Poll about Maternity/Paternity Leave

[NewChief]

Money or no money?

Reason I'm asking. When my wife worked for Wal-Mart, she received 8 weeks with salary. She now works for a smaller company, which is run by and consists almost entirely of women. They only letting her have 6 weeks without pay, and she has to pay half her insurance during that time as well.

I'm pissed.

[cookster50]

Sick time was used, so that is why it was paid.

[Bugeater]

I voted yes, but she was actually on bed rest for the last three months of her pregnancy as well as the six weeks after giving birth. I know she got paid for some of it, but I can't remember exactly how it worked. What I do remember is having to go on Cobra for our health insurance since she was off for so long, that was a nice double whammy on top of her lost wages.

[TinyEvel]

I imagine a place like WalMart is going to have a pretty gargantuan benefits package. Smaller companies vary. I think it's 6 weeks out here, on average. They give more for a C-section.

[NewChief]

I imagine a place like WalMart is going to have a pretty gargantuan benefits package. Smaller companies vary. I think it's 6 weeks out here, on average. They give more for a C-section.

With or without pay?

[stumppy]

Actually she can take up to 90 days under the Family Leave Act. I'm pretty sure it's 90 days. No pay, have to pay your own insurance while you're off. You should double check but I'm pretty sure thats right.

[Rain Man]

I'm not sure about the requirement for large companies, but small companies aren't required to offer large amounts of paid time for maternity leave. When one of our employees had a baby, she had some sick time that she used, as well as some vacation, and then the rest was unpaid.

We now have a PTO policy where sick leave and vacation are combined, so a pregnant employee can take that, but it's the only paid time that's offered.

You can't expect small companies to offer large blocks of paid time off.

[the Talking Can]

bitches

[BWillie]

Chick next to me gets 4 weeks pay, then 4 weeks half pay or something like that. They shouldn't get paid anything. It is a burden on the company. When I have a kid, I don't get any leave, why should they. You don't get paid when you don't work. If you had sick time, thats one thing, but if I needed an operation and had to be out for a while, I don't get any leave unless it's short term disability. Just use up the sick time.

[ClevelandBronco]

My wife quit working and stayed at home with the kids. I didn't see that option.

[BucEyedPea]

I was totally self employed at the time....and I got NOTHING!
I actually had to pay $7000 out of pocket and had to put it on my business Amex when they wheeled me in.
And I was still directing a job from the hospital by fax, phone, courier etc.
So I worked through delivery too! :harumph:

Not to mention worked until 2 AM for weeks on end during the last weeks.

You got it good NewPhin.

[listopencil]

My wife came in from the rice fields one hour early and popped out the new kid. Then she put it in a rice-cloth papoose and went back to work the next day, one hour early to make up for the time. I guess you could say her benefits kind of suck.

[Simplex3]

So this whole "giving birth" thing really snuck up on you guys?

I hate how we coddle people in this country. It's your choice to get knocked up and it's your choice to have the kid. You employer and every other employee shouldn't be REQUIRED to cover for your ass.

[RJ]

Yeah, there's no reason for us as men to collectively help our wives, sisters and other women in taking care of newborn children. Complete waste. Who needs children? If people choose to have kids that's their problem. Sure, these newborns might be better off having their mothers with them for those first few months, but if it's going to cost me money I'm against it.

[BucEyedPea]

Sure, these newborns might be better off having their mothers with them for those first few months, but if it's going to cost me money I'm against it.

Who's "me" here? You mean you yourself or the person who decided to have them? Or the business owner who only contracted for certain services upfront?

[RJ]

Who's "me" here? You mean you yourself or the person who decided to have them? Or the business owner who only contracted for certain services upfront?


All of us. There is certainly no responsibility for the care of newborns on the shoulders of anyone but the mother.

I mean, what the hell? They're pregnant, it's a choice. It's not like they have cancer or something. I could see paying out money from health and disability insurances for someone who is dying, but no way do I want to pay that for pregnant mothers and newborns. And don't give me the argument about all the money women pay into these insurance funds, that's their problem.

[cdcox]

My wife was laid off 4 or 5 months into her pregnancy. We filed a complaint with the state and got a small settlement from the company. Luckily we had an independent source of insurance.

[BucEyedPea]

All of us. There is certainly no responsibility for the care of newborns on the shoulders of anyone but the mother.
Sorry, it's been that way for thousands of years. In fact we women have it better today.

But I'd say prime responsiblity. There was once the extended family and families today still help as well as husbands.

I take an individual responsibility viewpoint not a collectivist one...or it takes a village one.

[Joie]

I think I get 6-8 weeks paid when we have a baby, plus short term disability or FMLA if I want it.

I'll let you know for sure in two years or so when we have our baby. :)

[Hammock Parties]

Ask Trent for some money.

[Joie]

Ask Trent for some money.
Is it his baby?

[RJ]

Sorry, it's been that way for thousands of years. In fact we women have it better today.

But I'd say prime responsiblity. There was once the extended family and families today still help as well as husbands.

I take an individual responsibility viewpoint not a collectivist one...or it takes a village one.



Yeah, I was being facetious, some earlier posts annoyed me. Thought it was obvious, sorry. I personally think it's the responsibility of everyone to help children. I guess that puts me in the minority.

[BucEyedPea]

I personally think it's the responsibility of everyone to help children. I guess that puts me in the minority.
No you're not in the minority because it depends on what you mean by it.
Generalities won't do. In some respects that true. What is NOT everyone's responsibility is paying for the healthcare costs including time off for the parents of those children. Especially a small employer where it may be a burden. I mean we already pay for public education. We don't live under fascism.

[Simplex3]

We don't live under fascism.
:BS:

[RJ]

No you're not in the minority because it depends on what you mean by it.
Generalities won't do. In some respects that true. What is NOT everyone's responsibility is paying for the healthcare costs including time off for the parents of those children. Especially a small employer where it may be a burden. I mean we already pay for public education. We don't live under fascism.



No employer is obligated to offer that benefit. It is up to the employee and her family to determine if an employer's benefits are right for them before she signs on.

My beef here is with the assertion that maternity benefits are in general unfair to men. First, women don't get pregnant on their own. Second, families are in the best interest of most employers. Those future employees gotta come from somewhere. Third, women have become an irreplaceable part of the workforce. If employers aren't going to pay for maternity leave then they will create an even larger set of problems for themselves.

I'm not talking about small businesses. They live with a different set of problems. But yes, I do think medium and large businesses have that responsibility and I think we all share in it.

[Simplex3]

No employer is obligated to offer that benefit. It is up to the employee and her family to determine if an employer's benefits are right for them before she signs on.
Agreed. This should be the end of it.
My beef here is with the assertion that maternity benefits are in general unfair to men. First, women don't get pregnant on their own.
They get pregnant with the help of the only other person who should bear the responsibility of paying for them and raising them.
Second, families are in the best interest of most employers. Those future employees gotta come from somewhere.
Families cost employers a fortune.
Third, women have become an irreplaceable part of the workforce. If employers aren't going to pay for maternity leave then they will create an even larger set of problems for themselves.
LMAO
I'm not talking about small businesses. They live with a different set of problems. But yes, I do think medium and large businesses have that responsibility and I think we all share in it.
So who gets to decide who's small and what's fair? Is there an Arbitrator of Smallness and Fairness out there?

[RJ]

You don't think women are an irreplaceable part of the workforce?

[BucEyedPea]

:BS:
Oh, okaaay! I did have second thoughts after that one. Technically we do in many respects especially in economics...but you get my drift. Gotta remind people we're at least not supposed to.

[Simplex3]

You don't think women are an irreplaceable part of the workforce?
Nobody is irreplaceable. It's not a knock on women. I just had this vision of someone drinking feminist flavored Kool Aid is all.

[BucEyedPea]

You don't think women are an irreplaceable part of the workforce?
Anyone is replaceable.

Frankly, I think they belong with their kids, especially in the early years not chasing the buck or making their career so important the kids come as a second thought. Now that's a personal choice but no one should, especially any employer should be forced to pay for that choice. And I don't buy the "I have to work." They don't want to make material sacrifices is more often the truth. That's where children are unimportant in our society today. And I'd agree when children are unimportant to a society...that society is on its way out.

[ClevelandBronco]

All of us. There is certainly no responsibility for the care of newborns on the shoulders of anyone but the mother.

I mean, what the hell? They're pregnant, it's a choice. It's not like they have cancer or something. I could see paying out money from health and disability insurances for someone who is dying, but no way do I want to pay that for pregnant mothers and newborns. And don't give me the argument about all the money women pay into these insurance funds, that's their problem.

When an employer causes a baby to be born, then that employer should be financially responsible for supporting the child and the mother.

Otherwise it ought to be up to the parent(s) to pony up the money and the time.

[ClevelandBronco]

...families are in the best interest of most employers. Those future employees gotta come from somewhere...

I don't work for the company that my father worked for. I'm sure you have some kind of a refund in mind for that eventuality.

[RJ]

Nobody is irreplaceable. It's not a knock on women. I just had this vision of someone drinking feminist flavored Kool Aid is all.



I'm not talking Kool Aid. I'm talking about the fact that women are indispensable in the work place. Of course no one is irreplaceable, but a gender is. And the fact of the matter is that women make up a huge percentage of our nations workers and they do happen to have babies.

I understand your opinions on such matters and respect them. You have obviously worked hard to get where you are. But surely you realize that medium to large employers (think companies who plan to be around a generation from now) do have an interest in families. I could create a whole new thread on the reasons why.

My wife works in an office building with about 700 people. I'd guess about 500 of them to be female. I'd guess about 2/3 of those to either have children or be of an age where they might. That company isn't obligated to offer maternity benefits but they'd be SOL if they didn't.

Most women work and pay in to insurance funds. I think it probably evens out. Women have babies but think of all the health issues they suffer from less than men.

I'm not talking feminism, I'm talking real life.

[RJ]

Anyone is replaceable.

Frankly, I think they belong with their kids, especially in the early years not chasing the buck or making their career so important the kids come as a second thought. Now that's a personal choice but no one should, especially any employer should be forced to pay for that choice. And I don't buy the "I have to work." They don't want to make material sacrifices is more often the truth. That's where children are unimportant in our society today. And I'd agree when children are unimportant to a society...that society is on its way out.



Fine. But companies that don't offer maternity benefits will have a hard time competing with companies that do when recruiting all those women. Like it or not, most women work and most women have babies.

[BucEyedPea]

Just think that company could replace them all with cheaper illegal aliens too.

[Joie]

Anyone is replaceable.

Frankly, I think they belong with their kids, especially in the early years not chasing the buck or making their career so important the kids come as a second thought. Now that's a personal choice but no one should, especially any employer should be forced to pay for that choice. And I don't buy the "I have to work." They don't want to make material sacrifices is more often the truth. That's where children are unimportant in our society today. And I'd agree when children are unimportant to a society...that society is on its way out.
Sometimes the choice is work or go on welfare. Work or don't pay the bills. I agree that when possible, it's best to stay home. That's part of the reason we're waiting a few years. But, let's face it. The cost of living and our society does not leave the option open for many women.

[ClevelandBronco]

My wife works in an office building with about 700 people. I'd guess about 500 of them to be female. I'd guess about 2/3 of those to either have children or be of an age where they might. That company isn't obligated to offer maternity benefits...

Yes they are. The Family Leave Act applies to any company that employs more than 50 people, IIRC. They are obligated by federal law. It's a crappy law IMO, but it's the law, nonetheless.

[BucEyedPea]

Sometimes the choice is work or go on welfare. Work or don't pay the bills. I agree that when possible, it's best to stay home. That's part of the reason we're waiting a few years. But, let's face it. The cost of living and our society does not leave the option open for many women.
I think it's exaggerated. For one people just want more: bigger houses, nicer cars etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with living in a more modest home.

Around 1996 the trend was more women choosing to stay home because I remember looking into it and reading about it. Even some financial advisors had articles telling women to really analyze what it was costing them to work. Yes! It cost money to have a job: a car, gas, wardrobe and of course a sitter, nanny, home-day care then day-car. It adds up. Most women found they actually took home little after all that, were too tired to do all that baby work when they got home and just opted to stay home. No baby needs a tired crabby mother. They were given tips on how to cut corners...and they survived just fine.

It's just a cliche.

[ClevelandBronco]

Sometimes the choice is work or go on welfare. Work or don't pay the bills. I agree that when possible, it's best to stay home. That's part of the reason we're waiting a few years. But, let's face it. The cost of living and our society does not leave the option open for many women.

Our sense of entitlement is what doesn't make it practical for women to stay home with the kids.

So many necessities: High speed internet access, cable TV, Sunday Ticket, that new car, eating out with the gang instead of taking a sandwich to work...

[ClevelandBronco]

Turns out that BEP already said it better than I did.

[Joie]

I think it's exaggerated. For one people just want more: bigger houses, nicer cars etc. etc. There's nothing wrong with living in a more modest home.

Around 1996 the trend was more women choosing to stay home because I remember looking into it and reading about it. Even some financial advisors had articles telling women to really analyze what it was costing them to work. Yes! It cost money to have a job: a car, gas, wardrobe and of course a sitter, nanny, home-day care then day-car. It adds up. Most women found they actually took home little after all that, were too tired to do all that baby work when they got home and just opted to stay home. No baby needs a tired crabby mother. They were given tips on how to cut corners...and they survived just fine.

It's just a cliche.
Not always. Like I said, I want to stay home. I'm not talking about upper or middle class families here. I'm talking about families struggling to make it on minimum wage. Sometimes there are no corners to cut.

[RJ]

Yes they are. The Family Leave Act applies to any company that employs more than 50 people, IIRC. They are obligated by federal law. It's a crappy law IMO, but it's the law, nonetheless.


Ok, good, they should be. And if they weren't obligated they would need to do so anyway if they wanted to attract qualified employees. Where my wife works isn't a bunch of women mopping floors and stuffing envelopes. They are mostly qualified and educated people who have choices about where they work.

Taking a WAG, I'd say there are probably about 70 million working women in this country, 30-40 million of child bearing age. These women are both producers and consumers in our economy. I really don't get where you guys can suggest that they are a drain. Again, I'm not talking feminism. I'm talking about a modern reality.

[Joie]

Our sense of entitlement is what doesn't make it practical for women to stay home with the kids.

So many necessities: High speed internet access, cable TV, Sunday Ticket, that new car, eating out with the gang instead of taking a sandwich to work...
Lights, Rent, Food. Yep.

I grew up without a computer, cable and in a family that most of the time had one car. We had to worry about groceries, utilities, etc. Monthly. Don't dare tell me my mother had a choice. She worked or we starved.

[BucEyedPea]

Not always. Like I said, I want to stay home. I'm not talking about upper or middle class families here. I'm talking about families struggling to make it on minimum wage. Sometimes there are no corners to cut.
Well, to be fair...I didn't say always. I said it was exaggerated. Because I've seen women who could afford not to do it. One makes over $160k. It's sitters 24/7. And the working poor are not as big a percent as the middle class. Even lower class families can do it if they really want to. My mother raised my sister's kid for her because she was as single mom. That's what families are for.

[RJ]

Lights, Rent, Food. Yep.

I grew up without a computer, cable and in a family that most of the time had one car. We had to worry about groceries, utilities, etc. Monthly. Don't dare tell me my mother had a choice. She worked or we starved.



Same here. My mom was a bartender and she did it until her back gave out. Later, she learned some computer skills and worked in an office. None of it had to do with extravagance. It was survival in those days.

[Bugeater]

My wife quit working and stayed at home with the kids. I didn't see that option.
Perhaps you couldn't read the poll question from way up on that pedestal you put yourself on, but if she quit working it's not considered maternity "leave", so why the hell would that be an option?

[Joie]

Well, to be fair...I didn't say always. I said it was exaggerated. Because I've seen women who could afford not to do it. One makes over $160k. It's sitters 24/7. And the working poor are not as big a percent as the middle class. Even lower class families can do it if they really want to. My mother raised my sister's kid for her because she was as single mom. That's what families are for.
My family lives 2 hours or more away. I doubt they'll be able to help much. I do want to stay home when we have a baby though. Children are so important. When possible they should have a parent at home, but unfortunately it's not always possible.

You struck a nerve, because so many women in my life would have stayed home if they had a choice. But they had to support their kids.

[BucEyedPea]

These women are both producers and consumers in our economy. I really don't get where you guys can suggest that they are a drain.

I don't say they are a drain. However, one could make a good economic argument that women going out to work has increased prices on goods too. That second paycheck for many in the middle class means more to buy, more ability to buy and thus more demand, which raises the price of goods. I read an economic article once that showed one man could support a whole family back in the 1950s on one income...and not a high one either.

So now there's more demand and prices go up ( not to mention govt created inflation, increased taxes, inflation creep in tax brackets) and now a greater amount of women say they HAVE to work. It's circular.

[ClevelandBronco]

Perhaps you couldn't read the poll question from way up on that pedestal you put yourself on, but if she quit working it's not considered maternity "leave", so why the hell would that be an option?

Sorry. We didn't set out to live our lives with more personal integrity than the folks who think their employers owe them money for having a baby.

It just kind of worked out that way.

[Bugeater]

You don't think women are an irreplaceable part of the workforce?
No. In fact I believe they've depressed wages for men. If women had never entered the workforce, perhaps men could still make enough money for the wife to stay home. :shrug:

[Joie]

I don't say they are a drain. However, one could make a good economic argument that women going out to work has increased prices on goods too. That second paycheck for many in the middle class means more to buy, more ability to buy and thus more demand, which raises the price of goods. I read an economic article once that showed one man could support a whole family back in the 1950s on one income...and not a high one either.

So now there's more demand and prices go up ( not to mention govt created inflation, increased taxes, inflation creep in tax brackets) and now a greater amount of women say they HAVE to work. It's circular.
Our second income means we can afford internet, so I can argue with you all night long.


Aren't you happy I work? :p

[Bugeater]

Sorry. We didn't set out to live our lives with more personal integrity than the folks who think their employers owe them money for having a baby.

It just kind of worked out that way.
Sorry the rest of us didn't end up just like you.

[BucEyedPea]

No. In fact I believe they've depressed wages for men. If women had never entered the workforce, perhaps men could still make enough money for the wife to stay home. :shrug:
That's another very good point.

[RJ]

I don't say they are a drain. However, one could make a good economic argument that women going out to work has increased prices on goods too. That second paycheck for many in the middle class means more to buy, more ability to buy and thus more demand, which raises the price of goods. I read an economic article once that showed one man could support a whole family back in the 1950s on one income...and not a high one either.

So now there's more demand and prices go up ( not to mention govt created inflation too) and now a greater amount of women say they HAVE to work.
It's circular.



I don't doubt that at all and would gladly turn the clock back to those times. But I can't and neither can you so your point is moot. C'est la vie.

[RJ]

No. In fact I believe they've depressed wages for men. If women had never entered the workforce, perhaps men could still make enough money for the wife to stay home. :shrug:



I don't mean then, I mean now. If someone can tell me how to send the women back home I'm all for it.

[ClevelandBronco]

Sorry the rest of us didn't end up just like you.

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the folks who hired you to produce revenue rather than babies.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't doubt that at all and would gladly turn the clock back to those times. But I can't and neither can you so your point is moot. C'est la vie.
No it's not moot. The economic principles are like laws and are still working.
It's valid. In fact, like I posted earlier, the trend has reversed back to more women with children deciding to stay home. It costs too much to have that job.

Obviously, I'm not talking about childless couples or single women.

[RJ]

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the folks who hired you to produce revenue rather than babies.


Ok, so why don't those employers simply not hire women? Wouldn't that save them lots of money? Replace all the women with men. How do you see that working out?

Or they could hire women but not offer maternity benefits. How would you see the outcome there?

And what about men whose insurance covers wives who have babies? Are they equally a drain?

[Bugeater]

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the folks who hired you to produce revenue rather than babies.
That's not even the point, it's that you chimed in with your smarmy attitude that you're somehow better parents because your wife stays home with the kids. The original post I responded to had little, if anything, to do with the thread topic.

[Rain Man]

When an employer causes a baby to be born, then that employer should be financially responsible for supporting the child and the mother.

Otherwise it ought to be up to the parent(s) to pony up the money and the time.

As an employer, I think that if I'm expected to pay a woman for having a baby, I should have the opportunity to help make that baby.

[RJ]

No it's not moot. The economic principles are like laws and are still working.
It's valid. In fact, like I posted earlier, the trend has reversed back to more women with children deciding to stay home. It costs too much to have that job.

Obviously, I'm not talking about childless couples or single women.



Do any of you think that companies would offer maternity benefits if they didn't feel they needed to in order to attract and retain necessary employees? I don't. I don't believe the benefit is offered out of social responsibility, I believe it's because the employers would have trouble doing business otherwise.

[ClevelandBronco]

That's not even the point, it's that you chimed in with your smarmy attitude that you're somehow better parents because your wife stays home with the kids. The original post I responded to had little, if anything, to do with the thread topic.

Yes. Chances are good that we are.

[Rain Man]

I don't mean then, I mean now. If someone can tell me how to send the women back home I'm all for it.

It's not that hard, really.

http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/images2/beating.jpg

[RJ]

It's not that hard, really.

http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/images2/beating.jpg




Seems harsh, but....

[RJ]

Yes. Chances are good that we are.




Did your wife work before you had children?

[Rain Man]

Seems harsh, but....

Admittedly, it'll have a negative impact on tourism at Waikiki and Miami.

[RJ]

Admittedly, it'll have a negative impact on tourism at Waikiki and Miami.



There are always sacrifices to be made.

[BucEyedPea]

Ok, so why don't those employers simply not hire women? Wouldn't that save them lots of money? Replace all the women with men. How do you see that working out?
No one can "plan" how this will work across the board for every employer or business. The employer is more familiar with his own problems regarding such things. The employer is the one who should decide if hiring women will cost him more. Not every business or situation is the same. Maybe it is a draw for them.

I've seen two men discuss a male and female interviewees and discuss how they could save by hiring the woman. On the other hand some employers would rather hire a man, because they are more likely to stay than take maternity leave and there's less disruption.

Studies do show the main reason for a women's income remaining less than men is because they're more likely to choose jobs that offer schedule flexibility or more time off or that is less demanding so they can be home. They are likely to suffer from career disruptions too. It's not mainly discrimination. Some employers want continuity. Let the market ( the individuals needs and wants) determine what will work for them.

Or they could hire women but not offer maternity benefits. How would you see the outcome there?
Some offer different plans within their firms. Others limited plans. Some none. Maternity riders are expensive because insurance knows these will get used.

And what about men whose insurance covers wives who have babies? Are they equally a drain?
That's up to the employer and what insurance he can offer. More firms in FL don't even offer health benefits as much as they do up north as it has a lot of mom and pop shops and small businesses.

[Bugeater]

Yes. Chances are good that we are.
Sure, whatever. I suppose if you want to be an arrogant cocksmoker about it that's your business.

[ClevelandBronco]

Ok, so why don't those employers simply not hire women? Wouldn't that save them lots of money? Replace all the women with men. How do you see that working out?

Or they could hire women but not offer maternity benefits. How would you see the outcome there?

And what about men whose insurance covers wives who have babies? Are they equally a drain?

I love being peppered with questions. Here are your answers:

Because sometimes women are a better hire, talentwise, salarywise, or otherwise; in the absence of federal regulation, perhaps. It would depend on the individual woman.; not very well; yes (I think you missed a question mark on this one); the market would determine the outcome; If your next question is the real question, then the answer is yes. They are a drain in some ways, they are an asset in other ways (They tend to be familialy tied to their careers, and they can be paid less than a talented employee who is single and unencumbered by such responsibilities). When I'm made king employers will be prohibited from offering insurance benefits to their employees. It's better that people understand the true (and in most cases, very affordable) cost of health care.

[ClevelandBronco]

Sure, whatever. I suppose if you want to be an arrogant cocksmoker about it that's your business.

I appreciate you granting me that latitude.

Especially because I'm going to ask your ass for a job.

[RJ]

Studies do show the main reason for a women's income remaining less than men is because they're more likely to choose jobs that offer schedule flexibility or more time off or that is less demanding so they can be home. They are likely to suffer from career disruptions too. It's not mainly discrimination. Some employers want continuity. Let the market ( the individuals needs and wants) determine what will work for them






Exactly. My wife is just as happy to get more PTO as she is to get a token raise. Makes me happier too. You're doing a better job than me of making my point. That's ok, it happens to me often.

[BucEyedPea]

When I'm made king employers will be prohibited from offering insurance benefits to their employees. It's better that people understand the true (and in most cases, very affordable) cost of health care.
Interesting you brought this up, because there is an economic claim that health care costs were less before insurance began to even be offered. It took away the personal patient doctor relationship on contracting fees to third party pays which always cost more, doctors stopped coming to homes and the big money medical pharmaceutical complex began...it assures them of a market.

[BucEyedPea]

Exactly. My wife is just as happy to get more PTO as she is to get a token raise. Makes me happier too. You're doing a better job than me of making my point. That's ok, it happens to me often.
I'm the same way. What does PTO stand for?

[RJ]

Paid time off.

[BucEyedPea]

Paid time off.
Well that's cool. I don't get paid for my time off though. I just went part-time.

[RJ]

Well that's cool. I don't get paid for my time off though.


Nor I. Most of my income is commission and I can't make many sales from home. But for my wife and many of the people she works with the PTO is a huge benefit. They are salaried or hourly employees and being paid to not work the same as when they do is a nice benefit. I assume it also benefits the employer but I don't really see how.

[TinyEvel]

Did you notice that if you rearrange the letters in "maternity" you can spell "nite, Marty"

You can also spell "Marty Nite," where every paid ticket holder receives a pair of metal-rimmed glasses, a mesh cap and a tantrum.

[ClevelandBronco]

Interesting you brought this up, because there is an economic claim that health care costs were less before insurance began to even be offered. It took away the personal patient doctor relationship on contracting fees to third party pays which always cost more, doctors stopped coming to homes and the big money medical pharmaceutical complex began...it assures them of a market.

I agree with that premise. I've been paying for my own health insurance for almost a decade now (originally it was called an MSA, then it became an HSA). I pay for health care with pretax dollars, which easily saves me close to 40 cents on every dollar when I figure in federal and state income taxes.

I was worried the first time one of my kids got sick. We had an office visit and antibiotics to pay for.

Turns out the doctor visit cost $75 and the prescription was another $15.

On the other hand, carrying the insurance my previous employer had been paying (COBRA) would have been $650/month.

That was the end of my fear. I have an HSA with a $5,200 deductible for about $280/month these days. If anyone comes down with cancer, I'll pay the $5,200. I don't want a plan that pays for health care. I want a plan that deals with disaster. The rest is on me.

[BucEyedPea]

I agree with that premise. I've been paying for my own health insurance for almost a decade now (originally it was called an MSA, then it became an HSA). I pay for health care with pretax dollars, which easily saves me close to 40 cents on every dollar when I figure in federal and state income taxes.

I was worried the first time one of my kids got sick. We had an office visit and antibiotics to pay for.

Turns out the doctor visit cost $75 and the prescription was another $15.

On the other hand, carrying the insurance my previous employer had been paying (COBRA) would have been $650/month.

That was the end of my fear. I have an HSA with a $5,200 deductible for about $280/month these days. If anyone comes down with cancer, I'll pay the $5,200. I don't want a plan that pays for health care. I want a plan that deals with disaster. The rest is on me.
What' does MSA and HSA stand for?

I used to only carry catastrophic. That's why daughter's delivery cost me so much. However, it's really all you need. Those premiums add up. I added them up one day and I still saved overall.

[ClevelandBronco]

What' does MSA and HSA stand for?

I used to only carry catastrophic. That's why daughter's delivery cost me so much. However, it's really all you need. Those premiums add up. I added them up one day and I still saved overall.

Medical Savings Account

Health Savings Account

They're just labels that the federal government has given them.

MSAs were limited to some designated number of self employed people in the early days of the experiment. HSAs are what they're called now.

You deposit funds into an HSA account. Those funds stay inside that account without being taxed as income. If you use them to pay for medical expenses (anything up to and including aromatherapy and the like), you never pay income tax on those funds.

If you leave money in the account in any annual period it is treated like a 401(k) or a SEP. The funds accumulate tax free investment interest until you retire. They are then taxed as ordinary income as they are withdrawn years later (after earning tax-deferred income and when, presumably, your tax bracket is lower.)

It's a great system. It makes people responsible for their own health care, while it leaves an opportunity for companies to insure against catastrophic care. There's a tax-deferred savings component as well that makes the plan attractive today (your income tax will be lower) and tomorrow (you'll have funds that have grown tax free that you'll be able to use later when you are no longer earning what you earn today).

Talk to your CPA ASAP, BEP.

(Too many acronyms in a row.)