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

The rising cost of health care.

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
Register   Log in
H

Hawkered

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Posts
496
No retirement age, rising obesity, pill popping nation.

How much is employee paid healthcare? Should we contract individually with a health insurance provider? Are high risk categories in non-scheduled operations making it harder for the rest of us to bargain for reasonable health care and life insurance?

What will it take (another Lear that crashes in downtown LA, not Mexico?), before we finally bring about mandatory retirement?

Discuss.
 
I agree, anybody under 50 should now have a mandatory retirement age of 65. Those over 50 are "grandfathered". Get it? Grandfathered! That's a joke!

Your obviously young and therefore don't have the wisdom to know what is best for you.

Discuss.....

(Your just gonna keep on crying until you get your way I guess?)
 
Semore Butts said:
I agree, anybody under 50 should now have a mandatory retirement age of 65. Those over 50 are "grandfathered". Get it? Grandfathered! That's a joke!

Your obviously young and therefore don't have the wisdom to know what is best for you.

Discuss.....

(Your just gonna keep on crying until you get your way I guess?)
Click to expand...

You don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".

It just must be you're generation.

I will take the mandatory retirement offer.
 
Last edited:
Hawkered said:
No retirement age, rising obesity, pill popping nation.

How much is employee paid healthcare? Should we contract individually with a health insurance provider? Are high risk categories in non-scheduled operations making it harder for the rest of us to bargain for reasonable health care and life insurance?

What will it take (another Lear that crashes in downtown LA, not Mexico?), before we finally bring about mandatory retirement?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying at all. I will not provide the details of how it's done at NJA, except to say that we do not contribute to the higher costs of health insurance providers.

As far as rates with insurance carriers being high for everyone because of high-risk individuals who may use the insurance more, I doubt the category of "high-risk pilots" amounts to a pimple on a rat's a$$ as far as making a difference in premiums. Since most health insurance providers cater to a national base, and not just small groups such as pilots, you'd have to be pointing the finger at the entire population of this country, not just pilots.

If you cut high-risk pilots out of the equation altogether, I highly doubt you'd see the cost of insurance premiums come down at all. Now if you'd cut out ALL the high-risk people across the country, maybe the premiums would be a little more affordable.
 
realityman said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying at all. I will not provide the details of how it's done at NJA, except to say that we do not contribute to the higher costs of health insurance providers.

As far as rates with insurance carriers being high for everyone because of high-risk individuals who may use the insurance more, I doubt the category of "high-risk pilots" amounts to a pimple on a rat's a$$ as far as making a difference in premiums. Since most health insurance providers cater to a national base, and not just small groups such as pilots, you'd have to be pointing the finger at the entire population of this country, not just pilots.

If you cut high-risk pilots out of the equation altogether, I highly doubt you'd see the cost of insurance premiums come down at all. Now if you'd cut out ALL the high-risk people across the country, maybe the premiums would be a little more affordable.
Click to expand...

You're right to a certain extent, but the specific employee group does contribute greatly to the setting of premiums as follows-
Age plays a large role in how much you shell out for health insurance each month. If your company employs a lot of older people -- say, late 40s or early 50s -- chances are your policy is more expensive than a company that hires a lot of college graduates, says Edward Kaplan of Segal Co., a human resources consulting firm.

Your company's claim history is also important in determining rates. If the company employs a lot of older males, premiums will likely be higher since this population is prone to more cancer diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes and heart attacks. On the other hand, companies with lot of women in their 20s and 30s will also pay more due to maternity and childcare costs.

Location is also important. For example, a hospital bill in New York City is much more expensive than other towns and states.​

​
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/26/pf/group_health_insurance_top_tips/index.htm

The efficient use of insurance by the employee group affects rates greatly. Insurance isn't free, no matter what spouses may think. If the children are taken to a doctor every time they get a sniffle, the rates are going to go up. It would be far better to feed them Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup and orange juice and tell 'em to gut it out.

Most ailments can be cured with time, soup, and orange juice...doctors are not needed in most cases. Also, the employees without children subsidize those that do. Not saying that it is bad, but it is a fact.
 
CE750Driver said:
You don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".

It just must be you're generation.

I will take the mandatory retirement offer.
Click to expand...

"your" joking here, right? If so, "you're" funny-bone is subtle & well developed indeed....
 
Hawkered said:
What will it take (another Lear that crashes in downtown LA, not Mexico?), before we finally bring about mandatory retirement?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Seems this is overstating the problem a little....Have the results of the investigation come in yet? Just don't see the jets falling out of the sky anytime soon for this perceived problem. Where was the other guy for example. If it's a fully qualified crew, then one half of it passing should not doom the plane automatically....

I wonder how many of us who are calling for "old" guys to move over will actually feel about this when it comes around to them?
 
Last edited:
realityman said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying at all.

As far as rates with insurance carriers being high for everyone because of high-risk individuals who may use the insurance more, I doubt the category of "high-risk pilots" amounts to a pimple on a rat's a$$ as far as making a difference in premiums. Since most health insurance providers cater to a national base, and not just small groups such as pilots, you'd have to be pointing the finger at the entire population of this country, not just pilots.
Click to expand...
Agreed; not sure what hawker meant by this his/her post. But I wouild think a group of over 65 age flying pilots with a first class medical are a much better health risk than the rest of the population at that same age. Again we almost no history of in-flight incapation with over 65 pilots.
 
pilotyip said:
Agreed; not sure what hawker meant by this his/her post. But I wouild think a group of over 65 age flying pilots with a first class medical are a much better health risk than the rest of the population at that same age. Again we almost no history of in-flight incapation with over 65 pilots.
Click to expand...


You're right Yip. With my "favorite" 73-year-old FO, the INCAPACITATION is pretty much constant and not limited to just in-flight.
 
pilotyip said:
Agreed; not sure what hawker meant by this his/her post. But I wouild think a group of over 65 age flying pilots with a first class medical are a much better health risk than the rest of the population at that same age. Again we almost no history of in-flight incapation with over 65 pilots.
Click to expand...

Reference?

What is the basis for this statement? Where is your data?

Or is this just more boomer, "Do as I say not as I do-just believe me!"?
 
Hawkered said:
Reference?

What is the basis for this statement? Where is your data?

Or is this just more boomer, "Do as I say not as I do-just believe me!"?
Click to expand...



Without any reference to my data just common sense pilots of any age are probably healthier overall simply because he or she is participating in physical evaluations whereas the general population in the US(males) never see a doctor unless he is half dead. As far as obesity the US is one of three of the most obese countries in the world behind England and Mexico. The US is catching up fast because we prefer to be number one in everything.
 
I see no evidence that pilots are healthier than the general population. In fact, there are, many doctors that don't do a proper physical for fear of losing clients to other AME's. We hear it all the time of people with disqualifying conditions going to see doctors sometimes hundreds of miles away to get a "clean" medical.
 
Hawkered said:
I see no evidence that pilots are healthier than the general population. In fact, there are, many doctors that don't do a proper physical for fear of losing clients to other AME's. We hear it all the time of people with disqualifying conditions going to see doctors sometimes hundreds of miles away to get a "clean" medical.
Click to expand...

Although you are undoubtedly correct about how some doctors behave, I disagree with your general conclusion. When pilots become less healthy, they tend to lose their medicals. Therefore pilots, by virtue of weeding out the less healthy, are certainly healthier than the general population. Also, we tend to lead healthier lifestyles because we know we have to pass a physical every 6 months or so. This is why we can get life insurance at normal rates even though we are more likely to die in an accident than a secretary, for instance. I used to be a life insurance agent, so I got my data from that experience. Cheers!
 
Hawkered said:
No retirement age, rising obesity, pill popping nation.

How much is employee paid healthcare? Obvously, it varries from company to company. Should we contract individually with a health insurance provider? That seems like a personal decision to me. Go for it if you think you can do better on your own. Are high risk categories in non-scheduled operations making it harder for the rest of us to bargain for reasonable health care and life insurance? Other than not having a retirement age for pilots, what in the world are you talking about? Are you suggesting scheduled air carriers don't have the same types of higher risk employees?

What will it take (another Lear that crashes in downtown LA, not Mexico?), before we finally bring about mandatory retirement? Do you have one shred of evidence indicating the advanced age of one of the pilots contributed to the crash, or are you suggesting they were obese pill poppers?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Hawkered,

What are you getting at? I can't follow this sentance fragment followed by these seemingly random nonsensical questions. Other than you wanting to see a retirement age for pt 91/135 pilots, do you have a point that somehow relates to group health and life insurance rates? If so, spit it out!
 
If we were to move toward a mandatory retirement age for part 91/135 operations why stop there? How about setting the minimum age for entering the field of aviation at 30 y/o and while we are at it, how about no males since we know this group takes more mindless risks. See how silly this sounds?
 
I would be willing to bet that we as a group are less healthy. We eat like crap and have a bad sleep cycle. Why do the cargo guys die young?
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom