4 ms·

Corporate regulatory capture.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
And the institutionalization and legal enshrining[1] of work ethic. Basically the two tier healthcare system has a legal basis for it's existence and structural support in the form of economic incentives to continue in perpetuity, and sustain itself. This is going to seem either extremely obvious or completely bonkers depending on your point of view. so it makes an interesting scissor statement. Furthermore one component of the system is the foundational belief that "work is virtuous," and healthcare is a boon based in reaping rewards of that virtue. 1. I wanted to say legalization. It's the right word, but it has the wrong meaning.
- db48x 3y ago
  That’s not quite true. It is true that we often see work as virtuous, but it’s not enshrined in law. It’s just a side effect that health insurance (not health _care_, just health _insurance_) is a perk offered by your employer. During WWII, Congress enacted price and wage controls that have caused us a lot of problems. With millions of men out of the labor force (because they were conscripted), and no way to compete with other employers by raising salaries, employers started offering perks instead. Things like tipping in restaurants and health insurance paid for by your employer became common and eventually ubiquitous. Before WWII, only a few percent of the population used health insurance. Everyone paid for health care out of pocket, and overall it was such a low percentage of people’s incomes that nobody worried much about it. You could trivially compare prices between doctors, for one thing.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Yep, we're all well aware of the origins of employer healthcare in the United States. However, I don't want to confuse the etiology of employer healthcare and the social reproduction of employer healthcare as it exists today. In other words, just because a thing has an origin, doesn't mean that the original cause continues to exist nor can we avoid examining proximal causes. I'm a bit confused what you meant by "it's not enshrined in law." I think we both agree that there doesn't exist a statement of law like "Employer healthcare is a benefit of virtuous employment." Rather, the motivating factors for the ACA compliance[1] are congruent in the minds of a contingent with the idea that a work ethic justifies rewards. There are many such programs that are congruent with work ethic such as Earned Income Tax Credit(EITC)[2], unemployment benefit requirements(looking for work[3]), and FMLA requirements(work >12 months)[4]. I want to be transparent and stress that this is much more in line with a critical analysis of the US legal code and policy than a logical argument, and carries with it all of the nuance and assumptions that any critical legal analysis does. 1. "ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time employees (or the equivalent in part-time employees) must provide health insurance to 95% of their full-time employees or pay a penalty to the IRS." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-my-employer-required-to-provide-health-care.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-my-employer-requi... 2. "Encouraging work" https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/29/earned-income-tax-credit-encouraging-work-boosting-incomes-and-reducing-poverty https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/29/earned-... 3. https://www.usa.gov/unemployment-benefits https://www.usa.gov/unemployment-benefits 4. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla

And the institutionalization and legal enshrining[1] of work ethic. Basically the two tier healthcare system has a legal basis for it's existence and structural support in the form of economic incentives to continue in perpetuity, and sustain itself. This is going to seem either extremely obvious or completely bonkers depending on your point of view. so it makes an interesting scissor statement. Furthermore one component of the system is the foundational belief that "work is virtuous," and healthcare is a boon based in reaping rewards of that virtue. 1. I wanted to say legalization. It's the right word, but it has the wrong meaning.

db48x 3y ago
That’s not quite true. It is true that we often see work as virtuous, but it’s not enshrined in law. It’s just a side effect that health insurance (not health _care_, just health _insurance_) is a perk offered by your employer. During WWII, Congress enacted price and wage controls that have caused us a lot of problems. With millions of men out of the labor force (because they were conscripted), and no way to compete with other employers by raising salaries, employers started offering perks instead. Things like tipping in restaurants and health insurance paid for by your employer became common and eventually ubiquitous. Before WWII, only a few percent of the population used health insurance. Everyone paid for health care out of pocket, and overall it was such a low percentage of people’s incomes that nobody worried much about it. You could trivially compare prices between doctors, for one thing.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Yep, we're all well aware of the origins of employer healthcare in the United States. However, I don't want to confuse the etiology of employer healthcare and the social reproduction of employer healthcare as it exists today. In other words, just because a thing has an origin, doesn't mean that the original cause continues to exist nor can we avoid examining proximal causes. I'm a bit confused what you meant by "it's not enshrined in law." I think we both agree that there doesn't exist a statement of law like "Employer healthcare is a benefit of virtuous employment." Rather, the motivating factors for the ACA compliance[1] are congruent in the minds of a contingent with the idea that a work ethic justifies rewards. There are many such programs that are congruent with work ethic such as Earned Income Tax Credit(EITC)[2], unemployment benefit requirements(looking for work[3]), and FMLA requirements(work >12 months)[4]. I want to be transparent and stress that this is much more in line with a critical analysis of the US legal code and policy than a logical argument, and carries with it all of the nuance and assumptions that any critical legal analysis does. 1. "ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time employees (or the equivalent in part-time employees) must provide health insurance to 95% of their full-time employees or pay a penalty to the IRS." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-my-employer-required-to-provide-health-care.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-my-employer-requi... 2. "Encouraging work" https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/29/earned-income-tax-credit-encouraging-work-boosting-incomes-and-reducing-poverty https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/29/earned-... 3. https://www.usa.gov/unemployment-benefits https://www.usa.gov/unemployment-benefits 4. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla