6 ms·

That would be nice, but as long as healthcare is also tied to employment, it won't happen. Those same people who have their time off eaten up by obligations gen

by glesica 13y ago

That would be nice, but as long as healthcare is also tied to employment, it won't happen. Those same people who have their time off eaten up by obligations generally can't afford to be without health insurance for two weeks every few months. Additionally, they can't justify paying for private health insurance when their employer forces them to accept its own coverage (and won't give them the cash equivalent). Also, I think that while "contract" employment is nice for programmers, there are a large number of jobs (majority?) for which that simply doesn't make much sense because it increases training costs for employers. It is still, to this day, very common for employers to look for employees who plan to stick around for awhile. They want the best of both worlds, basically, long-term employees who can be laid off at a moment's notice.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Unless Obamacare eliminated COBRA (haven't checked but I doubt it), you get to keep your health insurance for 1 year after you leave a job. The out of pocket cost is 101% of what your employer paid. So basically, this is only a problem if you want a 13 month vacation.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  COBRA still exists and it is good that it does, but it doesn't address this situation. COBRA exists to give people a safety net between full-time jobs. In the context of the original argument, COBRA is somewhat part of the problem because it too is tied into the world view of people having full-time jobs with employer-provided healthcare insurance. If you're a contractor who is working in 3-6 months contracts you very likely aren't going to have employer health insurance coverage to begin with (thus COBRA doesn't apply to you) and will need to have your own individual plan... which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan would because of economies of scale and our steadfast refusal to make real changes to the way healthcare insurance works in the US.
  - timr 13y ago
    "your own individual plan... which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan" I don't disagree with your greater point about the US system, but my experience is that ACA individual policies were about the same cost as what I can purchase as an (admittedly very small) employer. If you buy an ACA plan, you're in a much larger risk pool than any individual employer can provide.
    - georgemcbay 13y ago
      I believe you're right and I didn't make my reasoning clear in my original post, but in the case of employee-provided healthcare insurance it is common (though not universal, YMMV especially based on company size) for the employer to cover some portion of the actual per-employee cost which means a lower out of pocket cost for the employee (though not the employer). This is another aspect of our current system that has some negative side effects -- a lot of people don't realize what the actual overall cost of their healthcare insurance is. I currently pay $46 per two-week pay period for good single-person PPO coverage (of course the actual cost to the employer is significantly more), so $92 a month. That cost becomes my mental baseline for insurance, and then I go look at the cost of ACA plans which apparently average $328 and that seems insane, over 3x the cost!!! Thanks, Obama!!! (of course, it isn't really more, the overall cost of my prior coverage has just been obscured by the old system where my employer subsidized me).
      - dannypgh 13y ago
        But then your comment reduces to "paying for your own healthcare is more expensive than getting someone else to pay for it for you" or perhaps even "it's nice to have people give you money." Not that it isn't true, mind you, but given all of the policy debate around the ACA that's happening it seems a little unfair to bring the ACA into it at all.
  - RHSeeger 13y ago
    > which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan would To be fair, that's part of why you charge more per hour when contracting than you'd be making as an employee. There's also taxes (that your employer covered but now you do), vacation time, etc. You want to charge an hourly rate as an independent contractor equal to at least what it cost your employer to have you on payroll, not what they actually payed you. The difference is significant.
timr 13y ago
Under the ACA, health care is no longer tied to employment. It's practically the whole point of the individual mandate that is being villianized -- when everyone has to buy insurance, everyone can be placed in the same risk pool, including individual buyers. It's not as sensible a system as single payer, but it's a big step toward making people less dependent on their boss for their health.
- glesica 13y ago
  That doesn't help people who get coverage through an employer though. Sure, maybe they can go buy coverage once they leave their employment, but then they have to get rid of it again once they get another job. What would be nice is if employers would give you the cash in lieu of your benefits, but I've never heard of that being an option.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Employer premiums are pre-tax. Individual premiums are not (unless you happen to be self-employed). Until that stupidity is fixed, "cash in lieu of benefits" ends up costing a lot more, because the employees have to pay taxes on that cash.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      In Switzerland, you buy your health insurance yourself using post tax money (employers can't provide it); like ACA, they can't discriminate for pre existing conditions and it's mandatory to have insurance. Everyone is pretty much on the same footing.
      - eru 13y ago
        Among developed countries, it's mostly just the US that is so crazy.
- lazerwalker 13y ago
  In theory, yes. In practice: I'm on an ACA plan, was formerly on COBRA coverage from my previous employer. Dollar for dollar, an ACA plan with the same monthly premium as my former insurance gets me both a significantly lower level of coverage AND a network that's at most 20% the size of my old PPO plan. On the NY state exchange (I can't speak for other states), there's no way to pay more money for a larger network: every ACA provider in NY offers only an ultra-limited "EPO" network . I believe that 3 out of the 8 providers are even literally the same network, as two of them are licensing their network from the third.
cookiecaper 13y ago
>That would be nice, but as long as healthcare is also tied to employment, it won't happen. Indeed, one should also not depend on their employer to tend to their personal health obligations. Honestly the entire employment model is outmoded, and was never suited to office work. People should stop allowing corporate bigwigs to push them around, and start demanding acceptable working arrangements. Maybe it's just that I'm so personally unemployable for long periods that I've learned to adapt and not rely on a single party for any of these fundamentals. I've never held a "real job" for more than eight months, there's always been some beyond the pale behavior in superiors that's pushed me over the edge and caused me to turn in my resignation. On the other hand, I've had some clients on contract for 4+ years and we continue to get along swimmingly. Things are much less intense for everyone if you don't allow that co-dependence to develop.

by glesica 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Unless Obamacare eliminated COBRA (haven't checked but I doubt it), you get to keep your health insurance for 1 year after you leave a job. The out of pocket cost is 101% of what your employer paid. So basically, this is only a problem if you want a 13 month vacation.

georgemcbay 13y ago
COBRA still exists and it is good that it does, but it doesn't address this situation. COBRA exists to give people a safety net between full-time jobs. In the context of the original argument, COBRA is somewhat part of the problem because it too is tied into the world view of people having full-time jobs with employer-provided healthcare insurance. If you're a contractor who is working in 3-6 months contracts you very likely aren't going to have employer health insurance coverage to begin with (thus COBRA doesn't apply to you) and will need to have your own individual plan... which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan would because of economies of scale and our steadfast refusal to make real changes to the way healthcare insurance works in the US.
- timr 13y ago
  "your own individual plan... which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan" I don't disagree with your greater point about the US system, but my experience is that ACA individual policies were about the same cost as what I can purchase as an (admittedly very small) employer. If you buy an ACA plan, you're in a much larger risk pool than any individual employer can provide.
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    I believe you're right and I didn't make my reasoning clear in my original post, but in the case of employee-provided healthcare insurance it is common (though not universal, YMMV especially based on company size) for the employer to cover some portion of the actual per-employee cost which means a lower out of pocket cost for the employee (though not the employer). This is another aspect of our current system that has some negative side effects -- a lot of people don't realize what the actual overall cost of their healthcare insurance is. I currently pay $46 per two-week pay period for good single-person PPO coverage (of course the actual cost to the employer is significantly more), so $92 a month. That cost becomes my mental baseline for insurance, and then I go look at the cost of ACA plans which apparently average $328 and that seems insane, over 3x the cost!!! Thanks, Obama!!! (of course, it isn't really more, the overall cost of my prior coverage has just been obscured by the old system where my employer subsidized me).
    - dannypgh 13y ago
      But then your comment reduces to "paying for your own healthcare is more expensive than getting someone else to pay for it for you" or perhaps even "it's nice to have people give you money." Not that it isn't true, mind you, but given all of the policy debate around the ACA that's happening it seems a little unfair to bring the ACA into it at all.
- RHSeeger 13y ago
  > which (even with Obamacare in its current state) is going to cost you on average significantly more than an employer offered plan would To be fair, that's part of why you charge more per hour when contracting than you'd be making as an employee. There's also taxes (that your employer covered but now you do), vacation time, etc. You want to charge an hourly rate as an independent contractor equal to at least what it cost your employer to have you on payroll, not what they actually payed you. The difference is significant.

timr 13y ago

Under the ACA, health care is no longer tied to employment. It's practically the whole point of the individual mandate that is being villianized -- when everyone has to buy insurance, everyone can be placed in the same risk pool, including individual buyers. It's not as sensible a system as single payer, but it's a big step toward making people less dependent on their boss for their health.

glesica 13y ago
That doesn't help people who get coverage through an employer though. Sure, maybe they can go buy coverage once they leave their employment, but then they have to get rid of it again once they get another job. What would be nice is if employers would give you the cash in lieu of your benefits, but I've never heard of that being an option.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Employer premiums are pre-tax. Individual premiums are not (unless you happen to be self-employed). Until that stupidity is fixed, "cash in lieu of benefits" ends up costing a lot more, because the employees have to pay taxes on that cash.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    In Switzerland, you buy your health insurance yourself using post tax money (employers can't provide it); like ACA, they can't discriminate for pre existing conditions and it's mandatory to have insurance. Everyone is pretty much on the same footing.
    - eru 13y ago
      Among developed countries, it's mostly just the US that is so crazy.
lazerwalker 13y ago
In theory, yes. In practice: I'm on an ACA plan, was formerly on COBRA coverage from my previous employer. Dollar for dollar, an ACA plan with the same monthly premium as my former insurance gets me both a significantly lower level of coverage AND a network that's at most 20% the size of my old PPO plan. On the NY state exchange (I can't speak for other states), there's no way to pay more money for a larger network: every ACA provider in NY offers only an ultra-limited "EPO" network . I believe that 3 out of the 8 providers are even literally the same network, as two of them are licensing their network from the third.

cookiecaper 13y ago

>That would be nice, but as long as healthcare is also tied to employment, it won't happen. Indeed, one should also not depend on their employer to tend to their personal health obligations. Honestly the entire employment model is outmoded, and was never suited to office work. People should stop allowing corporate bigwigs to push them around, and start demanding acceptable working arrangements. Maybe it's just that I'm so personally unemployable for long periods that I've learned to adapt and not rely on a single party for any of these fundamentals. I've never held a "real job" for more than eight months, there's always been some beyond the pale behavior in superiors that's pushed me over the edge and caused me to turn in my resignation. On the other hand, I've had some clients on contract for 4+ years and we continue to get along swimmingly. Things are much less intense for everyone if you don't allow that co-dependence to develop.