Just to be clear: I'm assuming you're employed with traditional benefits, so your husband is on your insurance et. al.? Is "you have to have a spouse with a tr

Just to be clear: I'm assuming you're employed with traditional benefits, so your husband is on your insurance et. al.? Is "you have to have a spouse with a traditional job" really what you imagine "the way Uber was originally envisioned?" That seems to be sorta missing the point. People don't want "Uber to BE a full-time job", they just want it to be possible for it to replace one. > I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here. Really what this is proof of is that employer benefits are a fundamentally broken idea. Employers will always, ALWAYS find ways to cheat their way around providing them when they can. Regulation will always be catching up. Back in 2009, I thought the hippies were crazy to be staking so much on their failed quest for a public option in the ACA. Now? Sign me up as a M4A proponent. The system's just broken.