Counting [public] healthcare as "income" from labor seems extremely... Republican.
Should we also count caring for relatives as 'income' to the people being cared for? (We don't.)
Should we also count caring for relatives as 'income' to the people being cared for? (We don't.)
I checked some private healthcare insurance where I live, and the difference in cost between these plans was in fact only $800.
And it's not "my choice." That's mathematically how you evaluate different alternatives. All other things being equal, would you not value a house with a pool higher than one that doesn't?
I didn't do that calculation on a "for me" basis: I looked at the generally advertised cost. Paying in advance is cheaper for anyone taking out a policy.
Anecdotally, every time I run the numbers for my family the high deductible plan comes out ahead so I view an offer without one as less appealing. Though most employers offer both.
It is the best type of retirement account when used that way and I think it’s worth at least $1K/yr today assuming you’ll be able to drain it before it turns into an IRA.
(No connection other than as a client.)
Sure, the tax advantage is nice, but it doesn't make up for expecting to be paying $2000 in visits over the course of a year, then (for whatever unexpected reason) paying half that—the extra $1000 just goes away, and with it the tax savings you would have made over years of effective use.
HSA is basically a retirement account that lets you early withdraw for healthcare related expenses. There is no 'lose it'.
Side by side comparison here: https://www.investopedia.com/insurance/hsa-vs-fsa/
Edit: And to be clear, that's not "lose it if you leave the job"; it's "lose it at the end of the year."
Of course, leave it up to the IRS to take something that should be a good thing, and put rules around it that make it hard to use.
Plans vary in coverage and out of pocket expenses significantly combined with the fact you don't know what you will need to use the insurance for, if anything at all.
When you're younger, it's less likely it's valuable, when you're older, it's more likely that it's valuable.
If you have a preexisting condition (say someone needs dialysis), it's a little bit more straightforward because you already know what sort of services you need. Ultimately you don't know what you service provider will end up charging the insurance to cover costs, how little your insurance will try and provide, and what you'll have left to pickup on the tab.
Furthermore, employers are known to shop the market for better deals, so the insurance you sign up for could shift in 6-12 months. I factor insurance into comp but I look at only the most general attributes and I don't weight these as directly as compensation because I (knock on wood) am fairly healthy and tend not to use my insurance.
The US pays almost double per capita for health care compared to its northern neighbour Canada.
Edit: maybe OP was referring to public healthcare? In that case it depends on the methodology. Seems like this methodology subtracts taxes then adds back in what you receive.
This doesn’t seem unreasonable as someone who isn’t making enough to pay taxes may get Medicaid coverage. That’s a direct transfer payment to that person.
Also, this may be state specific, but another benefit for the employee of doing it this way, is their portion is from pre-tax money.
This is the kind of weight that you don't have as an individual shopping for health insurance.
> the employer deals with a broker, the broker represents many employers
I need to look into this again, but it wasn't the case last I checked. Larger employers (those who can really move the negotiating needle) don't want to help smaller companies by being the anchor in a group situation because the larger employers see insurance as a competitive advantage. It's been a few years, but the last time I checked going through broker they were just negotiating for the individual company and not a group. I clearly need to revisit or maybe find a different/better broker.
For sure, very big employers will have a different setup, but SMB definitely use brokers to get better deals for themselves and their employees.
So, consider doing that. Taking the $4000 penalty from the $7800 you currently pay, that leaves $3800 that can be split between you and the worker. (split it as needed to attract and keep talent)
Depending on the state you are in, the workers needing insurance might do better having some portion of that $3800 than having the insurance you can get for them. You may even have workers who get insurance from elsewhere, such as a parent or spouse, and they'd much prefer a portion of the $3800 saved.