> The lack of a decent safety net in the US scares the crap out of me.
What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.
Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world. That's part of the safety net, and it's hard to reconcile with the notion of 'personal responsibility'.
> I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune
If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
> Medical bankruptcy isn't really a thing in the rest of the world.
Agreed, it's a problem, but for the average person with a job who elects an insurance plan (the vast majority of Americans,) it's not an issue. My sister-in-law spent 4 years being treated for cancer before passing away last year. Despite running up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills between chemo, multiple surgeries, etc, it did not bankrupt her family because they had health insurance.
> If you take out an insurance contract, that's exactly what you're doing.
Except we're explicitly buying-in. Until we have universal health care, I don't expect others to pick up the tab because I prefer that my son have the absolute best current tech available.
I don't say this to demean these people but I would guess that a majority of that 16% are low-skill/minimum wage jobs. When you don't have skills that are in demand, employers less likely to offer benefits. Businesses are just like people, if they can get away with paying less, they will. I'm not saying it's right.
I'm hoping the Republicans manage to screw things up enough to lose Congress in 2018. If that happens, Trump will go all-in on single-payer/universal healthcare. He has no loyalty, and in the past (prior to running for office) he was pro-single-payer. So we'll see what happens.
This isn't about survival of the fittest, if you have no skill, then you are going to have trouble finding a job that has good benefits. No one is stopping you from acquiring a skill (outside of cases when you're sick...obviously.) You can become a plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. and make a decent living.
and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace. hey - just go back to school for a few years, juggling some low wage jobs while you get more skills! so that you can win some approval from some employer where yay you can pay extra money to have some insurance so you can afford medicine to keep yourself alive. whew! That doesn't sound like "survival of the fittest" AT ALL. not sure that the OP was thinking about.
The word "benefits" just irks the hell out of me in the first place. Maybe the entire concept of "benefits" being synonymous "things that give you access to something that keeps you alive and healthy", and tying said stuff to "employment" (something very much at the whim of people and factors often outside your control - handicaps, geography, family obligations, etc) we could think about the issue a bit differently.
Also... society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work. Are they just deserving enough to find a job that has "good benefits"?
> and... we'll just give a big 'fuck you' to everyone else who gets sick at some point, and can't go back to work, or has skills that get passed by in the marketplace.
Capitalism doesn't care if you get sick. It only cares if you have time/skill to trade. That's the cold hard reality. In this country, capitalism trumps just about everything else. It has its advantages and disadvantages for sure. By the way, I'm not saying all of this is morally "right" - it's just the way it's always been, capitalism/business comes first in the USA.
I agree that society needs people to be doing low-end crappy work, but maybe if there were fewer low-skilled laborers in the job market, there would be more competition for their services (i.e. the employers would have to offer better benefits.)
I'm all for universal-healthcare and frankly my family would be a primary beneficiary.
As far as safety nets go, how far do we go? If I got sick, I wouldn't expect you (and everyone else collectively) to pay my mortgage, grocery bills, etc. for potentially years on end. Where do we draw the line? How do we prevent people from gaming the system? I know people in Europe who have been "sick" for years.
The drain on the systems in Europe from those who are “gaming the system” and who are long term sick pales into insignificance when you consider the overall savings due to the collective bargaining power of a nationalised healthcare system.
With COBRA, you can keep your health insurance (of course you have to pay for it) even if you quit/get-fired.
I don't know about you, but I've never quit my job just because a situation turned sour. There have been cases where I said "ok, it's time to look for a new job." But never "Take this job and shove it - I quit!"
But don't you think there could be a correlation between poor family health and an inability to get a job (and hence insurance)? Caring obligations, mental health, or any number of other reasons could be a hindrance.
I honestly don't think 'get a job and you'll be fine' is a particularly good way to help to someone with health problems. It's a big hole in the US safety net.
Your son having diabetes is not the same as say you getting an illness that prevents you from working. Or an illness for a child that requires more attention, maybe round the clock care.
And if you work for minimum wage AND you have a child with diabetes its a very different story. Most of the people hanging around HN are technology related, some of us have a tendency to be a little egocentric.
To compare your situation, having a child with a chronic but very manageable condition (diabetes) as opposed to say severe autism. I was just reading a story on NPR about a couple, where the husband is a programmer making 100K, and they have 2 autistic children. They don't have furniture in their house. They've declared bankruptcy. They have tons of medical bills.
credit card / student debt is a huge issue across the board in the US. Frankly you can live just about anywhere in the US on 100k if you have no debt. I read somewhere a while back that 67% of americans have less than $1000 in their checking account. That just blew my mind. But they're all walking around with iPhones and shiny new cars.
We've been fortunate to pay off our student loans and made the conscious decision when we first got married that if we didn't have the cash, we weren't going to borrow cash from our future selves to pay for it (with credit cards.) This by far has been the best decision we've ever made.
We have a reasonable amount of money in the bank (no matter the number it's never enough) and the only debt we owe is the mortgage on the house.
Student loans are a bigger issue for the up & coming generations. 17 year old american kids are not equipped to understand the implications of taking on $80,000+ in loans for a college education. We've put money away for the kids' college, but it won't be enough to cover their entire education unless they go to a public university. It's crazy to think that most parents don't steer their kids towards well-paying university majors. The worst case scenario happens far too often, for example: a kid majors in a generic degree like "communications" or "english" in exchange for $80,000 and their first job (if they're lucky to get one in their field!) pays them a pittance.
Well, consider that I am not what I would consider "rich" (this is not a complaint!) The number would have to be $2m+ for it to be "enough" in the event I couldn't provide for my family - enough to more or less guarantee that the kids are old enough to take care of themselves (15-20 years worth.) Given that it's highly unlikely that I will reach $2m+ in my lifetime, the number will never be enough ;)
Ah, I understand. I thought you were speaking in more general terms. You want security. Everyone does, and I think everyone should have it. The idea that some people aren't good enough or haven't worked hard enough to have a place to stay, food to eat, and medical treatment they need is - to me - inhumane. America is, as a nation, inhumane.
Once someone has reached financial security, money can no longer improve his/her happiness - except in short bursts. Understanding that, I can't imagine why anyone would ever need more than 50M (which is still way more than anyone would ever need). For me, it's embarrassing to live in a country where some have tens of billions while others scrape by - and some fail to do even that.
What kind of safety net? No you're not going to lose your job and draw unemployment benefits equal to your salary for years on end. This is also the land of personal responsibility. It can be scary at times. My 6 year old son has a chronic illness (type 1 diabetes) and his supplies cost an exorbitant amount of money. If somehow I was unable to find employment, drained all of our savings, etc. he wouldn't die, he just wouldn't get the absolute top of the line equipment (insulin pump / continuous glucose monitor / sensors / etc.) Medicaid would provide him insulin and needles. It's not ideal, but I don't expect everyone else to pay for my family's bad luck / misfortune.