Once again - presenting the information in this format makes it very hard to understand how people answered. A bar chart would be better.

I'm fortunate to have an employer that takes care of its employees and has many programs that help to promote an active and healthy lifestyle. In the long run, that helps to reduce the costs it has to pay for the coverage.

0-29% employee only

Since a high percentage of people in the US have addictions to medications, drugs, alcohol, etc. Would it not be practical to offer better benefits for this type of IP or OP care? I know it's a personal issue and it's up to the individual to get help but I've been in this situation w/ a family member and it can depend if insurance will cover the cost or not as to where they get help. Some facilities are better than others and this is very costly.

You need to have a finer breakdown of the 0% to 29% category. An employee that makes $24,000 and pays 100% of their $400 monthly premium would be paying 20% of gross income.

Approximately 15% of my salary goes toward the cost of my insurance;this doesn't cover co pays, medication costs, or deductibles. As a single parent this is a burden and absolutely ridiculous. Neither myself nor my daughter use even a portion of what I pay in. Why does the cost have to be so ludicrous? Out of pocket costs for a regular visit do not justify such an exorbitant amount. I am only paying for the chance that myself or child is seriously injured or gravely ill. Even then, coverage could be denied. Sounds like a twisted system in and of itself.