3 ms·

>> I'm a bright guy but I don't know how I'd live with the cognitive workload, stress and uncertainty over having to deal with all of this (the networks, the un

>> I'm a bright guy but I don't know how I'd live with the cognitive workload, stress and uncertainty over having to deal with all of this (the networks, the uncertainty over price and bills, the bills coming for weeks and months after care, the myriad involved parties, the rules and limits and interpretations and just... everything). When you have a real issue, it takes hundreds of hours to deal with it. Smart employers know that this eventually comes out of company time and productivity, esp since most of these calls need to take place during business hours. Smart employers will advertise "100% paid health plans, etc, etc." Penny-wise employers, even white-collar jobs/offices, will often provide the bare-minimum coverage, and pretend it has no effect. Except it does. You can see it when your cubicle-neighbor is on a 2hr call with insurance, etc. I've had colleagues who will block a 4hr meeting on their calendar titled "calling insurance companies to figure out bills" as open protest. I've had people in the office just spend a day or two on the phone with doctors' offices, visible, both out of desperation and as a subtle form of protest for the organization's choices in health plans.

kingTug 3y ago
Health insurance tied to employment is the second biggest scam in American history after Reaganomics. It forces people to stay in crappy jobs to maintain coverage and fucks with collective bargaining rights. We need universal, single payer healthcare.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > Health insurance tied to employment is the second biggest scam in American history after Reaganomics. And yet, sadly, even the "liberals" push for tying it to employment.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    Mostly the liberals. In 2008 Mitt Romney pushed for ending the favorable tax treatment of employer-based plans (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2008/oct/2008-presidential-candidates-health-reform-proposals-choices https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...), which was instantly attacked by the left for "taking away your insurance". Then the ACA set up the marketplace for individual plans which was good, but also inexplicably added employer mandates.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      It's the same problem as ending subsidies for higher education and tax deduction of mortgages. In the long run it might be the right thing to do, but in the short term, without offsetting factors, it would cause measurable harm beyond what we should be comfortable tolerating.
- boc 3y ago
  It started as a reaction to a market distortion during/after WWII. There was a government-imposed salary cap during the war (Stabilization Act of 1942), so private companies had to get creative to attract talent. One thing that stuck was offering additional health insurance to employees. The rest is history. Further reading: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamaca...
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    If universal healthcare was adopted during the Truman administration, wonder what employers would move on to as their major bargaining chip to woo talent.

kingTug 3y ago

Health insurance tied to employment is the second biggest scam in American history after Reaganomics. It forces people to stay in crappy jobs to maintain coverage and fucks with collective bargaining rights. We need universal, single payer healthcare.

BeetleB 3y ago
> Health insurance tied to employment is the second biggest scam in American history after Reaganomics. And yet, sadly, even the "liberals" push for tying it to employment.
- orangecat 3y ago
  Mostly the liberals. In 2008 Mitt Romney pushed for ending the favorable tax treatment of employer-based plans (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2008/oct/2008-presidential-candidates-health-reform-proposals-choices https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...), which was instantly attacked by the left for "taking away your insurance". Then the ACA set up the marketplace for individual plans which was good, but also inexplicably added employer mandates.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    It's the same problem as ending subsidies for higher education and tax deduction of mortgages. In the long run it might be the right thing to do, but in the short term, without offsetting factors, it would cause measurable harm beyond what we should be comfortable tolerating.
boc 3y ago
It started as a reaction to a market distortion during/after WWII. There was a government-imposed salary cap during the war (Stabilization Act of 1942), so private companies had to get creative to attract talent. One thing that stuck was offering additional health insurance to employees. The rest is history. Further reading: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamaca...
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  If universal healthcare was adopted during the Truman administration, wonder what employers would move on to as their major bargaining chip to woo talent.