2 ms·
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, border
by 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 agoIn 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.