5 ms·

That's historically the way it has been but it's absurd in general. Would you argue the same thing about housing, food, and water (they should all be provided b

That's historically the way it has been but it's absurd in general. Would you argue the same thing about housing, food, and water (they should all be provided by the employer)? Really what we need is an expectation of being able to buy healthcare on our own with regular incomes.

gambiting 9y ago
No, the american approach is beyond absurd. Of course my employer should pay into(government ran) healthcare on my behalf. Of course they should pay into a pension plan. And yes, currently, if I stay beyond my mandated 7.5 hours, my employer has to provide food during that time. My employer also has to provide water during working hours. If my employer asks me to go somewhere on company business, they have to provide housing.
- pc86 9y ago
  I wait with bated breath for the day we can have serious conversations about these topics without these ridiculous posts intentionally misrepresenting the other person's argument.
  - rectang 9y ago
    We can't have a reasonable conversation about it because it's a zero-sum war between labor and capital. It's not possible to decide issues such as benefits on the basis of what's best for the economy because where the benefits come from doesn't have a big macro-economic impact. What this argument is about is who gets how much of the pie.
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Compared to America's current health care regulations it's not zero sum at all.
      - rectang 9y ago
        If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing. The effect will be to lower compensation -- a win for employers, and a loss for workers. That's the lesson of the Gig Economy, perhaps even the primary reason that the Gig Economy is so heavily sold: it is advantageous for employers.
        SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Or it will be replaced by all sorts of alternatives like total market anarchy, fully nationalized healthcare, or some replica of another country's system, all of which would be a big improvement cost-wise.
        pathseeker 9y ago
        >If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing. Citation needed.
- zip1234 9y ago
  You didn't really explain how the American approach was absurd. Also, 7.5 hours seems extremely arbitrary. Why pick that number of hours? Why not 4 hours? Why not 9?
  - gknoy 9y ago
    For non-salary workers, in your "8 hour" work day there is a certain mandated amount of break time. X minutes per Y hours, for example, plus time for lunch. They might have taken 8 hours and subtracted two 15-minute breaks. I'm not sure if the 8 hours is intended to be (8h + X break time), or (8h - X break time); I thought it was the former, but but might be mistaken. That's probably where the GP got their 7.5 from.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      In the USA, there is no federal requirement for break time.
      - gknoy 9y ago
        How true! However, there are some at state levels. For example [0]: (2018) Under California law (which is much more generous to employees than federal law), if you are a non-exempt worker, you are entitled to meal and rest breaks: a 30-minute meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a workday, and 10 minutes breaks for every 4 hours you work For an 8-hour work day, that would yield a 30 minute break + two ten minute ones. 0: https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/ https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    Look at the history of labor and the 40 hour week. You have to pick a standard, otherwise the pick will default to employers who will choose ever increasing hours for a fixed salary. If we pick one together it's easier than standing as a lone worker saying 7.5 is reasonable. Modern civilization has advanced, why should the work week stay at 40 (and eroding in many workplaces in America?)
- pathseeker 9y ago
  No employer pays for food outside of work. The vast majority of employers do not pay for housing. No employers are paying for your water supply at home (unless they are paying for housing). You are confusing employers paying for things that are part of your job and paying for things to cover your entire life. It's ridiculous to tie the latter to your employer because then you have to fear for your life if you lose your job.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    Oh I haven't confused anything. And you seem unaware how nationalised health insurance works - let me explain. Yes, my employer pays into my health insurance. I guess you could say that my health insurance is tied to my work, sure. Except that the crucial difference between what you imagine and what actually happens is that everyone who is a citizen is always covered for everything, always, unconditionally. Even if I lose my job, hey, I don't have to fear for my life because I'm still 100% covered. In fact I could be unemployed, homeless, and yes, you guessed it - I'm still fully covered, and so is everyone else. Same with a pension - everyone will get one, but it's the employer's responsibility to pay into the scheme, not mine - why would it be mine?
chc 9y ago
This is one of those solutions that seems simple and neat, but falls apart on a cursory inspection. For example, it implies that the poor should die of curable illnesses. It also largely ignores the economics of the situation — healthcare is inherently expensive because it involves high technology, high safety standards and lots of training. You can't have it be like food, where people just get it when they want it, because Taco Bell employees don't have to go through a decade of special schooling before they're qualified to work there. Without an individual mandate, an employer mandate or universal coverage, there's no way ordinary people will be able to afford anything beyond the most basic services.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Oh bullshit. Sure, there's a lot of newer tech in medical. But for a ton of routine medicine uses generic drugs, simple testing (scales, blood pressure, simply viewing abnormalities), and cheap care. For "routine medicine" this should be negligible cost - it's only because of systemic garbage I can't just go to the pharmacist and buy metformin without going through a fucking paywall. Sure, I get something weird and/or strange, sure all bets are off.
  - zanny 9y ago
    I'd agree that drugs with almost no overdose risk are stupid to put behind a prescription, but a lot of prescription drugs are dangerous and are only used because the status quo is worse. Even metformin has side effects - you really shouldn't be taking it if you don't need it, and you professionally cannot know if you do. And doctors want annual / quarterly renewals on prescriptions to check if your condition has gotten better or worse in regards to whatever the drugs were treating. Because at the end of the day, if you overdose on something, someone will still call 911, an ambulance will still come haul you to the hospital, and doctors will still spend millions of dollars trying to save your life if they deem it feasible regardless of if you can afford it or not. Unless you have an explicit will saying not to do that. And when you cannot pay your million dollar hospital stay (and the uninsured cannot) the hospital gets to write off the loss and seek recompense from the government anyway. And from the governments perspective, around the world, it is simply cheaper to provide regular and preventative care than to deal with the astronomical higher rate of emergency care people have to get in the US because they cannot afford the cheap routine stuff and instead cost the state life saving procedures instead.

gambiting 9y ago

No, the american approach is beyond absurd. Of course my employer should pay into(government ran) healthcare on my behalf. Of course they should pay into a pension plan. And yes, currently, if I stay beyond my mandated 7.5 hours, my employer has to provide food during that time. My employer also has to provide water during working hours. If my employer asks me to go somewhere on company business, they have to provide housing.

pc86 9y ago
I wait with bated breath for the day we can have serious conversations about these topics without these ridiculous posts intentionally misrepresenting the other person's argument.
- rectang 9y ago
  We can't have a reasonable conversation about it because it's a zero-sum war between labor and capital. It's not possible to decide issues such as benefits on the basis of what's best for the economy because where the benefits come from doesn't have a big macro-economic impact. What this argument is about is who gets how much of the pie.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    Compared to America's current health care regulations it's not zero sum at all.
    - rectang 9y ago
      If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing. The effect will be to lower compensation -- a win for employers, and a loss for workers. That's the lesson of the Gig Economy, perhaps even the primary reason that the Gig Economy is so heavily sold: it is advantageous for employers.
      - SamReidHughes 9y ago
        Or it will be replaced by all sorts of alternatives like total market anarchy, fully nationalized healthcare, or some replica of another country's system, all of which would be a big improvement cost-wise.
      - pathseeker 9y ago
        >If employer-based insurance goes away, it will be replaced with nothing. Citation needed.
zip1234 9y ago
You didn't really explain how the American approach was absurd. Also, 7.5 hours seems extremely arbitrary. Why pick that number of hours? Why not 4 hours? Why not 9?
- gknoy 9y ago
  For non-salary workers, in your "8 hour" work day there is a certain mandated amount of break time. X minutes per Y hours, for example, plus time for lunch. They might have taken 8 hours and subtracted two 15-minute breaks. I'm not sure if the 8 hours is intended to be (8h + X break time), or (8h - X break time); I thought it was the former, but but might be mistaken. That's probably where the GP got their 7.5 from.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    In the USA, there is no federal requirement for break time.
    - gknoy 9y ago
      How true! However, there are some at state levels. For example [0]: (2018) Under California law (which is much more generous to employees than federal law), if you are a non-exempt worker, you are entitled to meal and rest breaks: a 30-minute meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a workday, and 10 minutes breaks for every 4 hours you work For an 8-hour work day, that would yield a 30 minute break + two ten minute ones. 0: https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/ https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Look at the history of labor and the 40 hour week. You have to pick a standard, otherwise the pick will default to employers who will choose ever increasing hours for a fixed salary. If we pick one together it's easier than standing as a lone worker saying 7.5 is reasonable. Modern civilization has advanced, why should the work week stay at 40 (and eroding in many workplaces in America?)
pathseeker 9y ago
No employer pays for food outside of work. The vast majority of employers do not pay for housing. No employers are paying for your water supply at home (unless they are paying for housing). You are confusing employers paying for things that are part of your job and paying for things to cover your entire life. It's ridiculous to tie the latter to your employer because then you have to fear for your life if you lose your job.
- gambiting 9y ago
  Oh I haven't confused anything. And you seem unaware how nationalised health insurance works - let me explain. Yes, my employer pays into my health insurance. I guess you could say that my health insurance is tied to my work, sure. Except that the crucial difference between what you imagine and what actually happens is that everyone who is a citizen is always covered for everything, always, unconditionally. Even if I lose my job, hey, I don't have to fear for my life because I'm still 100% covered. In fact I could be unemployed, homeless, and yes, you guessed it - I'm still fully covered, and so is everyone else. Same with a pension - everyone will get one, but it's the employer's responsibility to pay into the scheme, not mine - why would it be mine?

chc 9y ago

This is one of those solutions that seems simple and neat, but falls apart on a cursory inspection. For example, it implies that the poor should die of curable illnesses. It also largely ignores the economics of the situation — healthcare is inherently expensive because it involves high technology, high safety standards and lots of training. You can't have it be like food, where people just get it when they want it, because Taco Bell employees don't have to go through a decade of special schooling before they're qualified to work there. Without an individual mandate, an employer mandate or universal coverage, there's no way ordinary people will be able to afford anything beyond the most basic services.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
Oh bullshit. Sure, there's a lot of newer tech in medical. But for a ton of routine medicine uses generic drugs, simple testing (scales, blood pressure, simply viewing abnormalities), and cheap care. For "routine medicine" this should be negligible cost - it's only because of systemic garbage I can't just go to the pharmacist and buy metformin without going through a fucking paywall. Sure, I get something weird and/or strange, sure all bets are off.
- zanny 9y ago
  I'd agree that drugs with almost no overdose risk are stupid to put behind a prescription, but a lot of prescription drugs are dangerous and are only used because the status quo is worse. Even metformin has side effects - you really shouldn't be taking it if you don't need it, and you professionally cannot know if you do. And doctors want annual / quarterly renewals on prescriptions to check if your condition has gotten better or worse in regards to whatever the drugs were treating. Because at the end of the day, if you overdose on something, someone will still call 911, an ambulance will still come haul you to the hospital, and doctors will still spend millions of dollars trying to save your life if they deem it feasible regardless of if you can afford it or not. Unless you have an explicit will saying not to do that. And when you cannot pay your million dollar hospital stay (and the uninsured cannot) the hospital gets to write off the loss and seek recompense from the government anyway. And from the governments perspective, around the world, it is simply cheaper to provide regular and preventative care than to deal with the astronomical higher rate of emergency care people have to get in the US because they cannot afford the cheap routine stuff and instead cost the state life saving procedures instead.