4 ms·

The tagline of the article is "But none of the presidential candidates is offering a solution for the growing millions of independent contractors without socia

by snissn 11y ago

The tagline of the article is "But none of the presidential candidates is offering a solution for the growing millions of independent contractors without social safety nets." But Bernie Sanders is running on a platform of single payer healthcare which would provide social safety nets to all people regardless of their employment status.

maxharris 11y ago
Bernie Sanders is also proposing the biggest income tax increases. Two people working non-manager tech jobs would be paying an extra $15-20k per year under Sanders. That's just crushing for people that have done everything right and are trying to save for a downpayment on their first home, for some runway to do a startup, for their children's education, for their retirement, or to help take care of their aging parents. No thanks!
- beat 11y ago
  To be fair, they would also be freed of the health care costs that are currently well above $10k/year for your example couple.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    I wouldn't say well above, but probably 10k or a bit less.
  - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
    That makes sense for people paying for their own insurance on the exchange, but not people at "non-manager tech jobs" at megacorps. They're most likely on the company's group plan, and most of those costs are not seen in the employee's salary.
    - undersuit 11y ago
      They were this year as most everyone should have received a 1095 from their employer.
      - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
        What I mean is that I highly doubt a move to single-payer would involve an instant salary bump equal to the company's expenses to keep me in a health plan.
  - jjtheblunt 11y ago
    I believe your calculation of the healthcare cost for such a couple is something like 10x too high.
  - maxharris 11y ago
    And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Prepare to pay the doctor under the table (at the risk of criminal prosecution), or stand in line until you feel better. If health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. (Unfettered pioneers are left free to pay high prices at first, then economies of scale bring prices on that new innovation to ever-lower levels. Let me count the ways that is not the case in health care today!)
    - lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
      Most consensus is that normal market forces don't work very well for health care for a variety of reasons. Firstly people are notoriously terrible in predicting what coverage they might need (so any choice offered becomes of nebulous utility right off the bat). Secondly, because of the nature of health emergencies, most people are not in a good condition to investigate their options at the time of care. You can spend months researching the optimal smart phone for your budget and use case, you spend the same amount of time on looking into your cancer treatment you'll end up in the same place as Steve Jobs. For the average consumer, demand is very inelastic when it comes to ~not dieing~ and availability of information + expertise to evaluate said information is sparse. Single payer is the far more efficient solution for everyone except the middle men profiting off the current system.
    - bubtubgub 11y ago
      > And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Why would nationalized healthcare prevent the opening of private clinics? > health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. You seem to not realize that some people can't afford food and clothing, forget iphones.
- snissn 11y ago
  And you're stepping into a policy discussion, which is great! And your voice should be heard! My point is that there's an explicit contradiction with reality in the tagline of the article, which I'm finding more and more in various news stories and it's beginning to get on my nerves.
- bubtubgub 11y ago
  > That's just crushing for people that have done everything right and are trying to save for a downpayment on their first home, for some runway to do a startup, for their children's education, for their retirement, or to help take care of their aging parents. No thanks! I don't think you really understand what 'crushing' means. A household of two-well employed adults each making, on average, much more than the median person, having to pay 15-20k more is not 'crushing'. A single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs, barely able to afford food, forget health insurance for herself, if she can get it for her children, while social support is being eroded - that's crushing. The millions of homeless people, including millions of children - that's crushing. The kind of ignorance and egoism that comes with living a cushy life, having no problem with walking over the people below you just so that the softness of your condition isn't threatened is amazing. "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius
  - maxharris 11y ago
    You act as if I am responsible for creating those problems. Did I tell the single mother to have kids? No! (In fact, I've given money recently to Planned Parenthood to preserve her right to choose a better life for herself.) Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No! (In fact, I'm a tireless advocate for reforms to our mental health laws that will returns hundreds of thousands of people back to a state of safety and dignity.) What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck. What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades. All you want is to pile on more rules and schemes that already hold back people that want to make something more of their lives.

by snissn 11y ago

maxharris 11y ago

Bernie Sanders is also proposing the biggest income tax increases. Two people working non-manager tech jobs would be paying an extra $15-20k per year under Sanders. That's just crushing for people that have done everything right and are trying to save for a downpayment on their first home, for some runway to do a startup, for their children's education, for their retirement, or to help take care of their aging parents. No thanks!

beat 11y ago
To be fair, they would also be freed of the health care costs that are currently well above $10k/year for your example couple.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  I wouldn't say well above, but probably 10k or a bit less.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  That makes sense for people paying for their own insurance on the exchange, but not people at "non-manager tech jobs" at megacorps. They're most likely on the company's group plan, and most of those costs are not seen in the employee's salary.
  - undersuit 11y ago
    They were this year as most everyone should have received a 1095 from their employer.
    - koenigdavidmj 11y ago
      What I mean is that I highly doubt a move to single-payer would involve an instant salary bump equal to the company's expenses to keep me in a health plan.
- jjtheblunt 11y ago
  I believe your calculation of the healthcare cost for such a couple is something like 10x too high.
- maxharris 11y ago
  And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Prepare to pay the doctor under the table (at the risk of criminal prosecution), or stand in line until you feel better. If health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. (Unfettered pioneers are left free to pay high prices at first, then economies of scale bring prices on that new innovation to ever-lower levels. Let me count the ways that is not the case in health care today!)
  - lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
    Most consensus is that normal market forces don't work very well for health care for a variety of reasons. Firstly people are notoriously terrible in predicting what coverage they might need (so any choice offered becomes of nebulous utility right off the bat). Secondly, because of the nature of health emergencies, most people are not in a good condition to investigate their options at the time of care. You can spend months researching the optimal smart phone for your budget and use case, you spend the same amount of time on looking into your cancer treatment you'll end up in the same place as Steve Jobs. For the average consumer, demand is very inelastic when it comes to ~not dieing~ and availability of information + expertise to evaluate said information is sparse. Single payer is the far more efficient solution for everyone except the middle men profiting off the current system.
  - bubtubgub 11y ago
    > And, to be fair, they would also be deprived of the last shred of choice left in health care. Want a second opinion under that system? Why would nationalized healthcare prevent the opening of private clinics? > health care is ever going to be truly available to all, it's going to be through the same means and rules that gave us the iPhone. You seem to not realize that some people can't afford food and clothing, forget iphones.
snissn 11y ago
And you're stepping into a policy discussion, which is great! And your voice should be heard! My point is that there's an explicit contradiction with reality in the tagline of the article, which I'm finding more and more in various news stories and it's beginning to get on my nerves.
bubtubgub 11y ago
> That's just crushing for people that have done everything right and are trying to save for a downpayment on their first home, for some runway to do a startup, for their children's education, for their retirement, or to help take care of their aging parents. No thanks! I don't think you really understand what 'crushing' means. A household of two-well employed adults each making, on average, much more than the median person, having to pay 15-20k more is not 'crushing'. A single mother working 2 minimum wage jobs, barely able to afford food, forget health insurance for herself, if she can get it for her children, while social support is being eroded - that's crushing. The millions of homeless people, including millions of children - that's crushing. The kind of ignorance and egoism that comes with living a cushy life, having no problem with walking over the people below you just so that the softness of your condition isn't threatened is amazing. "In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius
- maxharris 11y ago
  You act as if I am responsible for creating those problems. Did I tell the single mother to have kids? No! (In fact, I've given money recently to Planned Parenthood to preserve her right to choose a better life for herself.) Half of people you label as "homeless" are in that state because of severe mental illnesses. Did I have _anything_ to do with causing anyone's schizophrenia? No! (In fact, I'm a tireless advocate for reforms to our mental health laws that will returns hundreds of thousands of people back to a state of safety and dignity.) What about people that are "homeless" due to domestic violence, or bad luck? Nope, I didn't abuse anyone, and I've never caused anyone to have bad luck. What I am against is a system where people that want to make a better life for themselves are blocked by unjust regulations. Think of someone whose passion is cooking, wants to start a new restaurant, but can't afford to buy $100,000 worth of commercial kitchen equipment required by today's laws. Or someone who wants to braid hair, but has to attend cosmetology school to learn to cut hair. Or someone that wants to work in software, but can't afford to live in the #1 city for it because NIMBYs have made it illegal to build new housing for decades. All you want is to pile on more rules and schemes that already hold back people that want to make something more of their lives.