4 ms·

Benefits only work if there's a large population where the risks can be averaged out. If you let people pick and choose whether they want insurance, people with

Benefits only work if there's a large population where the risks can be averaged out. If you let people pick and choose whether they want insurance, people with known health problems will overwhelmingly want insurance, and the price will be driven up. Really this shouldn't be dealt with at the employer level but by the government - there's a net public good to everyone having guaranteed healthcare, because preventative care avoids larger emergency expenses and allows for more efficient allocation of resources. But instead you get this hyper-individualism where people want to opt into the social contract piecemeal at the time it benefits them, and opt out when it doesn't.

josephcsible 5y ago
I 100% agree that adverse selection is a problem, but the government's rule doesn't really fix it. All that happened is that people with known health problems will look harder for full-time jobs, and healthier people will take the part-time jobs that pay slightly more per hour.
- katbyte 5y ago
  ? If healthcare/benefits is provided by the government from taxes outside of your job then it doesn’t matter if you have a full/part time job?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > If healthcare/benefits is provided by the government from taxes outside of your job But that's not the case today in the US. My point is that the government mandating that full-time jobs provide benefits (which is the case today in the US) doesn't fix the adverse selection problem. All it does is lead to a bunch of jobs right under the cutoff for full-time.
- salawat 5y ago
  The issue there is that that if you divest the employer from the consequences of working conditions, the individual is left carrying the bag. If as an employer you just can't get a break on the rates it costs to insure you, that's a really strong signal you have something wrong. Doing it through the government in theory gives people freedom of moving from employer to employer, but I guarantee you there is some juju that needs characterization in wresting some of the incentive shaping powers of insurers and vesting them in Government.

josephcsible 5y ago

I 100% agree that adverse selection is a problem, but the government's rule doesn't really fix it. All that happened is that people with known health problems will look harder for full-time jobs, and healthier people will take the part-time jobs that pay slightly more per hour.

katbyte 5y ago
? If healthcare/benefits is provided by the government from taxes outside of your job then it doesn’t matter if you have a full/part time job?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > If healthcare/benefits is provided by the government from taxes outside of your job But that's not the case today in the US. My point is that the government mandating that full-time jobs provide benefits (which is the case today in the US) doesn't fix the adverse selection problem. All it does is lead to a bunch of jobs right under the cutoff for full-time.
salawat 5y ago
The issue there is that that if you divest the employer from the consequences of working conditions, the individual is left carrying the bag. If as an employer you just can't get a break on the rates it costs to insure you, that's a really strong signal you have something wrong. Doing it through the government in theory gives people freedom of moving from employer to employer, but I guarantee you there is some juju that needs characterization in wresting some of the incentive shaping powers of insurers and vesting them in Government.