3 ms·

> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if th

> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". > Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care. Yeah, that's true in most if not all countries with universal healthcare. Of course, as someone else alluded to, it's a difficult distinction to make. I don't care about the mole on my face but a mole might legitimately effect someone else's mental health.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way. What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever. If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision. It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage. Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start). And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).

nobodyandproud 5y ago

> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way. What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever. If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision. It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage. Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.

jfrunyon 5y ago
I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start). And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).