded vs privately funded is as differing as ours in when it comes to standard of services and facilities I'd wonder why on earth she'd want to use state funded when she could afford private- there is a HUGE difference in standard here in quality of care and availability of technology between state & private patients. I'm actually really boggled as to why you wouldn't opt for the superior care for something as precious as pregnancy when it is a financial viability.
Here we do have a "free" health service in that all working people pay a ridiculous level of tax (22% of income for those earning up to £33K and 40% of income for those earning £33K upwards- we then pay national insurance of around 11% of weekly income too) to fund it whether we use it or not and to be honest I am more irked at the people who chose to be long term unemployed (not meaning those who genuinely *can't* find employment but those who chose to turn down jobs they see as "beneath" them or not right etc when there are jobs to be taken) and who seem to make a lifestyle out of living off welfare, I get more wound up about them (not their children as their kids are victims of circumstance until they reach an age where they can chose their own life) using the healthcare system than I would do a working woman who could use a private service but choses not to because at least that woman is paying into the system she is taking out of and with a good work ethic she is likely to raise a child who also works and pays in. Maybe that woman is like me? Sick of herself/her partner paying into a system that many get to access entirely free despite not working or making an effort to self support and feels she deserves to actually benefit from some of her taxes?
Alternatively she may just be playing the system which is wrong as the money she drains from it could go to improving services for those with geniune need.
I don't know- I'm on the fence on this one, no one should have to go without medical care but at the same time i don't think workers like the collegue should have to "carry" those who chose not to work and not be able to benefit at all herself, at least here we have a system where those who do carry the rest are still able to access the system themselves without qualm which is some compensation.
Christine
11-08-2007, 04:09 AM
You don't get better care if you're through private insurance. There are some doctors that don't accept Medicaid but for the most part you're getting the same care without the super high fees.
I know when I had Morgan, I had to pay a TON of money and I was privately insured. When I had a child on Medicaid, it was the same care, same hospitals, no major bills at the end of it all.
It would depend on the situation for me. If her income was low enough that she met the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, then I don't see a problem with it. If she was in any way involved in Medicaid fraud, that would be a different issue, and I'd be upset about that.
We've been really lucky because we've always gotten our health insurance as state employees, and have had fantastic coverage. When I was pregnant with Thomas, I didn't pay a dime in copays the entire time, and was really lucky that my grad student union had negotiated a contract where we were entitled to the same insurance, as graduate teaching assistants, that professors were. We used the university health system, which was state-funded, as well, and the care I got was pretty amazing. And now we get our insurance through Sean, who is also a state university employee, and again our insurance is great, even though the quality of care in Detroit isn't as high as it was in Ann Arbor. But, my sister has insurance through a private employer, and she pays so much for it out of her paycheck, and then has ridiculously high copays. So private insurance varies so much in quality of care and how much it costs that I can understand why somebody would choose government-funded insurance, if they qualify, over private insurance.
But I think we should have universal health care, anyway, so things like this wouldn't be an issue. ;)
You don't get better care if you're through private insurance. There are some doctors that don't accept Medicaid but for the most part you're getting the same care without the super high fees.
Really? Wow I can understand why it must be so annoying to have to pay the insurance you do then if the care is identical- at least here if you are paying for private care you do get a superior level of care- not necessarily "better" doctors but seperate hospitals, facilities etc all nicer than the very basic national health ones.
Really? Wow I can understand why it must be so annoying to have to pay the insurance you do then if the care is identical- at least here if you are paying for private care you do get a superior level of care- not necessarily "better" doctors but seperate hospitals, facilities etc all nicer than the very basic national health ones.
Yeah, unfortunately it doesn't seem like paying more for insurance means better insurance. My sister pays more than we do, and has crappy insurance, because she works for a small private company and they just don't have a good plan. Even with what she pays out of her paycheck each month for the insurance, she still has $30 copays for every prescription, and ends up paying almost $200/month out-of-pocket just for her allergy medications. We pay less (not a ton less, but less), and have copays of $3 and $7, lower copays for office visits, and more choice of doctors.
Erika
11-08-2007, 06:40 AM
I wouldn't be angry at all. That being said, I believe health care is a basic right and should be free as part of the social contract.
And this woman isn't a welfare recipient, in the sense that she isn't unemployed so is thus paying into the system, so bringing unemployed welfare recipients into the argument is a bit misleading and off the point.
We don't know what this woman's financial situation is outside of work. She may not be able to afford the health insurance that the company offers. She really may be on a tight budget. Or maybe she would prefer to put that money towards a college fund for her unborn child (considering the crippling cost of college in the US). Whatever the reason, her decision to accept free healthcare (eventhough her tax has paid into it already) that she qualifies for, wouldn't anger me in the slightest.
As long as she can receive insurance through her job, she is not eligible for state health care. That is how I see it. So either if she hides that from the state to get things on the cheap, then she is defrauding the state.
She can make a choice like Christine did which might be economically more viable to her and cut back to less than 30 hours a week. Then she would not be eligible for company benefits. But as long as she is taking the state care when the eligibility rules clearly disqualify her from doing so, I have a problem with it.
gr8mommy
11-08-2007, 08:44 AM
Since she is going against the law, yes, I'd be pissed. And, I'd probably report her---either to HR or to whatever state board oversaw the health care system. Or both.
Polly
11-08-2007, 12:20 PM
ITA, Denise.
She is knowingly breaking the law. She told someone at work. Legally, the person she told is now either negligent or "colluding." You can be fired and/or arrested.
I also remember having to study psychologist Carol Gilligan in undergrad. She theorized that women differ from men in the "levels of morality and ethics" popularized by Lawerence Kohlberg. Kohlberg theorized that women attain a lower level of moral development that men. Why? Because women generally put interpersonal relationships before applying the "same rule for everyone." Gilligan said it's not better or worse, women are just different and men should not be considered the moral standard. I agree with that part of her theory.
For more info on Carol Gilligan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Gilligan
However, I really make an earnest effort to "apply the same rule." This is my moral/ethical choice of how I live my life. So, I think this girl should be treated that same as any other person. She should be reported.
Polly
Hmm- it is all together different now you state that it is defrauding- I didn't realise originally that it went against the rules of claiming what she is doing.
Erika raises some exceptionally valid points though about her personal circumstance, however if the law took into account personal financial circumstance it'd open the flood gates to all miriad (sp??) of crime- theft, shoplifting, house breaking, outright fraudulant benefit claims because in this overly materialistic world very, very few people are able to sit back and realise just because they struggle to have what X and Y have they are not by any means doing badly.
MathSpeak
11-08-2007, 07:14 PM
Well, gee, if I got pissed at this woman for "defrauding" a fraudulent system, I guess I'd have to be pissed at all of the legislative members who are getting health care on our dime, too, right? Oh wait, maybe not... because it's legal for them to do it.
If that's not the most back-ass-ward system I've ever heard of... :rolleyes
I'm not the moral authority for my workplace... what do I care if my coworkers speed, smoke crack or steal winter coats on the weekend? Even if it does bump up my driver's insurance, it's not like reporting them to state farm or state troopers is going to lower my premium any.
The law of efficient markets states that the market has already compensated for leeches (even though I don't know this woman's particular situation to know if she is or not)... so the price of someone pimping the system has already been figured into the cost of the insurance.
I want to respond to the welfare recipients with wide screen tvs, too, but I don't wanna sabotage the thread :(
Casey
11-09-2007, 12:50 AM
yeah since she gets enough hours I would be mad too. Cause I maybe the family who needs the extra hours to get benefits and do not get them because she does. KWIM?
amandajo
11-09-2007, 12:57 AM
If she has a full time job and is not allowed to have state coverage if she is eligible at her job, then that is welfare fraud. If she is legally entitled to it, and just is looking for a handout, and can afford it, that's annoying but she can do it. But if it is against the policy of the state health care, that is just fraud.
It really wouldn't bother me.
freebiemom
11-09-2007, 02:06 PM
I don't know. I've been in the situation where having to pay for private insurance has compromised the level of care I'm able to receive because I just can't afford the $30 copay plus the 20% of the cost after the deductible and all that crap. I've been in the place of having to take a $100 a week pay cut so we could qualify for Medicaid because the private insurance was going to cost us $200 a week for the premiums! The way the private insurance racket is now, there are people who simply can't afford to be on private insurance.
I agree. Just because she would be eligible doesn't mean she could actually afford to pay the premiums and co-pays. We're lucky to get great insurance coverage through DH's work but if we had to pay a high premium and then co-pays and deductibles on top of that, we couldn't afford to take the kids to the doctor like we need to. If she's making a good enough salary that she can afford all that, then I'd be ticked off but maybe she isn't.
Also, if she's getting coverage when legally she isn't suppose to, I would be reporting her, regardless of her financial situation. She needs to find a way to legally get the coverage she's after or work less hours so she's not eligible through work.
I also wonder. . .did she cancel the insurance after she was pregnant, or just never get it, and then end up pregnant. because if it was the latter, she might not be eligible to get on the company plan until open enrollment. I don't think pregnancy counts as a change in family status that would allow you to add coverage outside of open enrollment - marriage or the birth of a child, yes, but not pregnancy.
She joined the company already pregnant. So her pregnancy would be covered by a group policy. She opted not to take the health insurance.