3 ms·

Abstracted, I'm not super opinionated about private sector vs public sector health care, but I'm very opinionated about employer provided healthcare being a not

Abstracted, I'm not super opinionated about private sector vs public sector health care, but I'm very opinionated about employer provided healthcare being a not good idea - it turns into a fight where employees have to follow the moral dicta of the employer even if it's not something the employee agrees with, not to mention it's obnoxious to have it change and go through COBRA or exchanges for 3 month shots every time you change jobs. And that it messes up effective cost sharing. Not to mention people who won't change jobs because they're afraid of healthcare changes or losing it. Retirement is similar - retirement benefits are used in manipulative ways by employers to make the labor market less competitive (vesting schedules, match timing and amounts, etc.). And for 401k-style plans, there's no reason your employer should decide for you which terrible high-fee investments you can use.

Avicebron 5y ago
Ok, I see you're point, dealing with the obnoxious employer - healthcare provider package deal that they've come to some agreement with is very annoying, borderline dangerous in the worst case scenario. I guess I'm only opinionated on people being able to receive healthcare, irregardless. Unfortunately I think that if it's not given out by the gov't, it needs to be given out by somebody (e.g. pay the monthly fees per job etc and be able to get something when needed), I just don't think that giving people the extra money and saying "well if you're extra smart, and extra resourceful, you can figure it out actually works"...it's sad, but sometimes the best thing is an inadvertent safety net, even if some people balk at it EDIT: I think retirement is similar, for basically the same reasons, yes, we all want to be the smart free spirited libertarian, but on net..what is this some sort of darwinian contest. boring yawn
- Glyptodon 5y ago
  In the context of this conversation, I'm not intending to suggest that people should be able to not have healthcare or retirement, just that removing them from employers makes it vastly easier to set a wage floor based on a poverty level that can include their costs and that can be full-time/part-time agnostic because there won't be such a thing as "benefits eligibility" based on whether you work 40 hours for a specific employer or not.

Avicebron 5y ago

Ok, I see you're point, dealing with the obnoxious employer - healthcare provider package deal that they've come to some agreement with is very annoying, borderline dangerous in the worst case scenario. I guess I'm only opinionated on people being able to receive healthcare, irregardless. Unfortunately I think that if it's not given out by the gov't, it needs to be given out by somebody (e.g. pay the monthly fees per job etc and be able to get something when needed), I just don't think that giving people the extra money and saying "well if you're extra smart, and extra resourceful, you can figure it out actually works"...it's sad, but sometimes the best thing is an inadvertent safety net, even if some people balk at it EDIT: I think retirement is similar, for basically the same reasons, yes, we all want to be the smart free spirited libertarian, but on net..what is this some sort of darwinian contest. boring yawn

Glyptodon 5y ago
In the context of this conversation, I'm not intending to suggest that people should be able to not have healthcare or retirement, just that removing them from employers makes it vastly easier to set a wage floor based on a poverty level that can include their costs and that can be full-time/part-time agnostic because there won't be such a thing as "benefits eligibility" based on whether you work 40 hours for a specific employer or not.