4 ms·

I wouldn’t call losing your source of income and maybe your health insurance no practical repercussions. I don’t know in which countries you worked but I didn’

• jayd16 2y ago
  Inexplicably linking employment with healthcare seems unrelated to at-will employment.
  • specproc 2y ago
    I can spell it out, if it helps. In a country with exorbitant healthcare costs, it means that leaving your job means that you (and often your family) don't get healthcare.
    • teaearlgraycold 2y ago
      COBRA?
      • rqtwteye 2y ago
        That’s super expensive. ACA is often better but that may change now with the republicans having control of congress.
        • vkou 2y ago
          > That’s super expensive COBRA costs you exactly how much you + your employer were paying for that insurance. It's expensive because your employer's share of insurance was a significant part of your compensation (And because US healthcare costs are pants-on-head insane.) I'll point out that it's generally quite expensive to, like, stop getting paid. Practically, post-ACA, health insurance in the US is about as tied to employment as having a roof over your head and food on your table is. If you don't have employment, or money, you're going to be in trouble - but that's the case with everything you need to live, not just healthcare.
          • ponow 2y ago
            Our regulations (including the medical guild) and legal structure (including crazy malpractice payouts for unintentional mistakes) forces everything to be more expensive than necessary. We are very far from a free market, even if we stopped with the untaxed benefits.
            • rqtwteye 2y ago
              US healthcare is a market but not for patients. Insurance, employers and hospitals negotiate a lot. But people who get employer based insurance just have to accept what they are given. Pretty crazy.
              • naveen99 2y ago
                Don’t most large employers essentially self insure? They only outsource the administration to insurance companies, not the float.
                • rqtwteye 2y ago
                  Sure. The point is that the employer does all the selecting of options and the patient/employer has to take what the employer chose. No market for the patient.
            • BlueTemplar 2y ago
              Aren't healthcare costs in line with the very high US income levels (with people spending a high fraction of their income in it, because they can afford to), and the main issue is inequality (including lack of real insurance)?
            • consteval 2y ago
              We left the free market of healthcare behind because it was awful for consumers. People who were disabled or otherwise had chronic conditions were, more or less, completely screwed. Not to mention these regulations are very much necessary. We want educated and highly certified doctors cutting you up.
      • red-iron-pine 2y ago
        COBRA is an expensive joke
    • kirkules 2y ago
      I'm thinking you misinterpreted the comment you responded to? I read it as saying that you don't necessarily have to have employment linked healthcare just because you have at-will employment. The "inexplicably" being a commentary on the wisdom/sanity/compassion of linking healthcare to employment, rather than a claim that the parent comment had made an inexplicable leap of logic
      • specproc 2y ago
        I very much read it as I responded, and re-reading, still interpret it as such.
        • jayd16 2y ago
          Kirkules is correct.
          • specproc 2y ago
            My apologies, I stand corrected.
      • happymellon 2y ago
        But the discussion wasn't about "generic at-will" employment. It started as "American at-will" employment. > > I have come to the conclusion that the American “at-will” employment model is actually a good thing and benefits workers It may seem like you can just walk away from a job but realistically most people can't.
        • Amezarak 2y ago
          "Most people" are not dependent on health insurance for their average needs, except in the long-term or unexpectedly. Then of course, being unemployed, you have the option of COBRA (you probably don't want that though), and if it does not make you immediately eligible for Medicaid in your state (40 of 50 have Medicaid expansion), it would make you eligible for the ACA subsidized plans. NB: more than one-third of employer-sponsored plans are HDHPs, meaning employees have deductibles in the thousands of dollars anyway. It's certainly a disruption, and it's one more thing to consider, but the idea that "most Americans" are one job loss away from being killed by lack of health care is not remotely true - most people don't need health care that regularly, unemployed people have insurance options, and at a last resort, for the most part, you can accrue unlimited medical debt in most places with few real-world consequences.
  • WalterBright 2y ago
    The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. Therefore, employers include it as a way to increase total compensation at a lower cost. The origin of the practice was in WW2, when Roosevelt froze wages. To attract more and better employees, the companies threw in health insurance as a way around the restrictions.
    • ponow 2y ago
      Thanks for reminding us that state intervention is the source of the problem. Stop linking medical insurance to employment via this tax bigotry. Buy it on the open market instead, or subsidize it if you're a leftist, but don't put that burden on jobs, you'll only get fewer jobs with greater hassle. People can agree to the arrangements they prefer, and it's not for us to second guess that. If there are people who end up coming up short, then you can help them yourself, or force the whole society to chip in (again, if you're a leftist), but don't force such considerations on the fragile links among private individuals and businesses.
    • KptMarchewa 2y ago
      >The reason is explicable - health insurance paid by the employer is tax-deductible, while insurance paid by the employee is not. It would be very easy to reverse, if literally anyone was willing to.
      • jayd16 2y ago
        Hillary was for single payer. Trump ran on repealing even the ACA. I don't think it's as simple as literally anyone.
        • KptMarchewa 2y ago
          I'm not talking about changing the healthcare system entirely, but the tax deduction status.
          • 2y ago
  • TeMPOraL 2y ago
    It is, though, because it kind of transfers most of the power in the relationship to the employer. Without it, I imagine they'd find some other way, or lobby the state away from at-will employment.
• jandrewrogers 2y ago
  America has very low unemployment and median household incomes are among the highest in the world. You get to continue your existing health insurance 18 months after you quit if you wish, you just have to pay for it. Most people can and if you can’t then the government pays for it. While getting terminated is disruptive, it isn’t the end of the world for the typical American. The relative ease with which most people can get another job is also nice. It is an economy that is structured under the assumption that people will move between jobs and minimizes the friction in doing so. I have seen the “having a contract” thing abused many times in many countries in Europe. Thanks, but no thanks. I have had that contract multiple times and I don’t want that contract. That safety blanket comes with heavy chains. I’ve seen those contracts used to stifle far too many employees to condone it, employees deserve better.
  • chimpanzee 2y ago
    While your comment may shed some light on the nuances, gp’s point shouldn’t be disregarded. Losing income and health insurance is in fact amongst the most practical of repercussions one can experience upon losing a job.
    • portaouflop 2y ago
      That this needs to be spelled out just shows that HN operates in an extremely privileged bubble. Some people are aware of it, but most don’t seem to be.
    • Brian_K_White 2y ago
      In what way is losing income from quitting different in at-will vs the article? Losing the income is a consequence, but it's the same consequence in both cases and so is not part of the conversation and silly to mention.
      • chimpanzee 2y ago
        > In what way is losing income from quitting different in at-will vs the article? This question isn’t relevant to the claim that I am responding to. > Losing the income is a consequence, but it's the same consequence in both cases and so is not part of the conversation You’re right that having no income is the same as having no income, and the manner in which it was lost does not matter. But the state of “having no income” does indeed matter. That statement is relevant to this conversation due to gp’s claim that losing income and health insurance are not “practical repercussions” of losing employment. That’s a naïveté that a stable society cannot abide.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]