An Ohio company advertised a job that included health benefits. At the interview they said they would give details after starting the job. Prior to starting employee asked for health care plan details. Employer said they could not give those out ahead of time. On day one, details were requested by the employee. Employer said they could not give details until the 90 day probation period was over. After being on the job for a week and repeated questions from the employee, the employer provided costs on the plan. Family coverage is $800 and the employer picks up $150 for a net of $650. Oh yea, one more thing. The net employee cost of $650, is the same price like coverage cost at full price from idependant sources. It that illegal or just unethical? :eek: :mad: :confused:

While I think it is totally bizarre that the employer said they couldn't give out details of their group health plan in advance, you did elect to accept the job offer without this information. In hindsight, that appears to have been a poor decision.

Family coverage is $800 and the employer picks up $150 for a net of $650. Oh yea, one more thing. The net employee cost of $650, is the same price like coverage cost at full price from idependant sources. It that illegal or just unethical? Neither. An employer's premiums are based in part on the claims the employer's employees have made. If the claims losses have been high, naturally the employer's premiums are going to be higher than equivalent coverage elsewhere. If you can get a better deal from another source, then go for it. There is no "universal pricing" for medical insurance.

Poor choice indeed, but what about intent to mislead? I know intent is difficult to prove. If there was intent, which it seems there was, it is likely a pattern and not an issolated occurance. Would intent make any difference here?