5 ms·

I choose the work minimally, maybe 2 hours a month for doordash. Can I collect my benefits still?

KMnO4 5y ago
Almost all discussion on this topic suggests a minimum amount of work to qualify.
manigandham 5y ago
There are always basic limits. For example you don't get all of your healthcare coverage or benefits on the first day of your job, and certain things like vacation time are accrued as you work. It's not a complex problem to solve.
d4mi3n 5y ago
I see things like this that seem to me to imply that in order to deserve benefits, someone needs to work. I think a more productive line of debate would be: 1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive? 2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity? 3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)? Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- manigandham 5y ago
  I disagree. The better framing is around choice. In some countries these decisions are made for you and funded through taxes and fees. Other nations require you to plan your own way. The USA leans toward the individual over the state. Certain things like healthcare should be revamped to remove the ties to employers but it's important to keep the prevailing culture in mind. People overwhelmingly still want the ability to choose here - what they lack are the options to choose from.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I strongly disagree that people want to be able to choose healthcare - Americans value the ability to choose their healthcare merely because it's being dolled out by corporations (on all sides - not just the insurers) that are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out. When you're denied choice in American healthcare you get bottom of the barrel service so asking someone to surrender that choice generates a kneejerk response. As an example my grandfather lost his leg to a blood clot due to being sent to an overwhelmed hospital that left him sitting undiagnosed for hours on end - it is easy to read that scenario as being forced into a lack of care, but choices wouldn't help things here. If he had a choice he would have advocated for going to his family doctor first which would have made the situation worse - in all honestly hospital overcrowding and underfunding is the only thing that led to him losing his leg. Healthcare is a sector of the market that most people here (even me - and I work in a company that deals specifically in the US healthcare market) don't have enough knowledge to make intelligent choices in because the knowledge needed to comprehend all the random crap that can go wrong with your body is intensely deep. I also don't think it's far to say the US favors individuals over the state - the US cares very little about individual health. And that's not precisely what you meant when you said it favors individuals over the state but I think it's important to highlight that the situation in the USA is quite detrimental to a lot of individuals.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      I literally explained that healthcare should be separated from corporations and that people are missing options to choose from in the first place. Hospital overcrowding is an entirely different issue. Did you reply just to argue? And yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that. Me having choice does not take away from you, it only provides more for both of us.
      - deanCommie 5y ago
        As someone from a country with Universal Healthcare, I don't understand what "yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my life and needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that." means. And I especially don't understand how it doesn't lead to exactly the problematic outcome we are talking about which is that poor people can't afford access to quality healthcare. You don't "choose" what level of fire department protection you need. How is healthcare different? I suppose you can always hire your own private firefighter/doctor... So long as you give people the choice, and it's based on PERSONAL financial contributions rather than government-organized taxes, those with less means will have less access to a finite set of healthcare resources and result in systemic inequalities. I suppose I can imagine that there is some "ultra deluxe" version of healthcare where instead of crutches you get a wheelchair, and instead of a shared recovery room you get your own, and I do support those with the means to pay extra for something like that. But the baseline HEALTHCARE access part needs to remain the same...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member. Not balancing this means society will go into decline one way or the other. Offering basic levels to society members is health if the society can afford it and allows the society to grow quickie because risk is removed.
  - sethrin 5y ago
    > A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member. This is overly simplistic. Someone providing child or elder care is providing social value in a way which should not be measured against economic measures of production. Life is not an economic zero-sum game.
Futurebot 5y ago
Yes, you should. Everyone should get a home, medical benefits, education, all of it. Period. If you work on top of that, great. If not, OK.
tchalla 5y ago
In your opinion, what “benefits” should someone have when working 2h a month?
- cgrealy 5y ago
  The same as everyone else. You might "work" 2h a month, because you spend the rest of it caring for family members, or maybe you're trying to get that first draft/beta version out the door. Or you might just not want to work. We need to stop assigning so much worth to work. We know automation is coming, and we know that not everyone is going to be able to find work in the future.
  - balfirevic 5y ago
    Not the parent poster, but I'll repeat the question: what benefits do you have in mind? I mean it as a serious question, as it's not clear to me what the difference between benefits and salary is (not being from US). I understand that the health insurance is one of them (and, to be clear, I do believe you should have that whether you work 0 or 100 hours a month). But what are others? Pension contribution is just a part of your salary that you are required by law to put aside. Guaranteed minimum time off comes to mind, but that obviously makes less sense if you are already not working too much. What else?

Almost all discussion on this topic suggests a minimum amount of work to qualify.

There are always basic limits. For example you don't get all of your healthcare coverage or benefits on the first day of your job, and certain things like vacation time are accrued as you work. It's not a complex problem to solve.

d4mi3n 5y ago

I see things like this that seem to me to imply that in order to deserve benefits, someone needs to work. I think a more productive line of debate would be: 1. Do we, as a society, believe we should only care for those who can be productive? 2. Do we, as a society, value things other than productivity? 3. Do we, as a society, believe it is the place of a governing body to ensure a standard quality of life (whatever that standard may be)? Putting barriers around who deserves what doesn't really serve to do much other than exclude people who don't know how to work the system, or those who are unable to work the system.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
manigandham 5y ago
I disagree. The better framing is around choice. In some countries these decisions are made for you and funded through taxes and fees. Other nations require you to plan your own way. The USA leans toward the individual over the state. Certain things like healthcare should be revamped to remove the ties to employers but it's important to keep the prevailing culture in mind. People overwhelmingly still want the ability to choose here - what they lack are the options to choose from.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I strongly disagree that people want to be able to choose healthcare - Americans value the ability to choose their healthcare merely because it's being dolled out by corporations (on all sides - not just the insurers) that are trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out. When you're denied choice in American healthcare you get bottom of the barrel service so asking someone to surrender that choice generates a kneejerk response. As an example my grandfather lost his leg to a blood clot due to being sent to an overwhelmed hospital that left him sitting undiagnosed for hours on end - it is easy to read that scenario as being forced into a lack of care, but choices wouldn't help things here. If he had a choice he would have advocated for going to his family doctor first which would have made the situation worse - in all honestly hospital overcrowding and underfunding is the only thing that led to him losing his leg. Healthcare is a sector of the market that most people here (even me - and I work in a company that deals specifically in the US healthcare market) don't have enough knowledge to make intelligent choices in because the knowledge needed to comprehend all the random crap that can go wrong with your body is intensely deep. I also don't think it's far to say the US favors individuals over the state - the US cares very little about individual health. And that's not precisely what you meant when you said it favors individuals over the state but I think it's important to highlight that the situation in the USA is quite detrimental to a lot of individuals.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    I literally explained that healthcare should be separated from corporations and that people are missing options to choose from in the first place. Hospital overcrowding is an entirely different issue. Did you reply just to argue? And yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that. Me having choice does not take away from you, it only provides more for both of us.
    - deanCommie 5y ago
      As someone from a country with Universal Healthcare, I don't understand what "yes, I do want to choose my healthcare. I want to select the plan that best fits my life and needs. If you want a larger simpler plan that covers everything then you can choose that." means. And I especially don't understand how it doesn't lead to exactly the problematic outcome we are talking about which is that poor people can't afford access to quality healthcare. You don't "choose" what level of fire department protection you need. How is healthcare different? I suppose you can always hire your own private firefighter/doctor... So long as you give people the choice, and it's based on PERSONAL financial contributions rather than government-organized taxes, those with less means will have less access to a finite set of healthcare resources and result in systemic inequalities. I suppose I can imagine that there is some "ultra deluxe" version of healthcare where instead of crutches you get a wheelchair, and instead of a shared recovery room you get your own, and I do support those with the means to pay extra for something like that. But the baseline HEALTHCARE access part needs to remain the same...
ipaddr 5y ago
A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member. Not balancing this means society will go into decline one way or the other. Offering basic levels to society members is health if the society can afford it and allows the society to grow quickie because risk is removed.
- sethrin 5y ago
  > A negative production value society member needs to be carefully balanced against a positive production value society member. This is overly simplistic. Someone providing child or elder care is providing social value in a way which should not be measured against economic measures of production. Life is not an economic zero-sum game.

Futurebot 5y ago

Yes, you should. Everyone should get a home, medical benefits, education, all of it. Period. If you work on top of that, great. If not, OK.

tchalla 5y ago

In your opinion, what “benefits” should someone have when working 2h a month?

cgrealy 5y ago
The same as everyone else. You might "work" 2h a month, because you spend the rest of it caring for family members, or maybe you're trying to get that first draft/beta version out the door. Or you might just not want to work. We need to stop assigning so much worth to work. We know automation is coming, and we know that not everyone is going to be able to find work in the future.
- balfirevic 5y ago
  Not the parent poster, but I'll repeat the question: what benefits do you have in mind? I mean it as a serious question, as it's not clear to me what the difference between benefits and salary is (not being from US). I understand that the health insurance is one of them (and, to be clear, I do believe you should have that whether you work 0 or 100 hours a month). But what are others? Pension contribution is just a part of your salary that you are required by law to put aside. Guaranteed minimum time off comes to mind, but that obviously makes less sense if you are already not working too much. What else?