Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#111

Post by ComputerGuru » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:08 AM UTC

I have to respectfully go against the crowd here and disagree.

When you're leaving your job to start a business, the assumption is that you have some money saved. You're guaranteed not to be turning profit for a certain period of time. Depending on how lucky and how good you/your idea are, that could be anywhere from a month to a year or two.

Not having government health insurance just means you'll have to get your own. I am speaking here from experience: I quit my job, posted about it on HN, bought myself health insurance, and started my own software company.

How much did the health insurance cost me? 200 dollars a month. (Edit: yes, this is in the USA. IL to be exact.)

Yes, 200 dollars is not nothing. Yes, it would be nice to not have to pay that. But then again, I'm paying 1200 for my apartment, 80 for my cellphone, 80 for electricity, and I'm sure I can come up with some other monthly obligations that I have. Health insurance is maybe ~10% of my "maintenance costs" that I can't avoid.

Why aren't we arguing that the government should provide apartments for everyone so they don't have to worry about finding a place to live when they take the risk of leaving their jobs? Or require special restaurants that are publicly funded so that you don't have to worry about that, either?

I know a lot of people will take issue with this, but, keep in mind, I am not saying I'm against government health insurance. I'm saying that this isn't a very good reason for it. Going off on your own is and always will be a risky situation, unless you're already independently wealthy. By definition, it involves giving up a cushy job and steady pay for the chance of striking it rich on your own or (as in my case) doing what you love. That's the nature of the beast, and that's why we have both entrepreneurs and employees.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#112

Post by wh-uws » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:15 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #111

I have to respectfully go against the crowd here and disagree. When you're leaving your job to start a business, the assumption is that you have some money saved. You're guaranteed not to be turning profit for a certain period of time. Depending on how lucky and how good you/your idea are, that could be anywhere from a month to a year or two. Not having government health insurance just means you'll have to get your o…

Can you please say from who? I'm gearing up for this and I wouldn't hesitate at 200 a month.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#113

Post by elviejo » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:16 AM UTC

It's interesting when I lived in the US it was surprising how many of my coworkers on their early twenties were averse to risk... they wouldn't start a new business venture and their reasons were: - I have student loans - I need health insurance - I need to build a foundation so that my kids can go to college. - After the economic crisis, it isn't worth it....

But living in a contry were: - You don't have student debt - Your health services are warranted - Your kids can go to college and even great colleges for free...

Makes being an Entrepreneur SO much easy... that you wouldn't believe.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#114

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:20 AM UTC

jshen wrote: post #90

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…

I have a rare eye disease. I'd love to start my own business, but I didn't because I feared a lose of insurance with a pre existing condition. I completely disagree with your premise that wouldn't do well at it because my itch isn't so strong as to make me risk losing insurance. Btw, what data are you using to draw your conclusion?

[deleted]

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#115

Post by intended » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:22 AM UTC

stretchwithme wrote: post #104

njs12345 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, the government "help" we've gotten so far makes it harder to take risks. Just ask the people with student loans or those in an upside down mortgage if that helps them take risks. This is more due to the poor design of these programs in the US than anything else (speaking as a someone with a fairly significant amount of student debt in the UK).

It doesn't matter how they are designed. They are eventually changed to suit the various lobbies. Things are seldom re-evaluated logically. These programs go on for decades without obvious problems being fixed. If you have a business and you figure out that something that was supposed to make you money was NOT actually making you money, you change it ASAP. With government, change only happens when something becomes a…

You are cherry picking parts of the narrative to fit your beliefs.

Your assessment on the causes of the fin crisis overlook other more significant factors.

Primarily the effects of deregulation and under funding the SEC. Those choices playing out against the development and evolution of CDOs as risk transferring instruments. The utter rapacious greed with which the financial services industry reacted to its incentives.

In a thread about risk, it's worth remembering that total dislocation from risk led to NINJA loans, and mortgages being sold to people who would never have qualified other wise.

I find the narrative that subsidies were the cause to be amusing when I remember that loan salesmen were fully aware that they were both, selling junk, and selling it to people who they knew they could out talk, out think and out educated.

In my country we usually call that exploitation.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#116

Post by OldSchool » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:24 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #111

I have to respectfully go against the crowd here and disagree. When you're leaving your job to start a business, the assumption is that you have some money saved. You're guaranteed not to be turning profit for a certain period of time. Depending on how lucky and how good you/your idea are, that could be anywhere from a month to a year or two. Not having government health insurance just means you'll have to get your o…

Note that in the US, health insurance you can actually use, for a family (two adults plus one or more children), is no less than $1000/mo edging closer to $1500/mo. Getting pregnancy/childbirth covered at all on an individual policy is often difficult too. You can get a high-deductible policy if you generally don't need insurance but you personally can't control what your family members will decide they need routinely. That's part of why being an entrepreneur in your 20's is so ideal.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#117

Post by 5vforest » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:25 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #111

I have to respectfully go against the crowd here and disagree. When you're leaving your job to start a business, the assumption is that you have some money saved. You're guaranteed not to be turning profit for a certain period of time. Depending on how lucky and how good you/your idea are, that could be anywhere from a month to a year or two. Not having government health insurance just means you'll have to get your o…

Try having a pre-existing condition or two.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#118

Post by d2vid » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:27 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #111

I have to respectfully go against the crowd here and disagree. When you're leaving your job to start a business, the assumption is that you have some money saved. You're guaranteed not to be turning profit for a certain period of time. Depending on how lucky and how good you/your idea are, that could be anywhere from a month to a year or two. Not having government health insurance just means you'll have to get your o…

You don't have a pre-existing condition if it only costs you $200/month.

I have a friend who had a serious back injury (near paralysis) in his 20s which requires constant physical therapy and visits to specialists. He can't buy health insurance on the open market at any price (literally), and so he must move carefully from group health plan to group health plan, rather than pursue his interest in startups.

The comparison with apartments is not fair - imagine that the only way to get a place to live was through your employer.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#119

Post by rglover » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:27 AM UTC

I started my own business right out of school. As a result, I better be damn successful considering I have a lot of student loan debt to mop up. I have wondered, why not offer advantages in these situations to people who start businesses (say a window of ~6-12 months after graduation)? Either some sort of tax break or little to no interest rate on my debt would be handy.

Another big one is health insurance. I've been swimming in open waters without insurance for about a year now. The only plans that I can get are abysmal with 5k plus deductibles (please direct me to a better deal if I'm being naive and something exists).

Even though I've taken the leap to build a business ahead of my peers, I'm getting the crap end of the stick.

Does seem a bit unbalanced.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#120

Post by Anechoic » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 4:29 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #82

ryanmolden wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 is a big issue because insurance companies love to deny pre-existing conditions. I believe there is some time-limit to them doing so, like after being on the plan for 6 or 9 months they start covering, but don't quote me on that. The idea that having a pre-existing condition can screw you pretty severely if you have to switch insurance ilproviders is crazy to me, especially since insurance is so tied to employer i…

#2 is irrelevant in MA. MA already has Obama/Romneycare. I.e., they already have the ability to force an insurance company (more precisely, other people who purchase insurance) to subsidize their care with or without an employer.

#2 is irrelevant in MA. MA already has Obama/Romneycare.

It's not quite that simple. One, the plans offered through the MA Connector may not be as inexpensive as plans negotiated by an employer, so you may wind up paying more for the same coverage. There's alao the issue of finding a plan with doctors in the same network, you may find yourself paying a little more if you have a favorite doctor treating you for a pre-existing condition.

Also, you are only allowed to enroll in MA Connector plans during one (maybe two) "open enrollment" periods during the year, so you may be faced with a gap between losing insurance coverage after quiting a job before being able to enroll in a new plan. Of course there is always COBRA, but again the amount you pay out-of-pocket for the premiums go way up.

But you are correct that insurance co's in MA generally can't reject you for pre-existing conditions.