what kind of healthcare cover do you get in IT jobs in USA

rockstar81

what kind of health care do you get for IT jobs in America, also what could you expect for a helpdesk type position up to a network admin? not always top IT jobs just entry-med type positions.

many thanks

JDMurray

In the USA, you are offered minimal to nearly excellent health care by many employers, regardless of your job title. The trick is that the better the health care coverage the more of deduction from your paycheck it will be. Even the bottom-end HMO coverage can be quite expensive for married people with children. No government-subsidized, socialized medical programs over here--except for illegal aliens. If you do come over and want cheap medical coverage, you might want to think about sneaking up across the border form Mexico.

darkerosxx

Or move to Louisiana where we have state-run charity hospitals.

rockstar81

Interesting infomation guys - I have a US passport as well is UK, have thought about moving to US in next few years mainly do the price of houses in the UK being totally unaffordable, its just as we have expensive houses that most can no longer afford we have free health care were its the other way around in the US.

eMeS

JDMurray wrote:

No government-subsidized, socialized medical programs over here--except for illegal aliens.

This isn't exactly true. I think you mean that there is no universal coverage for all citizens. There are Medicaid and Medicare programs, but these typically apply to limited groups of people. Most states also have type of under- or uninsured children's program. In it is called CHIPS.

Additionally, part of the property taxes that I pay in Texas funds county hospitals, which provide health care to those that cannot afford it. Different states do this differently, but I suspect most have some type of similar system.

Regarding the original poster's question: The level of coverage depends on a couple of things. First, your employer. Typically large employers are able to negotiate better insurance plans for their employees. This however doesn't mean that small employers could not offer the same or better coverage. However, in many cases, especially small employers, zero health insurance coverage might be offered.

Unfortunately the answer is, "it depends".

You are also free to go buy your own. I do for my family and me, and do several other members on this board.

MS

rockstar81

thanks for the replys so far,

how much does healthcare tend to cost if bought private? I suspect it depends on what your current level of health is like?

I watched a michael moore film called sicko and it painted the US healthcare sysem in a bad light - are things that bad or is it typical film over hyping things.

many thanks

shednik

From what i noticed the in general the bigger the company the better offerings they may have, although i'm sure some big companies do offer horrible plans. You just have to look at the offerings before accepting the job.

hypnotoad

Buying private health insurance depends on your health and your demographic...for my fairly-healthy 26 year old girlfriend to get insurance when she was working as a private contractor was about $120 a month.

Don't even think about setting foot outside without health insurance. My cousin fell and broke his knee and leg, spent a week in the hospital with an infection and a botched surgery, and is now paying $200,000 in medical bills one month at a time. Hospitals will charge you $8 for aspirin, or $700 for an ambulance ride, $3000 for a CT scan and analysis, etc etc..

However, like all political documentaries, the Michael Moore film is half-true, half-false. Take it with a grain of salt. It's not like we're all dying in emergency rooms because we can't afford to spend our entire paychecks on prescriptions.

binarysoul

nl wrote:

My cousin fell and broke his knee and leg, spent a week in the hospital with an infection and a botched surgery, and is now paying $200,000 in medical bills one month at a time. Hospitals will charge you $8 for aspirin, or $700 for an ambulance ride, $3000 for a CT scan and analysis, etc etc..

It seems to me that healthcare in poor countries is much better and fairer than in the US. One would think that the so-called "American Dream" would include an episode about 'universal healthcare'. Unfortunately, humans all get sick and it's absolutely unacceptable that a country would wast an excess of $100 billion dollar annually on invading other nations such as Iraq, but yet force its citizens to pay $200,000 for a knee injury

It would seem to me as unfair that a nation would give its soldiers who participate in illegal invasions a 35% danger pay, free insurance, a couple of regional rest breaks in luxurious hotels and a fat paycheck and yet force its non-military citizens, i.e. civilians get insurance.

Hopefully, Mr. Obama might be able to change that!

HeroPsycho

binarysoul wrote:

It would seem to me as unfair that a nation would give its soldiers who participate in illegal invasions a 35% danger pay, free insurance, a couple of regional rest breaks in luxurious hotels and a fat paycheck and yet force its non-military citizens, i.e. civilians get insurance.

Hopefully, Mr. Obama might be able to change that!

You're really asking for trouble if you are questioning 35% danger pay, free insurance, and "rest breaks in luxurious hotels", claim they get fat paychecks when they don't, for people who are risking their lives on a daily basis. I think going to Iraq was a big mistake from day one, but the soldiers aren't the ones who made that decision.

We should do 10x more for soldiers than we do now.

And the reason we don't have as equitable a health care system as we should is not because of what benefits and pay we give to soldiers. The reason is we don't tax the super rich like we should, and the gov't has been far too hands off of the health care industry. Not that we need socialized medicine necessarily, but I'm certain that the solution will involve some kind of increased involvement by the government in our health care system.

rockstar81

I have a cartlidge injury on my knee which at some point is going to require surgery to fix (I am holding out for the newer stem cell treatments which sound a lot better than the current treatment options). I guess this would jack up my health care insurence costs.

eMeS

rockstar81 wrote:

how much does healthcare tend to cost if bought private? I suspect it depends on what your current level of health is like?

It depends on the level of coverage/deductibles etc. that you want, as well as what you've mentioned. Smoking, weight, etc.. all play a factor.

I have coverage for my wife and child separately from my coverage. Their coverage alone is $331 per month for what is a top-notch medical and dental policy. My policy is separate, and is very expensive. The cost in my case has been driven up by a "possible" health condition related to a form of arthritis. I really don't experience any problems on a daily basis, but in the past I have had problems.

I'd say my total health insurance coverage monthly expense is between $700 and $800 per month.

Insurance companies like to avoid risk, or be compensated adequately if they must take it on....

In my case it will make more sense within the next 5 years to pay health insurance expenses out of pocket, which is exactly what I intend to do.

rockstar81 wrote:

I watched a michael moore film called sicko and it painted the US healthcare sysem in a bad light - are things that bad or is it typical film over hyping things.

Without a doubt there are problems with US healthcare and insurance industries. My problem with it is that it exists at all, as I believe that it tends to increase the cost of health care through unnecessary overhead. However, I don't speak for everyone, but I would tend to agree with what I've read that Michael Moore often cherry picks evidence that fits his needs.

MS

dynamik

rockstar81 wrote:

how much does healthcare tend to cost if bought private? I suspect it depends on what your current level of health is like?

My wife and I pay for ours out of pocket. It's just under $200/month for us with a $5k deductible. We're both healthy and have only had to make one trip to the hospital in the last seven years. We get a free physical and some other basic stuff each year. Our rate would be insane with kids though.

eMeS

HeroPsycho wrote:

binarysoul wrote:

It would seem to me as unfair that a nation would give its soldiers who participate in illegal invasions a 35% danger pay, free insurance, a couple of regional rest breaks in luxurious hotels and a fat paycheck and yet force its non-military citizens, i.e. civilians get insurance.

Hopefully, Mr. Obama might be able to change that!

You're really asking for trouble if you are questioning 35% danger pay, free insurance, and "rest breaks in luxurious hotels", claim they get fat paychecks when they don't, for people who are risking their lives on a daily basis. I think going to Iraq was a big mistake from day one, but the soldiers aren't the ones who made that decision.

We should do 10x more for soldiers than we do now.

And the reason we don't have as equitable a health care system as we should is not because of what benefits and pay we give to soldiers. The reason is we don't tax the super rich like we should, and the gov't has been far too hands off of the health care industry. Not that we need socialized medicine necessarily, but I'm certain that the solution will involve some kind of increased involvement by the government in our health care system.

Totally agree (at least with the first 2 paragraphs and the first part of the third).

Nowhere in our Constitution is a guarantee of universal health care implied or explicitly stated. However, the federal government is clearly responsible for defense of the nation (arguments about what qualifies as "defense" aside). In order to defend the nation you must pay soldiers and keep them healthy. And by the way, that free lifetime health care that soldiers get at VA hospitals isn't all that great.

There isn't an entitlement to health care.

My personal opinion is that private industry and a truly free market would be much better than the situation we have now, with partial government involvement and the extra transaction costs generated by the insurance industry. Without all of these added things driving up the cost of health care, people might be able to afford it.

binarysoul wrote:

Hopefully, Mr. Obama might be able to change that!

This statement shows nothing more than complete ignorance of how the US political system works, and what is good about it. It's not like someone steps into the Oval Office and can flip the "Universal Health Care" switch. I speak for many (but not all) when I say this is how we prefer it. I don't want one guy with that much power.

MS

darkerosxx

rockstar81 wrote:

what kind of health care do you get for IT jobs in America, also what could you expect for a helpdesk type position up to a network admin? not always top IT jobs just entry-med type positions.

many thanks

To answer your original question: let's say a "friend" of mine works for a large company that gives him insurance with no deductible, he only has to pay a very small co-pay for non-preventive visits($10). It costs him maybe $20/month.

I have another "friend" that works for a smaller company where he doesn't have to pay anything for his insurance, but it does have a $300 deductible AND he pays co-pays when he goes for non-preventive visits($25-50).

It ranges and like others have said, you will normally get better insurance at bigger companies.

Ahriakin

Besides the cost there is often a great deal of hoop-jumping when trying to get the damn insurers to pay in the first place, some hospitals won't accept certain insurers because if it and this effective blacklist varies from place to place so there is no hard and fast rule that the one you go with will be of help when you are on a trip to some other part of the country. Any of the insurance companies I've dealt with since moving to the states about 6 years go, about 4 of them, have all been incredibly badly run. You think IT support can be bad? Try calling your health insurance company when they make a mistake....

In theory a free market approach to health care is a good thing but in practice it has failed miserably, in no small part due to the massive amount of influence the medical industry has on our wonderfully honest politicians. Doctors need to be more competitive so the equivalent of your local GP may have a bloodwork lab on premises and other services that would be reserved for centralised clinics elsewhere...and why not since in theory insurance will pay for it and they don't need to worry if Joe Soap can actually afford it...Pharmaceutical companies likewise can charge exorbitant amounts for medications since again Insurance will carry it...which all causes medical costs to move way beyond the actual means of the normal working person and Insurance costs to rise. It's a lot like the recent Real Estate bubble, Agents became flippers and worked the prices up and Banks were happy to throw money at people as it all meant more interest for them, it only stopped because obviously people can do without houses a lot easier than they can do without healthcare.

Daniel333

I've never run across an IT job that doesn't offer great Health care at a perfectly reasonable deduction here in California. Even my Geek Squad days had coverage.

I wouldn't let Health care factor into your decision to come here or not.

HeroPsycho

eMeS wrote:

Nowhere in our Constitution is a guarantee of universal health care implied or explicitly stated. However, the federal government is clearly responsible for defense of the nation (arguments about what qualifies as "defense" aside). In order to defend the nation you must pay soldiers and keep them healthy. And by the way, that free lifetime health care that soldiers get at VA hospitals isn't all that great.

There isn't an entitlement to health care.

My personal opinion is that private industry and a truly free market would be much better than the situation we have now, with partial government involvement and the extra transaction costs generated by the insurance industry. Without all of these added things driving up the cost of health care, people might be able to afford it.

Nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the US should sponsor space exploration, do anything to regulate the quality of goods, or publicly fund technological advancements. But the gov't has stepped up to do each of those things, and I would argue all have been very positive things for Americans and the entire planet.

I'm a pragmatist. I believe you let the free market regulate the things it's good at regulating, and let the government regulate the things that free markets can't. I don't think our current health care system is without merit. However, I do think that we've pretty much let the free market reign in health care, and the results leave something to be desired. I don't think the gov't should completely run the show with health care because I don't think the entire system is broken. I do believe however the gov't should step in to prevent millions of people to go uninsured, especially children.

I don't think free market economics works on it's own for health care due to the implicit nature of health care. The fact that if you don't get a procedure or medication, you could die or be debilitated, etc., and due to the exceptionally high skill required by labor involved in the industry, it's hard for people to shop around for the best doctor, best insurance, etc. even if we removed the need for insurance or stopped the tying of insurance to one's job.

Unfortunately, I also don't know how exactly the gov't should be involved to fix the situation we're in either. Most of the major plans I've heard I have reservations about, too.

Pash

You guys don't pay stupid amounts of extra tax to cover the expense of your supposedly free health service, only for jobless layabouts or illegal immegrants to choke the system of all its resources.

I do have some free private healthcare subsidory in my package but only enough for occasional specialist consultancy, no treatment costs.

I guess in all but a few cases, paying for our healthcare is the best option, the treatment is consistent and the rules the same for all.

bertieb

Pash wrote:

You guys don't pay stupid amounts of extra tax to cover the expense of your supposedly free health service, only for jobless layabouts or illegal immegrants to choke the system of all its resources.

+1 for Pash's comments
-100 for jobless layabouts who watch TV all day and have no intentions of getting a job whilst our taxes continue to pay for them and help fund their cigarette and alcohol habits

Megadeth4168

JDMurray wrote:

In the USA, you are offered minimal to nearly excellent health care by many employers, regardless of your job title. The trick is that the better the health care coverage the more of deduction from your paycheck it will be. Even the bottom-end HMO coverage can be quite expensive for married people with children. No government-subsidized, socialized medical programs over here--except for illegal aliens. If you do come over and want cheap medical coverage, you might want to think about sneaking up across the border form Mexico.

Hehe.... Not always true! I may not make as much money as I could in the private sector but working a government job is nice because I get great insurance that my job pays every penny of!

Anyway, I see this topic is starting to shift towards a political discussion... That is the type of thing that usually makes these thread disappear. But, since everyone is posting their opinion, I might as well state that I am terrified of UHC.

My wife is a manager at a doctors office, and since we live right by the Canadian border, she does get to see first hand the number of Canadian citizens that come here and pay to be treated. I think I'll end up writing a blog tonight on my website about the subject rather than posting anymore about it on these boards.

Lee H

Pash wrote:

You guys don't pay stupid amounts of extra tax to cover the expense of your supposedly free health service, only for jobless layabouts or illegal immegrants to choke the system of all its resources.

+2

I personaly would rather all residents of the UK who are unemplyed have a mandatory blood donation imposed onto them, they have all the time in the world to go to the nearest clinic, anyone who doesnt should then get there dole stopped.


Would the majority of Americans prefer a system like ours where as Pash has pointed out is not actually free but it covers everyone including the unemployed and the homless etc..



Lee H

Schluep

I am going to pretend I didn't read any of the political stuff and avoid going there alltogether. I will state however to be clear in the U.S. if someone had an emergency and no health insurance they could walk into any hospital in the Country or call for an ambulence and would be treated as required by law regardless of whether or not they could pay for it. We aren't leaving people to die when they get sick. It is often referred to as "charity care" and the cost is covered by the institution providing the treatment (which is passed on to us through the higher prices for care as a result if you want to get technical).

With Medicare/Medicaid at the Federal level and many SCHIP/CHIPS programs at the State level you essentially have the young (under 1 and the elderly (over 65) covered as well those with low or no income. Approximately 27% of our population are covered under government programs and if there are no changes to the laws this number will continue to rise for the next 15 years as the baby boom generation reaches retirement age.

In 2006 it was estimated that 47 million people (16% of the population) did not have Health Care coverage in the U.S. It is important to look at the breakdown however as this does not mean that 47 million people did not have coverage. It includes people that changed jobs and therefore got new insurance from their employer during the course of the year and people that switched private insurance companies based upon the way that the numbers were calculated. It also includes a lot of people in their 20's that think they are saving money by not having the insurance that they could be paying for since they are young and healthy (BAD idea, an accident can affect anyone).

The U.S. currently spends more in health care both on a per capita basis and also a GDP basis than any other Country in the world. We are currently at about 17% GDP on healthcare which is which was 2.26 trillion dollars in 2007, or an average of $7,439 per person. The U.S. is currently rated #1 out of all industrialized nations when it comes to responsiveness in the health care system.

The biggest problems with the Health Care System as I see it is that there is little to no focus on preventative care and we are always patching up problems long after they occur. Most people do not take their health seriously when it comes to their daily choices and very few even see their Doctor regularly in order to catch things early. Personally I also would prefer to not have healthcare insurance offered for purchase through employers as it will result in much more competetive rates across the board and a variety of different plans tailored more to a person's needs since it won't be "Plan A" for everyone that works for "Company A." For example, someone with a need for Chiropractic work regularly or who doesn't need many appointments but is concerned about an accident leading to emergency medical expenses could purchase plans specific to their needs which is not the case now since 60% of the Country has their health care coverage through their employer and have their health care plan chosen by their employer as a result. Personally every Doctor/Nurse I know is scared to death of a universal system as we already have a large shortage of nurses and a doctor shortage compared to what is truly needed and a universal system would amplify this greatly making it much harder to get quality care. Anyone in the U.S. can get a Sunday paper or look on job search sites and see the highest percentage available is also in the Medical field, especially when it comes to nursing.

Lee H

Just so I understand it

If someone works for a compnay on like 250k a year, would the company provide health care similar to that of someone in same comapny earning just 50k a year

In UK we pay tax based on our earnings, so someone earning double would pay a lot more tax even though we could be in hospital next to each other on the same ward receiving the same level of treatment

Lee H

hypnotoad

It depends on your company and what insurance company they go to. Just because you make 250k or work for a billion-dollar company a year doesn't mean your insurance will be any different than people making 50k a year or working for a million dollar company.

undomiel

Personally I think that if you're making 250k a year then the cost of your health care is not particularly high on your list. Of course, situations may be different on a case by case basis.

HeroPsycho

It actually might. My wife is on Procrit because she's anemic due to complications of her diabetes, but it's generally given to patients doing chemo. Consequently, I've had to fight tooth and nail to get insurance companies to pay for it as I've changed jobs.

That drug is insanely expensive. It's like 4K a pop! If you needed a new vial once a month, that's 48K/yr!

Even if you were making 250K/yr, you'd be surprised how much of that could be eaten by prescriptions or procedures you should have that your insurance might not cover because they're sucky insurance providers.