how is it legal for a company to pay 74% of the total premium for a single person,..but NOT even HALF of the premium for an entire family? Because no law prevents it. I know of some employers that pay 100% of the premium for employee group health coverage but none of the additional cost for those who need to add on dependent coverage.
This appears to be discrimination against people who are married with children. But it's not prohibited discrimination. Group health family coverage is far more expensive than employee-only. An employer is free to handle their contribution however they wish.
BTW - Even if the employer is making the same % contribution towards single and family coverage, the dollar amount being paid by the employer for those employees taking family coverage would roughly be four times as much - say $300 vs. $1200. I've had single employees argue that THIS is discriminating against them because the employer is paying far more for employees taking dependent coverage.
This is simply one of those "nobody's happy" issues.
Sounds as though your employer may be making the same $ contribution for everyone, regardless of which type of coverage they require. There are those that would argue that that is the only fair way of doing it. (Naturally, that's not likely to include those who actually take the family coverage.)
