The post that started this thread was for the director of a county historical society. It required
several years of experience and a high level of professionalism. Health benefits will be included
after successful completion of six months work. This waiting period seems to be imposed, not
by the insurers, but by the employer. To me, such a wait demeans a qualified professional.

I sympathize with small, struggling institutions, but my heart is with the employee. How much
does an institution save by waiting six months to insure someone, and, more importantly, what
happens to that person if they need major health care during the trial period? Any number of
problems could arise that would wipe an uninsured person out. (Members of my own family
recently lost everything, including their home, after a heart attack and five days in the ICU.)

No contributors to this thread should confuse basic health care benefits with getting rich, but as
John Handley said, a group of professionals can and should expect certain things in return for
their education and credentials. Others seem to share the sentiment that, no matter what the
circumstances, doing what I love should be its own reward. In my opinion, proper health care
benefits is a reasonable expectation.

Most of the comments, so far, seem to be from people who have insurance. Is lack of health
care very widespread among my colleagues in the US? Can this information be found in the
A.A.M. salary survey? What percentage of jobs offered through PNP include health benefits? Of
the 1,100 on this list, how many do not have or offer health benefits at your museum? Please
respond off-list.

If health benefits are routinely left out of smaller institutions' compensation plans, perhaps it is
possible for professional organizations, AAM and regionals, to pick up the slack and offer group
health plans. I'm lucky to be insured right now, but I do not know the future. I will pursue this on
behalf of everyone. Thank you for your input. I speak for myself and not my employer.