4 ms·

Wait a minute. It's for this cases that universal healthcare paid by taxes exists. I wouldn't blame it on your boss or Amazon. It's the USA. A person should n

Wait a minute. It's for this cases that universal healthcare paid by taxes exists. I wouldn't blame it on your boss or Amazon. It's the USA. A person should not depend on money or productivity to be cured. And a company should not be liable to spend $300000 an year on a non productive employee. Which btw is about 9 years junior developer gross salary equivalent in Italy.

gruez 5y ago
At $300k/year, I think amazon is more concerned about the salary going towards a non-productive employee, than whatever money they're paying towards his health insurance.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I think amazon is more concerned about the salary going towards a non-productive employee, than whatever money they're paying towards his health insurance. The employee was concerned about costs, including uncovered medical costs with insurance [0], which is why they didn't take family leave (which the US federally only guarantees unpaid, and the state the employee was in has no state paid family leave—though both his previous state and the one he declined to move to for the job do have paid family leave.) So, both public health insurance policy and public employee benefits policy in the US, as well as Amazon's particular practices (employees aren't prevented from providing paid leave or reduced demands without a mandate), are involved in this case.
AdrianB1 5y ago
> And a company should not be liable to spend $300000 an year on a non productive employee. Nor the taxpayer. It looks more like insurance than healthcare.
- blocked_again 5y ago
  A good publicly funded health care system essentially work like an insurance.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    OK, give any example of such good public fund. There is none, never was, never will.
    - gkya 5y ago
      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Map_minus_USA.PNG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Map_minus_USA....
javert 5y ago
The current USA healthcare hellscape came as a result of an attempt to implement universal healthcare that was derailed via regulatory capture. It's hard to see how you could implement universal healthcare successfully in country like the US which has third-world standards for corruption and democracy, and low average human capital.
- Igelau 5y ago
  People never forgive you for telling the truth. Those are some salty "I wish they were wrong" downvotes.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
limeblack 5y ago
So you are saying Medicaid/Medicare? Where do you put all your money into a house?
Stampo00 5y ago
They're both at fault since each side expects the other to catch those who fall into this unfortunate situation. The government should provide for people in this situation so that if you lost your job due to the circumstances, it shouldn't be a double-whammy that will sink the rest of your life. In the absence of a government safety net, the company should pick up that slack if they value the employee more than the cost of hiring and training someone new. In fact, it may be in their best interest regardless, because loyalty among your employees is a very expensive asset. If two outfielders are running to catch a fly ball and then both stop at the last second because they each think the other one had it and the ball hits the ground, I'd consider them both at fault.
- darkwizard42 5y ago
  I mean, the government has legislated that full-time employees HAVE to get benefits from the employer... I don't think it is quite a "both at fault" situation because the government can actually change the rules, companies just have to follow them...
refurb 5y ago
Medical bankruptcy is still an issue in places with universal healthcare like Canada. Why? Even if all your bills are paid you still have a mortgage, food, etc. And even if you have long-term disability payments, it’s often some fraction of your existing salary requiring you to keep working to pay all the bills.
- lloydgrossman 5y ago
  that's pretty non-sequitur to the situation at hand to the point of wondering why it's being mentioned.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Why? The grandparent implies that universal healthcare would solve the person's problems. Sure it would solve the issue of health insurance, but I assume the person still needs an income to pay for everything else. So the problem still remains.
- JimTheMan 5y ago
  Medical bills are overwhelmingly huge in the US. Getting rid of them would decrease the problem to simple unemployment. Sure being unpaid for a time is bad, but you won't be massively in the red... And this specific example, the guy is well off. Which if not for medical bills, they'd all be fine. To reword your comment, " Something very bad is happening, but because the remedy wouldn't completely go away it's not worth doing?"
  - refurb 5y ago
    Way to twist my words. I never said it wasn’t worth doing. Grandparent said “this is why universal healthcare exists” and I noted that it wouldn’t solve the problem. Dude still needs a job and his wife still has cancer.

gruez 5y ago

At $300k/year, I think amazon is more concerned about the salary going towards a non-productive employee, than whatever money they're paying towards his health insurance.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I think amazon is more concerned about the salary going towards a non-productive employee, than whatever money they're paying towards his health insurance. The employee was concerned about costs, including uncovered medical costs with insurance [0], which is why they didn't take family leave (which the US federally only guarantees unpaid, and the state the employee was in has no state paid family leave—though both his previous state and the one he declined to move to for the job do have paid family leave.) So, both public health insurance policy and public employee benefits policy in the US, as well as Amazon's particular practices (employees aren't prevented from providing paid leave or reduced demands without a mandate), are involved in this case.

AdrianB1 5y ago

> And a company should not be liable to spend $300000 an year on a non productive employee. Nor the taxpayer. It looks more like insurance than healthcare.

blocked_again 5y ago
A good publicly funded health care system essentially work like an insurance.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  OK, give any example of such good public fund. There is none, never was, never will.
  - gkya 5y ago
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Map_minus_USA.PNG https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Map_minus_USA....

javert 5y ago

The current USA healthcare hellscape came as a result of an attempt to implement universal healthcare that was derailed via regulatory capture. It's hard to see how you could implement universal healthcare successfully in country like the US which has third-world standards for corruption and democracy, and low average human capital.

Igelau 5y ago
People never forgive you for telling the truth. Those are some salty "I wish they were wrong" downvotes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

limeblack 5y ago

So you are saying Medicaid/Medicare? Where do you put all your money into a house?

Stampo00 5y ago

They're both at fault since each side expects the other to catch those who fall into this unfortunate situation. The government should provide for people in this situation so that if you lost your job due to the circumstances, it shouldn't be a double-whammy that will sink the rest of your life. In the absence of a government safety net, the company should pick up that slack if they value the employee more than the cost of hiring and training someone new. In fact, it may be in their best interest regardless, because loyalty among your employees is a very expensive asset. If two outfielders are running to catch a fly ball and then both stop at the last second because they each think the other one had it and the ball hits the ground, I'd consider them both at fault.

darkwizard42 5y ago
I mean, the government has legislated that full-time employees HAVE to get benefits from the employer... I don't think it is quite a "both at fault" situation because the government can actually change the rules, companies just have to follow them...

refurb 5y ago

Medical bankruptcy is still an issue in places with universal healthcare like Canada. Why? Even if all your bills are paid you still have a mortgage, food, etc. And even if you have long-term disability payments, it’s often some fraction of your existing salary requiring you to keep working to pay all the bills.

lloydgrossman 5y ago
that's pretty non-sequitur to the situation at hand to the point of wondering why it's being mentioned.
- refurb 5y ago
  Why? The grandparent implies that universal healthcare would solve the person's problems. Sure it would solve the issue of health insurance, but I assume the person still needs an income to pay for everything else. So the problem still remains.
JimTheMan 5y ago
Medical bills are overwhelmingly huge in the US. Getting rid of them would decrease the problem to simple unemployment. Sure being unpaid for a time is bad, but you won't be massively in the red... And this specific example, the guy is well off. Which if not for medical bills, they'd all be fine. To reword your comment, " Something very bad is happening, but because the remedy wouldn't completely go away it's not worth doing?"
- refurb 5y ago
  Way to twist my words. I never said it wasn’t worth doing. Grandparent said “this is why universal healthcare exists” and I noted that it wouldn’t solve the problem. Dude still needs a job and his wife still has cancer.