Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
If you intend to be compensated for managing 24% of your time, stating that you cannot manage 2% of your time effectively does not make a strong case.7 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
Employer supplied health coverage came into being during WWII when the US Government put wage ceilings in place so they could pay less for war materiel.
Since employers couldn't offer more money for the smaller pool of workers, they started offering fringe benefits such as health coverage to attract workers.
We have employer supplied health plans due to prior government meddling in the marketplace.
Do we really think Uncle Sam will get it right if we just give him one more chance?
That's why I believe the best policy is to unwind a whole host of policies and let consequences lie with the person making the choices and not have them spread around to society in general.
Every time there is government meddling, there is some sort of unintended consequence.
Government says hospitals must treat patients who cannot pay. Hospitals pass along the costs to others.
Government says insurance coverage must include well woman exams for 50 year old men, insurance policy rates rise. Government says we will fine people if they don't have coverage, coverage rates rise because consumers are forced to buy the product.
And so on....10 -
Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.3 -
Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
9 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
Yes. I'd love to see a study of the lost productivity (worktime and personal) due to annual comparison shopping among the insurance options offered by your employer, plus the costs attributable to the inefficiency of the health care "market" due to the fact that patients don't have adequate information ("adequate" - ha! most times they don't have any information) about what their various treatment options and available service providers will cost them, to the point that people are taken by surprise when they think they have gone to an in-network hospital only to discover that one or more the medical professionals who provided them with a service was out-of-network.5 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes.
An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.
41% of workers are salaried. Of hourly workers, 70% are under 30.
Paid vs. unpaid lunch seems to me to make sense really just for hourly workers.
Yeah I'm salaried based on a certain number of hours in a day
I'm salaried and it just means get your tasks done, whether it takes 6 hour days or 16 hour days that particular week. There's no specific lunch break, but if I don't have something scheduled or need to be present for a potential meeting/call, I can workout whenever. It's nice since I can go on an off hour if I want (my office is near my gym on purpose) or go workout for a while after work and come back.Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
That would be cool.
I used to commute by bike, but don't during the winter because it gets dark early and the weather can be bad. I didn't in the summer last year since the path I use was being worked on. I might this summer again, depending on how safe I feel and whether I am consistently not working too late (I often work late and won't ride if it's mostly dark, but in the summer here it stays light pretty late). We have good storage so if I ride and can't go home by bike it's safe for my bike to stay overnight. Biking is faster than public transportation, which I otherwise take, but I can at least get a good number of steps taking public transportation.
Where I live biking is inherently a money saver, since parking is crazy expensive and public transportation costs money.1 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
In Australia, employers don't manage health care. It would be nice if they did to some extent.
You probably don't want this. I don't think it's a good thing about the US. (IME, my office building does have a workout room with shower, and there are tons of gyms around us, so we don't need the employer involved for that.)2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Copper_Boom wrote: »What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Or prevent obesity?
Lunch breaks must be 1 hour and 15 minutes ... so that employees can change, go exercise for an hour, and return.
All organisations must provide exercise options: walking groups, yoga classes, gym in the basement, free gym memberships, or whatever.
All organisations must provide good, secure bicycle parking.
People who commute actively get a $10/day bonus in their pay packets.
Sounds nice... In reality, however...
Most of us don't get paid lunch time. Those who are unabe to workout for some reasons will be stuck for 1.5 hrs, playing with their thumbs, as many employers don't have flexible lunch hours. That sucks... You can't force anyone to be active aside from set job requirements on the clock, as this would be a field day for their worker's compensation insurance...
Really????
I've always had paid lunches. I've got an hour, which I can take any time I want ... this would give me one hour and 15 minutes. An hour to exercise and 15 minutes to freshen up.
Or if I have errands to run at lunch, it would give me an hour and 15 minutes to do that.
Or if I don't want to take lunch one day, I could come in an hour and 15 minutes late or leave an hour and 15 minutes early.
Sounds good to me! It's just an extra 15 minutes a day ... but it provides that extra little buffer to come in and freshen up.
Paid lunch is uncommon in the US. Nice for you, but not the norm.
41% of workers are salaried. Of hourly workers, 70% are under 30.
Paid vs. unpaid lunch seems to me to make sense really just for hourly workers.
Yeah I'm salaried based on a certain number of hours in a day
I'm salaried and it just means get your tasks done, whether it takes 6 hour days or 16 hour days that particular week. There's no specific lunch break, but if I don't have something scheduled or need to be present for a potential meeting/call, I can workout whenever. It's nice since I can go on an off hour if I want (my office is near my gym on purpose) or go workout for a while after work and come back.Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
That would be cool.
I used to commute by bike, but don't during the winter because it gets dark early and the weather can be bad. I didn't in the summer last year since the path I use was being worked on. I might this summer again, depending on how safe I feel and whether I am consistently not working too late (I often work late and won't ride if it's mostly dark, but in the summer here it stays light pretty late). We have good storage so if I ride and can't go home by bike it's safe for my bike to stay overnight. Biking is faster than public transportation, which I otherwise take, but I can at least get a good number of steps taking public transportation.
Where I live biking is inherently a money saver, since parking is crazy expensive and public transportation costs money.
Given your description you are a salaried exempt employee. Salaried non-exempt employees get overtime.
In virtually all salaried non-exempt jobs the employees don't have a whole lot of flexibility to come and go as they please. In larger organizations exempt employees may have a bit more freedom but often have to be available some "core hours" and probably wouldn't get by working a week of 6 hour days very often.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/exempt-and-a-non-exempt-employee-2061988
0 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
In Australia, employers don't manage health care. It would be nice if they did to some extent.
You probably don't want this. I don't think it's a good thing about the US. (IME, my office building does have a workout room with shower, and there are tons of gyms around us, so we don't need the employer involved for that.)
I agree on the bolded part! I have experienced that some employees are stuck in an unsuitable job, because they or a family member depend on the company health insurance, and they wouldn't be able to obtain coverage any other way. (Modern form of slavery...?)
There are only 2 insurance providers left in the state where I live. All the others have abandoned us already. People depend on employers for affordable plans, as buying privately more than doubles the premiums around here.
The mandate had put the insurance providers in a 'shooting fish in a barrel' situation, and with them working for profit, there was never any doubt in my mind, that they would shamelessly take us for every single dime.
My suggestion would be, for a health insurance company to conduct business in this country, they should be obligated on a federal level to offer coverage nationwide, instead of picking states that promise the least risk for them. Put some competition out there! This should definitely promise some better rates and service!
Also something to consider: Put an end to balance billing! After premiums, healthcare should be free at the point of service! Obligate doctors and insurance to get more active in negotiating insurance reimbursement rates, and not dump the rest of the bills on the patient.
Personally, I don't care if the doctor's wife or husband wants a new SUV. At the very least, I shouldn't have to pay for it, if the doctor can't make the money just from insurance reimbursements. I'm honestly not making this up, but I had a dentist brag about new tires for his muscle car, while I was getting a new crown, and I suddenly knew why the price for it exceeded my insurance coverage by THIS much....3 -
My point is if people think they need someone to look out for them, and that government is the best way to do that, there is the military.
I really don't care what others do or don't do. I mean, I want them to make good choices. But I don't want them to lose the freedom to make the choices that allow them to pursue happiness.
I simply don't want the rest of us to be on the hook for the consequences as if I'm on the hook for their consequences, it puts my happiness in jeopardy.
Taking money from one taxpayer to address the consequences of the decisions of another impacts my pursuit of happiness. I don't have those resources to pursue my happiness, because someone is buying the votes of another, by shielding them from the consequences of their choices.
So to me, the best public policy would be to stop spreading consequences to others.
That doesn't mean people cannot or will not help one other. It simply means they will have the freedom to choose how they do so.tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.
9 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »In virtually all salaried non-exempt jobs the employees don't have a whole lot of flexibility to come and go as they please. In larger organizations exempt employees may have a bit more freedom but often have to be available some "core hours" and probably wouldn't get by working a week of 6 hour days very often.
IME, exempt wouldn't either, of course, because we'd get fired. 6 hour days might follow numerous extra long days or working all weekend or the like. (For people in my profession, total hours per year is key.)0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »My point is if people think they need someone to look out for them, and that government is the best way to do that, there is the military.
I really don't care what others do or don't do. I mean, I want them to make good choices. But I don't want them to lose the freedom to make the choices that allow them to pursue happiness.
I simply don't want the rest of us to be on the hook for the consequences as if I'm on the hook for their consequences, it puts my happiness in jeopardy.
Taking money from one taxpayer to address the consequences of the decisions of another impacts my pursuit of happiness. I don't have those resources to pursue my happiness, because someone is buying the votes of another, by shielding them from the consequences of their choices.
So to me, the best public policy would be to stop spreading consequences to others.
That doesn't mean people cannot or will not help one other. It simply means they will have the freedom to choose how they do so.tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.
Seems to have an unsupported just-world premise. Plenty of people end up with medical conditions that aren't consequences of them doing anything beyond being born. Personally, rather than assume the world is just in that it gives people consequences commiserate to their mistakes, I'd rather work to make a world that is just in that people don't die simply because they picked parents with poor genes or poor bank accounts. I'm fine with a spill-over that some other people don't suffer what some feel is a consequence of their action.14 -
And I'd like to think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about those people since I specifically spoke of those who were making choices to lead to their conditions.
I was also clear that people would be free to help one another.
It should have been obvious I was speaking about those who have control over their circumstances, which means probably 90-95% of the population.
No one is running around chaining people to LazyBoy recliners and filling them full of Twinkies and MtDew. People choose that lifestyle voluntarily.
Nothing I propose would prevent you or anyone else from voluntarily helping those who had no choice in their circumstances.
I simply ask for the same freedom to not be shackled with the consequences of CHOICES (as I said numerous times) made by others.
If people want to live the LazyBoy, Twinkie and MtDew dream, I have no problem with that. Just don't spend tax money on them if they cut their lives short and need heroic medical measures.
The idea that people bear their own consequences is not counter to the idea that we are compassionate.
I simply see compassion as not something done by the government. There is no compassion in voting to take money from one to fund another's vision of the greater good.
Compassion is only measured by what someone VOLUNTARILY does with their own time, talent and treasure.
Sorry you were unable to understand my use of the words "making choices."magnusthenerd wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »My point is if people think they need someone to look out for them, and that government is the best way to do that, there is the military.
I really don't care what others do or don't do. I mean, I want them to make good choices. But I don't want them to lose the freedom to make the choices that allow them to pursue happiness.
I simply don't want the rest of us to be on the hook for the consequences as if I'm on the hook for their consequences, it puts my happiness in jeopardy.
Taking money from one taxpayer to address the consequences of the decisions of another impacts my pursuit of happiness. I don't have those resources to pursue my happiness, because someone is buying the votes of another, by shielding them from the consequences of their choices.
So to me, the best public policy would be to stop spreading consequences to others.
That doesn't mean people cannot or will not help one other. It simply means they will have the freedom to choose how they do so.tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.
Seems to have an unsupported just-world premise. Plenty of people end up with medical conditions that aren't consequences of them doing anything beyond being born. Personally, rather than assume the world is just in that it gives people consequences commiserate to their mistakes, I'd rather work to make a world that is just in that people don't die simply because they picked parents with poor genes or poor bank accounts. I'm fine with a spill-over that some other people don't suffer what some feel is a consequence of their action.
10 -
tbright1965 wrote: »And I'd like to think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about those people since I specifically spoke of those who were making choices to lead to their conditions.
I was also clear that people would be free to help one another.
It should have been obvious I was speaking about those who have control over their circumstances, which means probably 90-95% of the population.
No one is running around chaining people to LazyBoy recliners and filling them full of Twinkies and MtDew. People choose that lifestyle voluntarily.
Nothing I propose would prevent you or anyone else from voluntarily helping those who had no choice in their circumstances.
I simply ask for the same freedom to not be shackled with the consequences of CHOICES (as I said numerous times) made by others.
If people want to live the LazyBoy, Twinkie and MtDew dream, I have no problem with that. Just don't spend tax money on them if they cut their lives short and need heroic medical measures.
The idea that people bear their own consequences is not counter to the idea that we are compassionate.
I simply see compassion as not something done by the government. There is no compassion in voting to take money from one to fund another's vision of the greater good.
Compassion is only measured by what someone VOLUNTARILY does with their own time, talent and treasure.
Sorry you were unable to understand my use of the words "making choices."magnusthenerd wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »My point is if people think they need someone to look out for them, and that government is the best way to do that, there is the military.
I really don't care what others do or don't do. I mean, I want them to make good choices. But I don't want them to lose the freedom to make the choices that allow them to pursue happiness.
I simply don't want the rest of us to be on the hook for the consequences as if I'm on the hook for their consequences, it puts my happiness in jeopardy.
Taking money from one taxpayer to address the consequences of the decisions of another impacts my pursuit of happiness. I don't have those resources to pursue my happiness, because someone is buying the votes of another, by shielding them from the consequences of their choices.
So to me, the best public policy would be to stop spreading consequences to others.
That doesn't mean people cannot or will not help one other. It simply means they will have the freedom to choose how they do so.tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.
Seems to have an unsupported just-world premise. Plenty of people end up with medical conditions that aren't consequences of them doing anything beyond being born. Personally, rather than assume the world is just in that it gives people consequences commiserate to their mistakes, I'd rather work to make a world that is just in that people don't die simply because they picked parents with poor genes or poor bank accounts. I'm fine with a spill-over that some other people don't suffer what some feel is a consequence of their action.
Really? Why should it have been obvious? I don't actually know what's obvious about it, and if pressed, I doubt you have an actual principle to use as criteria. You'll say it is obvious when we discuss someone lives off Twinkies and recliner racing, and obvious when a six year old has cancer for purely genetic reasons. But what about the person who got obese because she had a severe hip injury because they were physically assaulted (oh and the assailant is dead just so we avoid the side track of saying the perpetrator needs to pay)? If that somewhat not her fault, what if that scenario, but she missed a lot of physical therapy appointments that could have helped? If that is her fault, what if she was assaulted when she was six?
See, I'm not so sure what's an obvious case here because there's a range, but perhaps it all seems like it should be obvious to you? To me these are all obvious cases about consequences in the sense that I don't believe in free will, nor that the universe has a tendency towards justice, it is just us as a society that has tendency towards justice. I don't, however, say this is obvious in the sense to you because I don't like to beg the question against my interlocutor.15 -
Just to add to what I said above:Theoldguy1 wrote: »In virtually all salaried non-exempt jobs the employees don't have a whole lot of flexibility to come and go as they please.
This is largely true, but I think too broadly stated -- our support staff work a set 8 hour schedule unless they do overtime. However, they have flexibility in the hours (most prefer to start at 8 or 8:30 and get off earlier, whereas I think we would prefer that some start at 9 or 9:30 and stay later, but unlike many bigger entities in the profession we don't force that). If they need to come early/leave early a particular day, no one cares so long as the hours are in (overall week). And with respect to lunch -- the topic -- they eat whenever they choose, subject to the particular needs in the day of the people they are working with, and at different times based on personal preference, including one who takes a short lunch in order to get off earlier. If someone wanted to have a 90 min lunch in return for staying later, that would be totally fine (so far no one has ever asked for that as a regular thing). In my office on the average week exempt all work more hours than the non exempt, but do have more flexibility re when the hours are worked (although for the most part it would be a problem not to be there on most days during the regular working hours).1 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.
?? In the case of someone you're compensating with a higher salary because they get their health insurance through their spouse's employer, what happens if the spouse loses their insurance (e.g., loses their job; dies; suffers long-term disability; decides to become a stay-at-home parent or has to take a hiatus to care for an elderly parent). Do you tell them they have to take a pay cut if they want to sign up at the next open enrollment period?
0 -
availability of healthful foods everywhere (ex: there are "food desserts") and an affordable price. some of hte cheapest foods are very hit fat/sugar/cals. and harder to get the healthful foods and meal prep with little money and working 3 jobs.
Let me try a little preemptive craziness here. What if we priced food by the calorie? More calories = more expensive. Celery, lettuce, spinach, kale, cabbage would be nearly free; fresh fruits and vegetables would be very reasonably priced; grains and beans would be mid-range; lean meats would be more expensive; fatty meats would be your splurge of the month; desserts would be cost-prohibitive and something you had maybe once or twice a year for an incredibly special event.
People would gravitate towards healthier choices, because those would be the affordable foods. The poorest people would eat the best. Obesity and all its related health issues would plummet. Publicly-borne costs for healthcare would drop dramatically.
Is it a feasible concept? Nope. Trying to do a complete makeover of the agriculture subsidies would lose too many politicians their seats, certainly in the US and probably in most countries. Creating an economically viable subsidy program from scratch would take years and probably double the US federal deficit, by the time we dealt with all the legal backlash from the big ag companies, meat industry, dairy industry, and so on down through every special interest group.
But it makes me smile to imagine it.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »And I'd like to think it's obvious that I wasn't talking about those people since I specifically spoke of those who were making choices to lead to their conditions.
I was also clear that people would be free to help one another.
It should have been obvious I was speaking about those who have control over their circumstances, which means probably 90-95% of the population.
No one is running around chaining people to LazyBoy recliners and filling them full of Twinkies and MtDew. People choose that lifestyle voluntarily.
Nothing I propose would prevent you or anyone else from voluntarily helping those who had no choice in their circumstances.
I simply ask for the same freedom to not be shackled with the consequences of CHOICES (as I said numerous times) made by others.
If people want to live the LazyBoy, Twinkie and MtDew dream, I have no problem with that. Just don't spend tax money on them if they cut their lives short and need heroic medical measures.
The idea that people bear their own consequences is not counter to the idea that we are compassionate.
I simply see compassion as not something done by the government. There is no compassion in voting to take money from one to fund another's vision of the greater good.
Compassion is only measured by what someone VOLUNTARILY does with their own time, talent and treasure.
Sorry you were unable to understand my use of the words "making choices."magnusthenerd wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »My point is if people think they need someone to look out for them, and that government is the best way to do that, there is the military.
I really don't care what others do or don't do. I mean, I want them to make good choices. But I don't want them to lose the freedom to make the choices that allow them to pursue happiness.
I simply don't want the rest of us to be on the hook for the consequences as if I'm on the hook for their consequences, it puts my happiness in jeopardy.
Taking money from one taxpayer to address the consequences of the decisions of another impacts my pursuit of happiness. I don't have those resources to pursue my happiness, because someone is buying the votes of another, by shielding them from the consequences of their choices.
So to me, the best public policy would be to stop spreading consequences to others.
That doesn't mean people cannot or will not help one other. It simply means they will have the freedom to choose how they do so.tbright1965 wrote: »Anyway our Bicycle Network is making a push for people who cycle to work to be paid an extra $5 per day ... it's an election lobby I think. That would be nice ... might be just the incentive I need to start commuting by bicycle again.
It would be nice if there was some kind of incentive for office buildings to have locker rooms with showers. People who bike to work or exercise over lunch to clean up before starting/returning to work. Even those who sometime exercise on the way home (like me) would prefer change clothes in something other than a bathroom stall.
Join the Military! Daily exercise and if you are an unmarried enlisted troop, three squares every day. If you get too fat, the First Sergeant will come down on you for getting fat. You'll also have your fitness tested a couple of times a year. In the Army, it was the APFT, consisting of a two mile run, and timed push and situp exercises.
You scores, and your weight and height go into your packet for promotion.
Is that what you want employers to do? If it is, there is already an employer out there for you. Join now!
This of course assumes that a. you want to join the military and b. the military would take you.
Yes, I'm assuming you were at least a little tongue in cheek. There are various other employers where similar situations would take place.
Seems to have an unsupported just-world premise. Plenty of people end up with medical conditions that aren't consequences of them doing anything beyond being born. Personally, rather than assume the world is just in that it gives people consequences commiserate to their mistakes, I'd rather work to make a world that is just in that people don't die simply because they picked parents with poor genes or poor bank accounts. I'm fine with a spill-over that some other people don't suffer what some feel is a consequence of their action.
Well said. I agree completely.4 -
I support Mayor Bloomberg's idea of taxing 1L sodas. Maybe other types of junk should get taxed.7
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.
?? In the case of someone you're compensating with a higher salary because they get their health insurance through their spouse's employer, what happens if the spouse loses their insurance (e.g., loses their job; dies; suffers long-term disability; decides to become a stay-at-home parent or has to take a hiatus to care for an elderly parent). Do you tell them they have to take a pay cut if they want to sign up at the next open enrollment period?
No, but it would likely affect future raises, since health insurance is part of compensation. That's why the current system is screwed up. Employers understand that health insurance costs = compensation, but most employees don't.
At my firm, gov't taking responsibility for health care would result in higher salaries/bonuses. I know that's not true everywhere, but this is my particular first hand experience.1 -
sharondesfor935 wrote: »availability of healthful foods everywhere (ex: there are "food desserts") and an affordable price. some of hte cheapest foods are very hit fat/sugar/cals. and harder to get the healthful foods and meal prep with little money and working 3 jobs.
Let me try a little preemptive craziness here. What if we priced food by the calorie? More calories = more expensive. Celery, lettuce, spinach, kale, cabbage would be nearly free; fresh fruits and vegetables would be very reasonably priced; grains and beans would be mid-range; lean meats would be more expensive; fatty meats would be your splurge of the month; desserts would be cost-prohibitive and something you had maybe once or twice a year for an incredibly special event.
People would gravitate towards healthier choices, because those would be the affordable foods. The poorest people would eat the best. Obesity and all its related health issues would plummet. Publicly-borne costs for healthcare would drop dramatically.
We don't "price" foods. Price is set by the market. If celery, etc. were basically worthless (nearly free to buy), why would anyone grow them? So what would happen is a greater distortion of the market toward high cal foods. Cool!
I'm in favor of getting rid of ag subsidies, just out of principle, but I suspect the main result would be slightly higher priced meat and dairy.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Really? Why should it have been obvious?
Probably my use of the word choice.
When you mention some people don't have a choice, you demonstrate that you are trying to create a straw man argument.
If you don't understand, ask a clarifying question.
5 -
Rockin_reese wrote: »I support Mayor Bloomberg's idea of taxing 1L sodas. Maybe other types of junk should get taxed.
IMO, if this were to happen any size would need to be taxed. Tax the product if you're going to do it and not the size.
Tax on a percent basis is the same on a 40 oz or a case of beer.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Really? Why should it have been obvious?
Probably my use of the word choice.
When you mention some people don't have a choice, you demonstrate that you are trying to create a straw man argument.
If you don't understand, ask a clarifying question.
From your first post it seemed like you wanted only private insurance or no insurance at all. No employer-based, no gov't supplied or subsidized, no Medicare-type options. That would lead to a burden on people with health conditions, choice or no (and no, the vast majority of medical need is not due to bad choices). So how do you deal with that?
I think magnus's take was pretty fair given the post.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Rockin_reese wrote: »I support Mayor Bloomberg's idea of taxing 1L sodas. Maybe other types of junk should get taxed.
IMO, if this were to happen any size would need to be taxed. Tax the product if you're going to do it and not the size.
Tax on a percent basis is the same on a 40 oz or a case of beer.
OK, yeah I get that. Thx 0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.
?? In the case of someone you're compensating with a higher salary because they get their health insurance through their spouse's employer, what happens if the spouse loses their insurance (e.g., loses their job; dies; suffers long-term disability; decides to become a stay-at-home parent or has to take a hiatus to care for an elderly parent). Do you tell them they have to take a pay cut if they want to sign up at the next open enrollment period?
No, but it would likely affect future raises, since health insurance is part of compensation. That's why the current system is screwed up. Employers understand that health insurance costs = compensation, but most employees don't.
At my firm, gov't taking responsibility for health care would result in higher salaries/bonuses. I know that's not true everywhere, but this is my particular first hand experience.
Please explain the bolded part above.
How can a company count this as 'compensation', when health insurance costs can be written off as business deduction. Is your company cheating on the taxes and writing it off as expense twice..once as compensation, twice as business cost?
I would understand, that small companies struggle to make enough profit to 'write off' from, but this still doesn't qualify as 'compensation' for the employees.
Employees have (by law) the right to their compensation, free and clear of any hidden or implied compensations or deductions. In clear text: if it isn't on their W-2 form (for the US, e.g.) and part of their taxable income, it didn't happen.
Personally, I understand company-provided insurance as benefit and reward for employees who contribute through their attendance (min hours for part-time) or fulltime commitment. It should hold talent in the company, and not make people miserable by holding their well deserved pay raise hostage.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.
?? In the case of someone you're compensating with a higher salary because they get their health insurance through their spouse's employer, what happens if the spouse loses their insurance (e.g., loses their job; dies; suffers long-term disability; decides to become a stay-at-home parent or has to take a hiatus to care for an elderly parent). Do you tell them they have to take a pay cut if they want to sign up at the next open enrollment period?
No, but it would likely affect future raises, since health insurance is part of compensation. That's why the current system is screwed up. Employers understand that health insurance costs = compensation, but most employees don't.
At my firm, gov't taking responsibility for health care would result in higher salaries/bonuses. I know that's not true everywhere, but this is my particular first hand experience.
Please explain the bolded part above.
How can a company count this as 'compensation', when health insurance costs can be written off as business deduction. Is your company cheating on the taxes and writing it off as expense twice..once as compensation, twice as business cost?
I would understand, that small companies struggle to make enough profit to 'write off' from, but this still doesn't qualify as 'compensation' for the employees.
Employees have (by law) the right to their compensation, free and clear of any hidden or implied compensations or deductions. In clear text: if it isn't on their W-2 form (for the US, e.g.) and part of their taxable income, it didn't happen.
Personally, I understand company-provided insurance as benefit and reward for employees who contribute through their attendance (min hours for part-time) or fulltime commitment. It should hold talent in the company, and not make people miserable by holding their well deserved pay raise hostage.
If you are talking about US Federal income taxes, your understanding of business taxes is incorrect.
In simple terms a business's taxable income is based on its revenues less the expenses required to create those revenues, employee costs (compensation) being one of those expenses.
From a business's tax standpoint if a person gets $100k in salary and no other benefits, it's exactly the same as if the person gets $80k in salary and $20k in health insurance, $100k total. In both situations the business's expense for that employee is $100k. There is no additional "write off" for health insurance.
Under current individual tax law, certain benefits (including health care premiums) are not counted as income to the employee so they don't appear on the W-2 (although you will get a supplemental, information only form, the number escapes me now that shows the value of employee provided health insurance).
3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »There are 168 hours in a week.
It is not your employer's responsibility to manage 2% of your time to exercise.
Along that vein, it shouldn't be our employer's responsibility to manage our health care. Yet they do. I'm all for replacing what we have with a single payer system.
My husband doesn't like his job and he's really tempted to move to another employer. But it would potentially cause such a disruption to our son's medical care and he can't lose his providers. Changing ABA therapists is such a bigger deal then finding a new family doctor or even a specialist like cardiologist.
Your employer doesn't see it this way. Part of your compensation is provided in sponsored healthcare. Are you aware of the cost?
You can choose to outsource responsibility, but this comes at a great cost.
I'm very aware of the cost. I'm an HR manager for an employer of approximately 14,000 people. I have my SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). Many employers would LOVE to get out of the business of providing health care for their employees. It would be much easier for us to take that employer cost and pay it as a payroll tax towards single payer and not have to deal with all the headache of shopping and managing health insurance plans.
I'm a partner in a small firm, and health care and salaries are things we talk about every year at our year end meeting. I totally agree with you. Not only would my company love to not have to deal with health care, but it affects negatively who we can hire and salaries -- we consider health care as part of salary, necessarily, but what that means is a less valuable employee who has no health care costs (because on the spouse's) may get more "salary" from us than someone we value more and would like to give a larger raise. We know, however, that the employees don't count the health care expenditures as salary. Since in our industry good health care is standard, it's basically required that all provide it, even though it's not really a function that we are specialized for.
I think due to the structure few have an understanding of what they are paying for health care, or specific procedures, which precludes real cost competition (so there's no real free market now), but it does preclude people from changing jobs and especially being entrepreneurs. My dad started his own business when I was in my late teens (my sister was younger), but largely only because he had the freedom to because my mom had a job with good insurance.
?? In the case of someone you're compensating with a higher salary because they get their health insurance through their spouse's employer, what happens if the spouse loses their insurance (e.g., loses their job; dies; suffers long-term disability; decides to become a stay-at-home parent or has to take a hiatus to care for an elderly parent). Do you tell them they have to take a pay cut if they want to sign up at the next open enrollment period?
No, but it would likely affect future raises, since health insurance is part of compensation. That's why the current system is screwed up. Employers understand that health insurance costs = compensation, but most employees don't.
At my firm, gov't taking responsibility for health care would result in higher salaries/bonuses. I know that's not true everywhere, but this is my particular first hand experience.
Please explain the bolded part above.
How can a company count this as 'compensation', when health insurance costs can be written off as business deduction. Is your company cheating on the taxes and writing it off as expense twice..once as compensation, twice as business cost?
What Theoldguy said. It is compensation from the perspective of the employer. That it's not counted that way to the employee (mostly) is a benefit to the employee, as they pay less in taxes.
Also, the tax issue is totally irrelevant here -- in real terms it is compensation for the employment provided to employees (or not) and from the employee's perspective ought to be understood as part of what's being paid for the job (part of compensation), but frequently is not, which is one reason the understanding of the costs of health insurance is often flawed in the US (employees may think they get free health care or count only the premiums they pay). Some who get employer-based insurance don't understand how much is actually being paid for it (and that at least in some cases their salaries in cash would be higher if not for the insurance part).Employees have (by law) the right to their compensation, free and clear of any hidden or implied compensations or deductions.
This is confused. I'm not saying they have a contract for $65K or $100K or what not and then are paid an amount less the cost of insurance. I'm saying that from the employer's standpoint what they are receiving in real terms is the $65K plus the additional cost of insurance, even if in the employer's mind the cost of insurance to the employer is not considered and if insurance costs go up they would still expect the same type of raise as in other years.
I'm not sure what you mean by right to compensation anyway, since the amount of the compensation is not a right, it's offered by the employer and accepted (or not) by the employee. Above minimum wage (and these are salaried employees, some exempt and some non exempt), there is no right to a specific amount of compensation per year outside of whatever was agreed to be paid. There is also no right to a particular raise per year.
What in fact happens is that most people take insurance, since ours is good, but in the rare cases where someone doesn't (perhaps the spouse has better insurance), their salary is often higher as a result, as that seems fairer. But if the employees compare salaries, I suspect it won't be seen as fair.Personally, I understand company-provided insurance as benefit and reward for employees who contribute through their attendance (min hours for part-time) or fulltime commitment. It should hold talent in the company, and not make people miserable by holding their well deserved pay raise hostage.
More realistically, it's provided in fields in which payment of such is market and standard, so you need to provide it to compete. It's not a reward. And employers will of course take it into account in considering the real cost of employing an employee.
Like I said before, I don't think employers should be the source of health insurance in an ideal world.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions