Your Employer is Betting on Your Health and Life..CRAZY

[kayla9170]

If corporations are providing and/or paying a portion of their employees health insurance AND in turn buying a Dead Peasants policy on the same employees...what is their REAL incentive to ensure that their employee stay healthy??

Think about it...seriously....the employer pays (in part) the health insurance company. When a person get ill, let's say with a illness like cancer, normally the health insurance companies pick and choose which treatments a patient can use. So, let's say the treatment is expensive. They have an agreement in advance (remember the employees' health insurance policy is negotiated with the Human Resources/CEO departments and the insurer. As far as I know, the employee is not a part of these "discussions" every year....right?

So, what if certain "treatments", "medications", etc are denied, based upon the "agreement" between the employer/health insurance corporation. In the SAME TIME, your employer hold a "Peasants" policy, in the event of you untimely death.

This is CRAZY, SCARY and gives us as American citizens ANOTHER reason to have REAL, PUBLIC OPINION health care reform now and to demand a end to so called "Dead Peasants" corporate life insurance policies. Like Michael Moore said in his film, Time To Start A Revolution!!!!

Monica

[Ian David]

1. Is there anything stopping employees from taking out Dead Boss Policies? n/t

[RB TexLa]

6. No there isn't and an employee can claim a legitimate financial interest in their

CEO's life.

[Ian David]

7. Then that's something I think I will do next time. n/t

[laughingliberal]

2. If all the employees pooled their resources and took out a big policy...

they could split it up in the event of his/her death and take a nice vacation for...er...bereavement

[Ian David]

9. Or use the money to buy the company. n/t

[Obamanaut]

3. Not really new. Race horses have been insured, movie studios

insured performers, brides insure weddings against bad weather - people have insured stuff for a long time.

[Jeep789]

5. You are not supposed to be able to insure someone or

something unless the person or things demise would impact you financially. An employee's death does not normally create a financial hardship to the company. Most employees are rather easily replaced.

[Obamanaut]

8. Here is a link to a DU thread from a few days ago. It has a wealth

of information. It really isn't all that hard to take out an insurance policy on an employee.

Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8677479

[Jeep789]

10. Those are basic company expenses and don't add up

to what they are insuring employees for. Why are you trying to justify their attempt to profit over death?

[Obamanaut]

11. I just edited the post you responded to. I'm not trying to justify anytning,

merely pointing out how it can be justified. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm retired, and have never owned a business.

It can be done. It has been done for years. It is still being done. Whether or not you, or anyone, thinks it is wrong/right/neither doesn't change any of that. It is there.

And you are correct, those are basic expenses, and if there is an insurance policy in place to pay for those expenses, it's like, well, a windfall. A windfall that was planned.

[Brickbat]

4. Employees who're represented by a union have a say in discussions about what gets covered. It's part

of negotiations. Just sayin'.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. This isn't 'coverage'. The only entity to see the check

is the company and in many cases, it is a former employee they are collecting on. All while taking a tax deduction on the cost of the premiums.

Read up on it a bit before coming to such a rash conclusion.

[Brickbat]

14. Was the "rash conclusion" directed at me?

I'm confused. :shrug:

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Yes, it was. Read up.

[Brickbat]

16. My response was only to a very small part of what the OP was addressing; namely, this part:

...remember the employees' health insurance policy is negotiated with the Human Resources/CEO departments and the insurer. As far as I know, the employee is not a part of these "discussions" every year....right?

That's all.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. Google 'dead peasant insurance' then get back to me.

This has nothing to do with employee benefits.

[Brickbat]

18. Right...which is why I pointed out that I was responding to only the tiniest of tangents on the OP's

point.

*Backs away*

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. Which if you had the reading level of a 6th grader...

Dead peasant insurance has nothing to do with unions. It also is not an option. It is something a company takes out on an employee for the tax benefit and the profit motive without said employee's knowledge or consent.

[Brickbat]

20. Do you talk to people like that in real life?

I was commenting on coverage in general. The OP was saying something about how employees aren't ever around when coverage was decided upon. And I was saying that yes, in union negotiations, reps ARE there when coverage is decided upon -- NOT NECESSARILY dead peasant insurance, but other coverage. That was my point.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. When the topic is apples and they want to argue oranges, yes.

[Brickbat]

22. Edited.

nt

[Deja Q]

13. That's been going on for rather a long time. It was mentioned in the media a couple years ago, too.

I wholly agree. Especially for business cost concerns as GM and others kept whining about insurance costs, let's move forward. Really move forward.