Benefits dependent on spouse’s employment status

[mazdamarty]

What is the name of your state? Texas

My wife’s current employer is changing their health insurance benefits and their new changes sound discriminatory.

Currently the plan covers the employee and their spouse with equal coverage. The new plan will cover the employee as previously, but the spouse is covered differently, dependent on if they are employed or not. If the spouse can get insurance through their employer, they will only cover something like 40%. If the spouse doesn’t work (ex: upper management’s wives), or can’t get health insurance, they will cover the spouse completely.

Am I wrong or does this sound discriminatory toward people who need to have two incomes to make ends meet? To me this is like saying people with cats get insurance free, people with dogs have to pay for it.

Thanks in advance,
Marty

 

[cbg]

Quite frankly, employers are under no obligation to offer health insurance AT ALL (except in Hawaii) and they certainly are under no obligation to offer health insurance to their employee's families.

The cost of health insurance is rising dramatically and in order to continue offering benefits at all, many employers are having to make this kind of adjustment. Tell me, just exactly why should they be obligated to cover someone not employed by them who has access to other insurance?

This is not illegal discrimination.

 

[mazdamarty]

I’m not disputing their right to not provide insurance. I’m disputing the way they determine who gets what. I guess if it were a case of white people getting insurance and black people not, it would be much easier to dispute their practices.

I guess this type of behavior should have been obvious to me when they decided to cover Viagra but not mammograms.
Thanks,
Marty

 

[cbg]

Since this does not impact on any one protected group, this is legal. It is also becoming quite common.