Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

boss.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#121

Post by Turing_Machine »

kristiandupont wrote: post #19
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 can easily imagine a class of people who would become entrepreneurs if they didn't feel like the risk was too big. Especially people families -- not only might you be risking something on their behalf, you might also have a spouse that's difficult to convince ( http://www.inc.com/magazine/201209/meg-cadoux-hirshberg/livi... ).

Right. Some people might well be willing to take a risk for themselves, but not be willing to take a risk with the health insurance for their kids.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#122

Post by rglover »

elviejo wrote: post #113

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 deb…

What country are you located in?

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#123

Post by ericabiz »

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…

Hi. I am an entrepreneur, and like you, I sought out my own health insurance. Where I differ from you: 1) I am female. 2) I have a prescription for birth control.

Currently, my birth control prescription is through Planned Parenthood, and it's cost me about $25/month for many years.

When I applied for my own health insurance, they asked me to list any prescription drugs I took. Even though I get checkups and my birth control prescription from Planned Parenthood, I dutifully listed it in the form (knowing, too, that lying about this might cause me to get disqualified if I claimed something later.)

I received a letter from the insurance company that I had been declined for insurance. Reason? Prescription medication. This was the only prescription I was on at the time. Yes, apparently the fact that I have a prescription for birth control makes it worth it for a health insurance company to not insure me. This is completely legal for any insurance carrier to do in the United States if you are a single person applying for insurance. And guess what? Once you've been declined for single-person health insurance for any reason, you're pretty much screwed.

I don't know what the solution is, and I don't think our government got it 100% right when they passed different laws recently. But I also know that something is not right when I can get declined for health insurance for being on birth control (that the insurance company would not have even had to pay for anyway.)

The system is broken, and you are the exception. Let us hope that you never have a spouse who would like to be on birth control, or that you never have to take a prescription drug for any reason for any length of time.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#124

Post by EricDeb »

viviantan wrote: post #95
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'm totally with you about loving Jon Stewart and I'm all for removing barriers for those inclined towards entrepreneurship. But the concept of creating safety nets to encourage more entrepreneurship strikes me as paradoxical. To an extent, the inherent risks that come with starting a new business is a good thing -- it forces would-be-entrepreneurs to assess critically what they would gain or lose before taking the p…

I agree, but I feel the more likely scenario is the 40 year old with domain expertise who is rationally confident he could strike out on his own but is hindered for fear of losing health insurance/income not only for himself, but for his family. The current conditions seem to discourage these individuals from starting companies in favor of the far more common mid-20s silicon valley web junkie who has far less to lose and a minute chance of success.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#125

Post by krakensden »

Evbn wrote: post #100
arbuge wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this. Just went down with appendicitis - doctors call this a "routine" surgery. Well, the bill came to $50,000+...

Was it worth the money?

Well, appendicitis can kill you, so theoretically, it's always worth the money.

On the other hand, when clever people notice this and decide to get in on that infinite, inelastic demand, the rest of society tends to get grumpy.

Hence the ceaseless political trench warfare over how to pay for health care since the Johnson administration.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#126

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

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 don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship.

TOTALLY disagree, as well as with folks who are saying that "risk is an important part!"

For one thing, there are a series of studies that show that people who are more risk tolerant actually create worse start-ups (for example, [1]). There is at least one meta-analysis that indicates that there's more risk tolerance in entrepreneurs (though the individual studies on that point are contradictory) [2], but OF COURSE there's risk in going off on your own, the biggest one being the opportunity cost of the cushy salary you're foregoing for a year.

No, it's not for everyone. But that doesn't mean that people who start businesses are reckless, and it is HARD to get a good price on health insurance in most states -- and if you get badly sick in the US WITHOUT health insurance, you're screwed (if and when the health insurance reform kicks in, this could change).

I personally refused to quit my job until I knew I'd be able to get health insurance, and it was much harder than I expected despite not having any health problems (as in, I was denied by two providers and had to get the "high risk pool" insurance). So I think it would be effective to reduce the risks of entrepreneurship for people in my situation (i.e., over 35 years old). It's risky enough to begin with; no reason to make it a matter of life-and-death as well.

[1] http://paraplyen.nhh.no/sfiles/85/88/1/file/hvide-panos-2012...

[2] http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1...

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#127

Post by njs12345 »

Evbn wrote: post #98
suresk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. Could this be because countries with broader safety nets also have more regulation and make it hard to fire people? I've always kind of thought a combination of making it easy to hire people and let them go, along with strong safety nets (ie, good unemployment insurance and not having health car…

Could be that countries that aren't America don't have audiences of 300million people with high per capita income and a common language.

Or even just Silicon Valley really. Is the number of successful startups coming from the rest of the US really that high internationally?

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#128

Post by ComputerGuru »

ericabiz wrote: post #123
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…

Hi. I am an entrepreneur, and like you, I sought out my own health insurance. Where I differ from you: 1) I am female. 2) I have a prescription for birth control. Currently, my birth control prescription is through Planned Parenthood, and it's cost me about $25/month for many years. When I applied for my own health insurance, they asked me to list any prescription drugs I took. Even though I get checkups and my birth…

I take some prescription allergy pills. Probably cost the same as your birth control medication.

The catch? I signed up over the phone. I made sure to stress how I won't be going through the insurance for these, how it won't be a cost for them. A human on the other end of the line - no matter how dedicated he is to finding a reason to say no - is better than a soulless piece of paper.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#129

Post by ComputerGuru »

wh-uws wrote: post #112
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.

Blue Cross Blue Shield IL.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#130

Post by bhb916 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #110
Evbn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess, but what about all the he entrepreneurs from the era before health insurance? I wasn't long ago.

Medical expenses weren't what they are now all that long ago, either.

1. Price and wage controls weren't forcing companies to compete on benefits, starting us down a path of employer-linked health insurance.

2. People paid for their medical expenses directly providing direct feedback into the system.

3. Less gov't red tape constricting the supply of medical care.

Post reply on HN