Being Married is a Little Less Advantageous for State Employees

By: Mr. Wilson on July 6, 2007
The State has stopped paying for full health coverage for the 700 married couples who work for the state. It used to be cheaper for the state to pay the entire premium on one policy rather than paying the state's share on two separate policies. Not any more. The state is saving money, and couples and non-couples now receive comparable benefits. I applaud that. I have to admit, though, that I don't really understand how employers decide how much their share of health coverage should be. It seems like it would just be simpler and more equitable to give everybody the same amount to put toward health insurance. Instead, most employers get wrapped up in complicated formulas based on your marriage status, number of kids, and so on. Shouldn't all that complicated stuff be the employee's problem?

Comments

See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

beerorkid
July 6, 2007 at 4:25PM

I am a state employee and my wife almost got a state job.  It would of been sweet till this ruling.
She ended up getting a job with a company contracted by the state and they cover us both free of charge 😊

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.