goingflying
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Posts
- 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Jet Blue benefits, healthcare cost?
- Thread starter goingflying
- Start date
- Watchers 20
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
Like most jobs rising health care cost is a big issue at JetBlue. We are no worse or no better than most companies as far as cost sharing goes and it isn't pretty. Some pay less than we do and in some cases a lot less. Others pay more, sometimes a lot more. If you compare us only to other airlines we're probably a little worse than most. Compared to all big companies we're probably in the middle of the pack. Any moment now someone will post anecdotal evidence of how little someone else has to pay somewhere else and how screwed up B6 is. It certainly could be better. No question. However, we aren't really any different from most places to work.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but as I recall the plan most people pick costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 per paycheck for a family plan. There's also copays and deductables involved. If you have a family member with ongoing medical issues you're going to spend some money. For normal preventative medicine, injuries, colds, flu etc it's not too bad.
In short it's not horrible, but it isn't good either. YMMV.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but as I recall the plan most people pick costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 per paycheck for a family plan. There's also copays and deductables involved. If you have a family member with ongoing medical issues you're going to spend some money. For normal preventative medicine, injuries, colds, flu etc it's not too bad.
In short it's not horrible, but it isn't good either. YMMV.
johnsonrod
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Posts
- 4,218
Who cares? It's just a matter of time. Thanks to Barry Obama, we'll all be standing in lines outside our local hospitals praying that at least one bed is left unoccupied. JB won't subidize you as their healthcare costs escalate - it will just be easier to pay the fine and let everyone roll-off onto the Government list (watch out for the DEATH PANELS!). There won't be any more waivers (like the one McDonalds and Boeing just got) left. But at least Obama supports the unions....
Have fun with that...
Have fun with that...
How much was fine before? Was it zero? Were employers required to provide insurance?
So... the fine was zero, and they were not required to provide insurance, and your argument is valid how????
You really are not very smart are you.
Hair-on-Fire
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Posts
- 614
Was thinking the same thing.
Splert
PoipuBayResort15thTBox
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,188
Get used to it.
When the Government controls the health care dollar the these issues become political footballs.
Arizona just like all other state are downing in Medicaid (not medicare) mandates from the Feds. Obamacare just made it worse with the State responisbile for buying in residents within 300% of the poverty level into the Medicaid program
So when the budget is underwater what do your want to cut?
Remember there are no greedy insurance companies driving up the costs in Medicaid program.
You make the call.
Floatplane
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Posts
- 224
I'll bite! It's expensive and you will have to be very educated if you ever need to use it. Jetblue likes to stall, withhold, and delay any type of expense they can. Benefits are no exception. Expect to pay $380/month for the family plan. It will give you deductibles of $2000 in-network and $4000 out of network. If you have an OJI you will fight for every penny and even then you might not get paid what you are owed. I know of several pilots that are out on medical for one reason or another and they are having a hard time getting paid by the company. This is a big issue and the juicers either don't care or are just not educated about what a big issue this can become. STD and LTD are truly lacking at B6 and need to be addressed yesterday. I understand the climate the country is in with regard to healthcare issues, but in my opinion B6 is not living up to it's "caring" value on these issues.
Blue Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Posts
- 848
A related problem right now is that you only get med benefits at the contract rate for six months on disability, and for another 12 months at the COBRA rate. If you're still on disability after that, you and your family are cut off. Unsat. If you die, your family is cut off. Really unsat. And can't fix any of this "without giving it to everyone" so progress is slow. What the hey, it's only our lives and families, it can wait.
Dave's kid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Posts
- 119
I'm not sure which plan you're looking at. The plan with the 2000/4000 deductibles is $283/month. And how is STD lacking other than an OJI hole? I know several pilots that got sick and got paid, no trouble at all. I can't speak to the LTD, I don't know anyone on it.
We have 4 plans. Ranging from the high deductable/low family premium at $54/month. To a low deductable/copay/high family premium at $566/month. The $566/month plan will cost you $20/office visit with a yearly family max of $2000.
Medicaid is underfunded. Not that it has high overhead expenses. The problem at its core is that too many jobs/companies pay near poverty wages with no health benefits.
You can say that they should get a better job, but it won't fix anything. There are only so many good jobs, and companies have been dropping health coverage (or hiring part time to avoid insurance premiums for years). Even if they get a better job, there will ALWAYS be a large portion of the populace that has a crap job.
Companies have been dropping coverage for years, because the penalty was ZERO and they had no requirement to provide it anyway. Anyone that parrots the Glenn Beck talking point about the fine being less than the insurance is an ignorant sheep.
johnsonrod
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Posts
- 4,218
Glad to hear you have a PhD from Harvard and you decided to become a regional pilot. Great career plan.
If you open up healthcare to everyone whether they can pay or not, it is not inconceivable that the overall standard of healthcare will go down. We don't have the facilities to handle much more of an increase in patient volume. So, rationing will become more popular - get used to that word: RATIONING. Why are Canadians still coming to the US for surgeries? Why? But they have freeeeeee healthcare - right? Were you aware that the recently named Medicare Czar has written academic papers about the value of rationing? Perhaps you bumped into him at Harvard.
Have you seen the current condition of our hospitals? In many cases the beds are ALREADY full. What will happen when you add more people to the mix who can come in as often as they like? I have unfortunately had personal experience with this as a relative was told that all beds were full despite the fact that she was very sick and needed hospital care - she was forced to sit in a waiting room (slumped in her chair). That was a terrible experience and nobody seemed to care at the time... How is Obamacare going to help her when she needs timely care?
Another point (sorry for being off topic), why is it that we can buy car insurance across state lines but not health insurance? Just think about that - thiiiiiiiiiiiiink about it. Wouldn't competition across state lines bring the cost of health insurance down? Seems to work for car insurance. But Obama and his Democratic buddies refuse to consider that basic economic point. It is not on the table. Instead, Obama wants to force everyone to buy health insurance without considering less forceful measures. I agree that we need to work-in pre-existing conditions - there should be no descrimination, but rates will still likely climb for everyone as a result.
Another point: tort refrom has not taken place due to Obama's love affair with the legal community (ability to limit lawsuit awards that force doctors to over-prescribe super-expensive therapies and tests to reduce legal liability). Obama's head of Health and Human Services (Sebilius?) was the former head of the Tort Lobby in either Kansas or Missouri - wow, BIG SURPRISE.
So, we don't have the infrastructure to handle a huge influx (30 million people) of new patients with unlimited healthcare (perhaps we should cap at 20 visits per month to the hospital), the overall healthcare standard we all enjoy will go down, and Obamacare does nothing to address the escalating cost of healthcare - it only adds to the overall cost by adding 30 million more people.
Yet another point, have you noticed that many doctors are now refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid in certain states because the reimbursement rate is declining? Their legal bills are up (due to lawsuits - frivilous and otherwise) and they can't afford lower rates when expected to pay all of their bills. So, how will people be able to keep their old doctors (per Obama's explicit promise) if their doctors won't accept declining reimbursement rates?????????????????????????
So, it would be no surprise if Jet Blue or other large organizations force employees to go to the Government program if the cost of keeping health insurance far exceeded the fine for pushing employees to the list. Remember, JB is a business, and if profits are declining due to increasing health costs, something will be done. McDonalds and Boeing were recently granted waivers - but why should they if this is such a good program???? Why should employers be burdened with healthcare costs anyway? Why can't people get a tax break for paying for their own healthcare? There are a lot of questions that Obama will refuse to acknowledge.
Rant over. Regardless, good luck with your application to JB - just don't expect any healthcare coverage to stick forever unless major policy changes take place down the road.
Happy holidays to everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
The fine does not matter. There was NO fine before, and companies were dropping coverage. Why is your friend more important to receive care than someone else? What makes her so special, or more special than someone who has lost their job (and health care)?
This healthcare insurance across state lines is misleading. The exchange being developed will allow you to buy insurance from many states, in fact, any state as long as the company provides coverage at minimum levels. Even now, the insurance company does not have to reside or be headquartered in the state you buy it in. Most states do require minimum coverage levels and some limit the companies that are offered in number, but not location of headquarters.
The fundamental argument is not that you can't buy health insurance from another state, it is that you can't buy cheap (covers nothing, excludes everything) insurance coverage from a state with little or no coverage requirements. Insurance companies would love to offer plans that sound good, but have so many exclusions in coverage and loopholes in coverage that they can offer them cheap and still not pay much in claims. In this case, some people who have no ability to afford anything but terrible coverage (and no help to pay for anything better than terrible coverage) will buy it. But when they actually get sick, they will either be not covered for their illness or they will dramatically under covered. They will still be wiped out financially or not get the treatment they thought they would get. There must be minimum coverage levels of health insurance. For instance, if a low income person does not feel quite right, and their Walmart policy does not cover the office visit or test they need (and they can't pay out of pocket), they will likely bypass the test (because they have no way to pay for it), only to find out later that it was a cancer or disease that could have been beaten or cost effectively treated if only it had been caught sooner.
You can argue that it was their choice to not be treated, but if you have no money (or appropriate coverage), there is no choice. As long as a company offers a plan that meets the minimum coverage levels, they can compete on the exchange, regardless of what state they are headquartered in. Now of course you will point out requirements for something you think is unnecessary, such as mental illness. You will say how it is a bureaucratic mandate that makes insurance expensive and you will never use. Truth is, insurance companies know you have a .00023% chance of needing mental health (or other supposed frivolous coverage) and they price that risk accordingly and raise the premium 12 cents per person per premium year.
You see, not every Fox News talking point is as simple as they would have you believe ("buy insurance across state lines").
Now in reality, there is no less efficient way to pay for health care than through 1300 private health insurance companies. And understand that health insurance provides no health care. They simply are a funding mechansim, in fact a disastrously wasteful (and inefficient) funding mechanism. This is the part where you shout the conservative talk radio talking point about private insurance profit margin only being 2%! You're so predictable... While that may be the case, their total overhead is roughly 25-27 percent. For every one hundred dollars of premiums taken in, health insurance companies pay out 73-75 dollars in benefits!
The rest pays for executive comp, armies of lawyers, armies of lobbyists, office buildings, payroll for employees, benefits for employees, sales commissions, advertising, profit, and much much more. We literally give health insurance companies OUR money in the form of premiums (their only source of revenue) and they in return give us back 73-75% of OUR money in the form of payments to doctors and pharmacies, that is if they don't deny your claim for some loophole or rule it a preexisting condition.
In contrast, Medicare has a total overhead of 1-2 percent. For every 100 dollars that goes into the medicare system, 98-99 dollars goes to doctors and pharmacies. It is the most efficient way to pay for health care in the country. Virtually no loss of OUR money.
Now you will predictably remind me of Medicares financial state, before taking a moment to think about it. If you pondered for a moment, you would understand that Medicare is underfunded, NOT inefficient. Why is Medicare's budget such a mess? Three primary reasons that I can think of.
1. Who does medicare cover compared to private insurance? Answer: our oldest and most disabled citizens. It is well known that most people consume more health care dollars in their last year or two than in their whole lifetimes combined.
2. Medicare is underfunded from its source. Health care costs rise much faster than inflation, yet our payroll deductions for Medicare have not increased at the rate of health care costs. Not to mention our population is getting older with more people on the plan and less working (which affects funding, but does not make Medicare inefficient (98-99% efficiency)).
3. Health care costs rising rapidly. Self explanatory. However, for those that complain that Medicare reimbursements are to low, remember that raising them means we all pay MORE in taxes to cover outrageous drug costs and 300 dollar hospital tissue boxes! Furthermore, those that cheer-lead for private insurance because of the higher reimbursements need to fully understand that YOU are paying for those higher reimbursements directly through your paycheck. ALL of those higher reimbursements must be recouped by the insurance company, and they have only ONE source of revenue, premiums. Here you might be tempted to tell me how you don't pay for it, your employer does. Wrong again. You pay ALL of your health insurance premiums out of your salary. Your employer considers all you benefit costs when contract time comes, and we have all been witness to raises that were not offered or were less than they otherwise would have been because of rising health care costs. Every dollar paid by an employer in insurance premiums is another dollar no longer available to your paycheck. Ultimately, you pay it, but at least you get 73-75% of it back!
"health insurance companies only have a 1-2% profit margin" Conservative talking point holds NO water, and is intentionally misleading to manipulate the listener by diverting attention from inefficient and unnecessary overhead.
I think their is definitely some common ground to be found on tort reform. But medical liability is not important to most people until they are the victim of carelessness. So a balanced approach is required.
The U.S. spends about two times as much of its GDP on health care compared to every other industrialized nation. That is not two times the money, it is two times the percentage of our economy. If it was simply two times the money, some could argue that it is function of our wealth (supposed), but it literally soaks up twice as much of our economy as a percentage, and is not healthy for our country.
The rest pays for executive comp, armies of lawyers, armies of lobbyists, office buildings, payroll for employees, benefits for employees, sales commissions, advertising, profit, and much much more. We literally give health insurance companies OUR money in the form of premiums (their only source of revenue) and they in return give us back 73-75% of OUR money in the form of payments to doctors and pharmacies, that is if they don't deny your claim for some loophole or rule it a preexisting condition.
In contrast, Medicare has a total overhead of 1-2 percent. For every 100 dollars that goes into the medicare system, 98-99 dollars goes to doctors and pharmacies. It is the most efficient way to pay for health care in the country. Virtually no loss of OUR money.
Now you will predictably remind me of Medicares financial state, before taking a moment to think about it. If you pondered for a moment, you would understand that Medicare is underfunded, NOT inefficient. Why is Medicare's budget such a mess? Three primary reasons that I can think of.
1. Who does medicare cover compared to private insurance? Answer: our oldest and most disabled citizens. It is well known that most people consume more health care dollars in their last year or two than in their whole lifetimes combined.
2. Medicare is underfunded from its source. Health care costs rise much faster than inflation, yet our payroll deductions for Medicare have not increased at the rate of health care costs. Not to mention our population is getting older with more people on the plan and less working (which affects funding, but does not make Medicare inefficient (98-99% efficiency)).
3. Health care costs rising rapidly. Self explanatory. However, for those that complain that Medicare reimbursements are to low, remember that raising them means we all pay MORE in taxes to cover outrageous drug costs and 300 dollar hospital tissue boxes! Furthermore, those that cheer-lead for private insurance because of the higher reimbursements need to fully understand that YOU are paying for those higher reimbursements directly through your paycheck. ALL of those higher reimbursements must be recouped by the insurance company, and they have only ONE source of revenue, premiums. Here you might be tempted to tell me how you don't pay for it, your employer does. Wrong again. You pay ALL of your health insurance premiums out of your salary. Your employer considers all you benefit costs when contract time comes, and we have all been witness to raises that were not offered or were less than they otherwise would have been because of rising health care costs. Every dollar paid by an employer in insurance premiums is another dollar no longer available to your paycheck. Ultimately, you pay it, but at least you get 73-75% of it back!
"health insurance companies only have a 1-2% profit margin" Conservative talking point holds NO water, and is intentionally misleading to manipulate the listener by diverting attention from inefficient and unnecessary overhead.
I think their is definitely some common ground to be found on tort reform. But medical liability is not important to most people until they are the victim of carelessness. So a balanced approach is required.
The U.S. spends about two times as much of its GDP on health care compared to every other industrialized nation. That is not two times the money, it is two times the percentage of our economy. If it was simply two times the money, some could argue that it is function of our wealth (supposed), but it literally soaks up twice as much of our economy as a percentage, and is not healthy for our country.
By the way, much of the estimations I gave were confirmed by a professor of health care economics for the University of Minnesota. What is interesting is that he was the health care adviser to John McCain during his 08 presidential run. I had a long conversation with him one night recently and he confirmed everything I said. His only response in opposition was "death panels and government control".
I guess you can have all the "facts" in the world and still be blinded by ideology.
So, by your logic, we should further restrict health care to 40% or 50%, I don't know, you apparently get to decide who is worthy to see a doctor when they are sick. If we just restrict health services further, surely we can increase the OVERALL standard! Good idea right?
johnsonrod
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Posts
- 4,218
Thank you for your extremely articulate and well-thought-out responses. Actually, I like my healthcare the way it is right now - although I think health insurance should be a personal tax write-off instead of a corporate burden. That is a huge point that seems to be ignored.... Why?
Instead of writing out another thesis, I'll agree to disagree with many of your assertions and I will point out the following:
1. Obamacare does very little to address the actual cost of healthcare delivery (no real cost containment effort beyond reducing doctors' reimbursement rates via "capitation" even though doctor costs continue to rise...). We could very well end up with lower quality doctors because the profit-potential in certain areas like Family Practice just won't be there. Say hello to your imported Romanian doctor or a Physician's Assistant with no MD degree.
2. Obamacare adds tremendous complexity to healthcare and most large organizations (according to a WSJ article last week - which I am sure you have read) are hiring expensive consultants and lawyers to help them ensure compliance with the 2,000+ page bill. Why so much complexity and so many new regulations? Complexity and the resulting fear of non-compliance penalties could convince companies to drop their workers from their own sponsored health plans... I would rather just pay any fine and allow others to deal with the complexity if I were in charge.
3. Creating another HUGE entitlement that we cannot afford will likely result in what we are seeing in Europe - bursting budgets and huge deficits leading to bankruptcy and painful government austerity programs. The European way of doing things for citizens clearly does NOT work well and adding this entitlement will only bring us closer to the European reality. The US will become the next Greece or Ireland. And with this new, huge entitlement we will also get mediocre, rationed healthcare to boot (because we can't afford to write blank checks for unlimited care)... Sounds great.
So, there you have it. You have some good points but I'll agree to disagree in general. That's ok because all have our own political perspective.
How about we get back to our original programming for everyone's sake? Back to our airline discussions.
Happy holidays!
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
