4 ms·

> I would have to quit if my company wasnt providing a reasonable medical coverage because these costs can otherwise bankrupt a person in this country Your ins

by zamfi 2y ago

> I would have to quit if my company wasnt providing a reasonable medical coverage because these costs can otherwise bankrupt a person in this country Your insurance would be functionally quite similar if you purchased it in the private market, and its relative cost compared to your company's premiums depends on your age (and smoker status) compared with the average at your company. But the upshot is that your cash compensation is probably quite a lower because your employer is paying for your healthcare bills. This bundling doesn't necessarily serve you or your employer, though if you're an older employee with dependents who are also covered, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents.

pixl97 2y ago
>, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents. And they in reverse benefit from me paying a higher tax bracket because of my higher income. This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. We'd all be better off at the end of the day if healthcare was separated out from work and we'd just pay it out of taxes directly, like every other reasonable country out there.
- zamfi 2y ago
  > This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. ...ooookay? Not sure how to process this defensive take, but at least you make it clear what demographic you belong to. My point was entirely financial: on the (heavily regulated) open market, health insurance for older folks is more expensive than for younger folks, while companies typically pay the same premium for each individual employee regardless of age. I'm not making any claims about whether younger employees benefit from this weird arrangement---which is what you seem to be addressing here---just noting that they would pay less on the open market than their employers are paying on their behalf, while older employees would likely pay more. (I say this as a parent who very much benefits from employer-sponsored healthcare.)

by zamfi 2y ago

pixl97 2y ago

>, you may be benefitting from an implicit subsidy by younger employees without dependents. And they in reverse benefit from me paying a higher tax bracket because of my higher income. This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. We'd all be better off at the end of the day if healthcare was separated out from work and we'd just pay it out of taxes directly, like every other reasonable country out there.

zamfi 2y ago
> This is one of those tradeoffs we all make in a society. ...ooookay? Not sure how to process this defensive take, but at least you make it clear what demographic you belong to. My point was entirely financial: on the (heavily regulated) open market, health insurance for older folks is more expensive than for younger folks, while companies typically pay the same premium for each individual employee regardless of age. I'm not making any claims about whether younger employees benefit from this weird arrangement---which is what you seem to be addressing here---just noting that they would pay less on the open market than their employers are paying on their behalf, while older employees would likely pay more. (I say this as a parent who very much benefits from employer-sponsored healthcare.)