Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I totally agree that employment should be made easier. For example things like health care and 401k should be handled by the employee instead of the employer. It would also be nice if there were pension funds that are open to everyone instead of just employees of one company or government.

But the trend to just relieve employers of the "burden" without giving more power to the employee is wrong too. For example each state or the whole country should be one risk pool where everyone can buy in. Same for 401k, disability and others. A lot of tax deductions should be moved from employer to employee.

We have to be really careful not to end up with a market where employers have all the power and the rest are just day laborers without any rights.

Or, you know, we could have a solid European-style social safety net where benefits aren't linked to employment AND the individual doesn't have to be an expert to handle their own benefits.

That would impinge on a lot of "freedoms".

Or so the mythology goes.

The US is too big, has too many states and is more diverse, therefore it's impossible to learn from others :)

Right. "The big engine that couldn't" excuse.

I got it! You’re right; America is a big place. It’s hard to conceive of all that mass at once. But is a state too big? I mean, most are much smaller than the largest of the rest of the developed world which has been treating healthcare as a citizen’s right for decades on end, and saving billions in the process. If you do that thing in that one state 50 times over, once for each of the other states, each using their own resources, you have the equivalency of the whole big entire America. Not even kidding. This is legitimate mathematics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication I also know how to program computers but that’s for another day.

EDIT: I thought about it some more and realized how big California is. As far as California goes, I think you’re actually right. California is just simply too big. I haven’t worked out an algorithm for it yet. That will require probably a whole city of computer scientists to work that one out.

The emphasis on choice and freedoms in the US is often good in principle, but imo has been abused in too many ways to justify some truly horrible policy decisions.

Like what freedom? The freedom to choose between health insurance and rent?

> AND the individual doesn't have to be an expert to handle their own benefits.

Not only do they not "have to be an expert", the individual does not even get a choice in the matter.

Are you a Christian Scientist, and do not use health services? Do you want to prioritize school tuition over retirement? Retirement over health insurance?

Not to worry citizen. Your older brother has made the optimal choices for you so you don't have to

Things like 401k and healthcare are extremely complex, and that naturally means that the system is better run by a few specific people on behalf of a large number of people. Even though my healthcare is managed by my employer, it's still a remarkable pain in the ass for the parts that I have to manage myself.

That doesn't have to be the employer, but if I had to choose between putting that burden on the employer and putting it on the employee, I would put it on the employer in a heartbeat.

I think this is a better argument for why it makes sense to nationalize healthcare and relieve employers of that burden too.

I had private health insurance in Germany and it was super easy. It makes no sense to let the employer handle it. If your car insurance was bought by your employer it would also probably be a super complex beast because the party that pays and the party that uses it have different agendas.

Health insurance plans in Germany must be much simpler then.

I don't know if you've looked at health insurance plans in the US, but picking one (whether private or company-administered) is a pain, and understanding the nuances that differentiate your options is a pain.

That's where regulation helps that defines minimum standards so you know that the plan is reasonable when you buy it. A lot of US plans seem to be designed so they don't have to pay when the patient gets sick.

I wonder about healthcare a lot. It seems to me the people who actually have the ability to vote with their wallet invariably get good health insurance through their employer. Surely this must do something to inflate prices.

I think views on healthcare would change rapidly if employers were prohibited from providing it as a benefit and all people had to get it privately. Even if employers raised salaries in accordance the shock people would have seeing the full cost of insurance would stir discontent.

The answer as others have pointed out is obvious. Medicare for All is something every business owner should support to simplify their own lives. (Ignoring that it’s just good business decision for “USA, Inc.” since it’ll save the country money.)

>people would have seeing the full cost of insurance would stir discontent

I'm not sure. Maybe health insurance tends to be fully paid for by many Bay Area companies, but the overall trend seems to be for it to be much more of a split between employer and employee. It's still often a significant benefit but the employee-paid share is still significant enough that most people make deliberate decisions among available plans.

fwiw there is a thing called "SIMPLE IRA" in the USA that is very easy to administer. It involves little more than the process of taking some $ from each paycheck, adding up across all employees every month and mailing a check to that amount to Charles Schwab. Employees get to decide how to invest the money. The tax benefit is much the same as a full-blown 401(k).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com