Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"how horrendously expensive, for employers, health care is."

So why aren't they pushing for abolishing employer-based health insurance? They had no problems getting rid of pensions but for some reason nobody really lobbies for employers to get out of the health care business. The same for 401k. Why do companies have to manage those instead of just contributing some money and let the employees find the right package on the open market?

It's really weird.





Union employees have negotiated healthcare into long-term contracts, making it hard for those employers to switch. (Feel free to read up on so-called "Cadillac plans" during the original ACA negotiations for more details). The size of this market makes employers exiting a non-starter IMO. Any org that wants to exit will see a huge resistance to this change even if they can showcase all the common benefits.

Because if they let employees manage their own retirement accounts some of them would gamble all of it on crypto or options and lose it all. Then, because our society has become fundamentally incapable of saying "You are an adult. You have nobody to blame but yourself, and now you will face the consequences," this will become someone else's problem to pay for it.

>Because if they let employees manage their own retirement accounts some of them would gamble all of it on crypto or options and lose it all.

This part is true.

>Then, because our society has become fundamentally incapable of saying "You are an adult. You have nobody to blame but yourself, and now you will face the consequences," this will become someone else's problem to pay for it.

Except that's an incredibly stupid short-term way of thinking. Because regardless, we end up paying for people's mistakes. As we should, because that's the whole point of society - we need to take care of the failures, the degenerates, the pieces of shit, etc because they play an important role in society - they too are humans and some of them weren't gambling away their savings out of a sense of fun, they did so to be able to continue to live in a day and age where costs continue to skyrocket, job growth is negative, and the economy is being hollowed out. We have many tools and mechanisms to help the winners in society. We need that for the opposite party, too. In winner-take-all capitalistm, the losers will always outnumber the winners. And you need to make life palatable for the losers, in hopes that their luck may one day change. Because if you don't take care of people who continue to lose and have nothing going for them, they will grow in numbers and eventually eat you.

And besides, we've bailed out enough bad actors in important sectors of the economy that main street deserves to be taken care of too.


Someone will always have to pay for it, because we don't generally just let people die. And even if we do, someone still have to scrape their rotting corpses off the street, no?

Radical individuality is an illusion. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could be solely responsible for paying for their healthcare or retirement. But is it possible? If you can't answer if it's possible or not before you do something, you probably shouldn't be doing it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: