Very very good advice here.

An example of real life topics that SHOULD be used in high school to:

- improve reading and analytical skills (what is a health policy and how do different ones compare;

- basic math skills (what is the cost of a health policy and how does it change as your health does); as well as;

- life situations coming your way (what employment environment are you going to encounter in the next year or two).

This stuff is not rocket science if presented properly.

>>If you're in your early 20s, what's smart is to do what I did: Engage health insurance on your own

Oh you're so old fashioned Amy. It's the era of ObamaCare and that thinking just won't pay off anymore. Individual health insurance for the twenty-something set is now ment to subsidize insurance for the over 60 set (it would be unjust to make those who use heathcare more, pay more for it), and if you just go without, the government will pick up the tab! Embrace the new order!

>>If somebody's great at what they do, won't an employer want to keep them?

Not if they can pay someone to do it for less, like someone without six years worth of raises, who's not incompetent - easy to find with the current unemployment rates. Makes it easy to get rid of the higher cost employees, without actually firing them. Will they be able to collect unemployment I wonder?

Insurers contractually require companies to offer group insurance to every employee, and to not offer incentives for refusing insurance (no extra salary for refusing).

The insurers do this so they get paymentsfor almost all employees, sick or well. They reason correctly that healthier employees would opt out if they could get more salary, leaving only the participation and expenses of the less healthy.

Having the healthy participate lowers the premium per person, making this group insurance seem more competitive, but at the cost of giving the healthy a bad deal. Especially, because those who become quite sick must stop working, and they soon lose all insurance.

Most employees think that their health insurance is free. They don't understand that salary levels are lower to pay for their insurance. The employer writes the check, but the value comes out of the employees production and salary.

If individuals could buy health insurance on the same tax-free basis as employers, employer plans would mostly disappear and salaries would adjust higher to provide the income to buy insurance individually.

Company Paid Health Insurance is Part of Your Salary

"It is completely stupid that healthcare is tied to one's workplace.

I agree. But it's important to remember that healthcare IS tied to your workplace. If you buy healthcare on the individual market you don't get the tax break that you would get when buying it though your employer. Not to mention at most jobs they won't give you a higher salary just because you decline healthcare.

This just sounds like a way for the casino to be able to fire it's employees without just cause, then replace them without having to pay unemployment insurance.

Insurers contractually require companies to offer group insurance to every employee, and to not offer incentives for refusing insurance (no extra salary for refusing).

Yep. I'm in the position where I might as well take my employer's coverage because I won't get anything extra for opting out (and we pay no premiums for single-person coverage anyway -- only families pay "extra").

The other issue is that anyone with a pre-existing condition is often better off with group insurance. I have a harmless "pre-existing condition" that requires no treatment -- but, when I applied for coverage in the individual market after my student health insurance was about to expire, I got denied by several insurers. Large employers rarely do health checks or have exclusions.

But I agree that it sucks having your insurance tied to your employer. I would love it if insurers were able to offer group coverage to localities or something.

On the idea of "term limits" for employees:
1. You're firing your good employees as well as your bad ones. The good ones are the ones who might have been happy staying, but figure if I have to update my resume anyway, I might as well send it over to the Taj Mahal as well.
2. Makes it harder to hire good employees.
3. Bad employees will stick around longer, because their managers will wait until their term is up in two years rather than making the effort to document screw-ups, etc. that is needed to fire a bad employee.
4. It's bad PR. This is the first I've heard of this new casino, and it's the kind of story that makes me less likely to visit this casino next time I'm in A.C.
5. You're leaving yourself open to an age discrimination lawsuit.
6. Lots of extra work for your HR staff.
7. Reduces employee loyalty to zero.
8. Creates a fear-based work environment, with the kind of employees who do everything to the letter of the rulebook, which can result in a poorer experience for guests. For example, you ask your housekeeper for an extra tiny bottle of shampoo. But she's super nervy about having to reapply, and she was only told to put one bottle in each room, so no extra shampoo for you.

And as far as asking for extra salary in lieu of health benefits:
1. Not gonna happen.
2. Companies negotiate a group rate, so even if they agreed to add what they would have spent on your policy to your salary, (which they won't) you would pay more for your individual health plan.

The linked article was very deficient in information. I was curious how the employer arrived at the conclusion that 4-6 year terms would create a more competitive workplace? Are there incentives to being a multi-term employee (beyond being employed)? I thought it strange that an employer would implement 4-6 year terms for low-wage, unskilled workers when I'd bet that the average length of service for such jobs is less than 4-6 years. Would be nice to see some data. We could speculate that imposing a term would encourage existing employees to develop positive relationships with their employer (so they stand-out during the rehire process), but without more information it's difficult to say.

After reading the article, I had the impression it was a fluff piece designed to elicit knee-jerk reactions about the economy and the "poor vs. the wealthy" rather than provide any substantial information about the hiring practices of a large scale employer.

"But it's important to remember that healthcare IS tied to your workplace."

It does not have to be.

I doubt you are going to be able to turn down the insurance for more salary. Even if you can I doubt it will be much. For one, the company gets a lower rate the more people they have on their plan.

When I found that my plan that I was paying $350 on COBRA would be a little over $1000/month once COBRA ran out -- luckly I found a job before it did run out.

My plan at my job is similar. I pay $10/month for employee only insurance. Thus, I would be turning down 11,880$ a year in tax free money.

What about location limits? Kaiser looks like it is only in about 6 states. Let us say I had signed up with the major HMO (not Kaiser) while at my last job. I ended up having to move to get a new job. That HMO is not in the state I currently live in so I would have to go back to get any medical coverage. I would be starting over with a new company - as it so happens I am with the same company though a slightly different plan.

From a lady I dated years ago who worked for that HMO, "If you have any significant costs in the first five or so years they will find a way to drop you. I wouldn't sign up with them." That HMO is highly rated.

One does want to avoid the extremes. I know one company that hires nearly all of its employees as "temps", i.e., with very limited contract times. And re-hires them as needed.

The reason the company does this is to avoid paying benefits. If you are a temp, you have to right to any sort of pension plan, nor to unemployment insurance, nor to any other benefits of real employees.

This lack of commitment to the employees results, quite obviously, in a lack of commitment *by* the employees. They view the company only as a place to get a paycheck while they look for a better place to work.

This is *not* how intelligent managers run a company...

They're going to get poor quality of service. This is a place that just wants cheap, temporary employees. Good employees aren't going to be "excited" about re-applying every few years. Good employees are going to look elsewhere.

Which is fine. They'll be like the place a_random_guy wrote about above me. Not every place needs to be a high-quality place. There's room in the world for crappy budget places too.

Another question I had was where the idea of "no benefits offered" came from. I looked at the casino's job listing page, and there were several positions that offered benefits.