3 ms·

> Most of us dont have jobs that afford us competent healthcare. Is this true? I hear people say things like this but "most"? Seems too high.

cheeko1234 8y ago
Most might be a bit of an exaggeration but retail & food service industry definitely changed the way they operate just to avoid providing healthcare. >A June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hund...
- Spivak 8y ago
  I really have to wonder why this wasn't accounted for in the ACA. Like what business isn't going to decide if the administrative overhead of having more employees is less than the cost of providing healthcare and act accordingly? Would it have been that hard to require health insurance contributions in proportion to the employee's percentage FTE? Then it would actually be cheaper for businesses to hire full-time and someone working 40hr/wk at multiple jobs gets the same benefit as a salaried employee.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    If we want to do something meaningful we would make it so nobody gets insurance from their employer. I don't like my insurance, in a competitive market the insurance I want would only be slightly cheaper - but I don't actually have that option because I would be throwing $1000/month (nobody will tell me the real numbers, but it is in that range) that my employer contributes away. Those who can only work fast food will never have it easy, but as you point out making them work less hours isn't going to help them.
chrisbennet 8y ago
Seem correct. I know my health care would have doubled this year from $800/mo to $1544/mo so I found another plan at the same price as the old one but it covers much less.
- diminoten 8y ago
  I guess I see stuff like this: > The percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2016 was 91.2 percent, higher than the rate in 2015 (90.9 percent). And I wonder if, while still very important, people take debates like healthcare and needlessly inflate the numbers to overemphasize the problem's impact.
malvosenior 8y ago
I think it's true. Even a lot of tech companies won't cover you 100% if you have a family. For a family of 4, you're looking at $2,000 a month. Often the employer will pay half of that.
mamoswined 8y ago
With the rise of contracting in IT, I think more and more people have crappy insurance. I didn't realize how bad it would be when I started contracting last year. The agency I was at only gave it after 90 days and it was $450 a month for a pretty high deductible ($3000) plan as a single person with no dependents. I ended up going back to full time and a major reason was the healthcare.

cheeko1234 8y ago

Most might be a bit of an exaggeration but retail & food service industry definitely changed the way they operate just to avoid providing healthcare. >A June 2016 study determined that 500,000 workers in the retail, hospitality and food service sectors were forced involuntarily into part-time employment as companies sought to circumvent the employer mandate https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hundreds-of-thousands-of-full-time-jobs-to-avoid-obamacare-mandate-2017-11-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/businesses-eliminated-hund...

Spivak 8y ago
I really have to wonder why this wasn't accounted for in the ACA. Like what business isn't going to decide if the administrative overhead of having more employees is less than the cost of providing healthcare and act accordingly? Would it have been that hard to require health insurance contributions in proportion to the employee's percentage FTE? Then it would actually be cheaper for businesses to hire full-time and someone working 40hr/wk at multiple jobs gets the same benefit as a salaried employee.
- bluGill 8y ago
  If we want to do something meaningful we would make it so nobody gets insurance from their employer. I don't like my insurance, in a competitive market the insurance I want would only be slightly cheaper - but I don't actually have that option because I would be throwing $1000/month (nobody will tell me the real numbers, but it is in that range) that my employer contributes away. Those who can only work fast food will never have it easy, but as you point out making them work less hours isn't going to help them.

chrisbennet 8y ago

Seem correct. I know my health care would have doubled this year from $800/mo to $1544/mo so I found another plan at the same price as the old one but it covers much less.

diminoten 8y ago
I guess I see stuff like this: > The percentage of people with health insurance coverage for all or part of 2016 was 91.2 percent, higher than the rate in 2015 (90.9 percent). And I wonder if, while still very important, people take debates like healthcare and needlessly inflate the numbers to overemphasize the problem's impact.

malvosenior 8y ago

I think it's true. Even a lot of tech companies won't cover you 100% if you have a family. For a family of 4, you're looking at $2,000 a month. Often the employer will pay half of that.

mamoswined 8y ago

With the rise of contracting in IT, I think more and more people have crappy insurance. I didn't realize how bad it would be when I started contracting last year. The agency I was at only gave it after 90 days and it was $450 a month for a pretty high deductible ($3000) plan as a single person with no dependents. I ended up going back to full time and a major reason was the healthcare.