3 ms·

The better questions is do you want to help your neighbours and people in your community who are in such a situation, or do you just say "It's your problem" and

by grecy 7y ago

The better questions is do you want to help your neighbours and people in your community who are in such a situation, or do you just say "It's your problem" and turn a blind eye. What kind of world do you want to live in? Keep in mind you're only one serious medial disaster (massive car crash, cancer, etc.) away from bankruptcy, so it would be extremely quick for the tables to turn. Do some reading into people who were steadfastly against universal healthcare until they had a major medical emergency in their family. It's funny how people need a very personal experience of being on the s--t end of the stick before they want to change how the stick works.

sneak 7y ago
I’m thinking that the best way to help those sorts of people is, when the opportunity exists for one, to choose employers that don’t abuse their potential staff. Not everyone has that choice, of course, but those that do should take it and do everything else possible to disadvantage such abusive organizations. That’s how I choose to help. If everyone with a skilled trade adopts that sort of approach and suggests that others do the same, these kinds of places will eventually go away and their abusive practices with them.
- ianai 7y ago
  Companies can only offer benefits in proportion to their own finances and employees. A company with 5000 employees has much less bargaining power with an insurance company than a 15000 employee business. There’s no need to make moral judgements about the desire of the smaller company to explain why their employees have worse insurance than their smaller size. Now, mind you, we’re all supposed to be staunch capitalists here who prefer a large economy made up of many small, efficient businesses. It’s not always a clear-cut this is better than that choice. Even if you were to have all of the information up front. Which you will not.
rayhendricks 7y ago
This is entirely true. I’d much rather pay 5% more in taxes and have Medicare for all rather than the current system (although Canada/rest of the commonwealth actually spend less per capita with a longer life expectancy), where healthcare pricing is almost entirely opaque. So cool you work at your favorite FANG making 200k/yr + 50k in RSU, but what happens when you get cancer in 2 yrs and they lay you off? Maybe you get unemployment for a year? Then you have to apply for Medicaid and how you don’t die while also losing your house. Your partner/spouse may also lose your healthcare coverage.
guntars 7y ago
Having kids when you're not ready for them and getting cancer or into a car crash are two very different things, I hope you can see that. And if people change their opinions when they end up on the opposite side of the situation, those opinions probably weren't worth much to begin with and will likely change again once things turn around.

by grecy 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

I’m thinking that the best way to help those sorts of people is, when the opportunity exists for one, to choose employers that don’t abuse their potential staff. Not everyone has that choice, of course, but those that do should take it and do everything else possible to disadvantage such abusive organizations. That’s how I choose to help. If everyone with a skilled trade adopts that sort of approach and suggests that others do the same, these kinds of places will eventually go away and their abusive practices with them.

ianai 7y ago
Companies can only offer benefits in proportion to their own finances and employees. A company with 5000 employees has much less bargaining power with an insurance company than a 15000 employee business. There’s no need to make moral judgements about the desire of the smaller company to explain why their employees have worse insurance than their smaller size. Now, mind you, we’re all supposed to be staunch capitalists here who prefer a large economy made up of many small, efficient businesses. It’s not always a clear-cut this is better than that choice. Even if you were to have all of the information up front. Which you will not.

rayhendricks 7y ago

This is entirely true. I’d much rather pay 5% more in taxes and have Medicare for all rather than the current system (although Canada/rest of the commonwealth actually spend less per capita with a longer life expectancy), where healthcare pricing is almost entirely opaque. So cool you work at your favorite FANG making 200k/yr + 50k in RSU, but what happens when you get cancer in 2 yrs and they lay you off? Maybe you get unemployment for a year? Then you have to apply for Medicaid and how you don’t die while also losing your house. Your partner/spouse may also lose your healthcare coverage.

guntars 7y ago

Having kids when you're not ready for them and getting cancer or into a car crash are two very different things, I hope you can see that. And if people change their opinions when they end up on the opposite side of the situation, those opinions probably weren't worth much to begin with and will likely change again once things turn around.