Live data from Hacker News

America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

fortune.com

81–90 of 238 posts

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#81
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much depends on life situation. For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. I am able to see my PCP and dentist within a week if I want. I read a statistic that in Europe and Canada you have to make those kinds of routine appointments months in advance. Also, my father-…

For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your…

> Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your job, you will think twice to go on strike, unionize, or freely express your thought, especially when combined with at-will employment.

As an American who's had to deal with the ramifications of employer-based health insurance first-hand, I can confirm that this strikes me as accurate. I'm lucky enough to be in a position where even being out of work for most of last year did not hurt my financial situation very much (my wife and I were actually able to buy our house during my unemployment), but even being in that fairly privileged position, due to her autoimmune condition, we've had to go through quite a lot of annoying bullshit from a lack of healthcare options due to basically being stuck with whatever my employer happens to offer.

With my previous health insurance (from a startup where there were around 10 employees during my time there), we were able to get the semiannual procedure she's been getting for years from her specialist doctor approved relatively quickly, but with the insurance from my current job, it took months earlier this year to get it approved because they kept denying it due to her condition (which is pretty rare in general, and even more rare for anyone to have it as long as she has; one of the first doctors she saw for it years ago told us "you're not going to find a support group for this online", and we've literally yet to find anything online about anyone else ever having it for as long as she has) not being on the list of pre-approved conditions. This was typical across several insurance companies for the initial request, but with this insurance company, they put us through an extremely convoluted process for appealing. First, they told her doctor that he couldn't email or fax them his letter of medical necessity and had to send it through snail mail, which even a month later they claimed they had never received. They told me I could email it to them, which I did, only for them to later claim I didn't have authorization to do that on behalf of my wife (something that never came up in the call where they told me to email it to them despite us both being there on speaker phone), and she had to fill out and email them a form authorizing me. She did that, but then after a while they still just sent us a blanket rejection for it not being on the initial list (as if there were any chance of it magically appearing on the list between when they initially denied it and when they finally processed the appeal?), and they could not provide us with any evidence that an actual doctor looked at the letter where her doctor stated definitively that he would expect her to likely experience permanent and potentially fatal organ damage with the treatment due to none of the other options having mitigated her symptoms in the past. After filing a grievance, they insisted that if her doctor filled out the information in a separate form that they had never mentioned to either him or us before, they would take it into account, so he did that, and then after a while they still rejected it with identical language to before. Finally after three months, they gave us the ability to have her doctor talk directly to an actual doctor on their end, and then it got approved within the next week. No one was able to provide any sort of coherent explanation as to why they kept putting us through such bullshit procedures that had no effect instead of letting us just do that in the first place.

I don't pretend to have any first-hand experience with healthcare in other countries, but no sane system would end up with such disparate outcomes for the exact same condition for the exact same patient due to literally nothing but how much bullshit the insurance company feels like putting you though. There's literally no way for us to have stayed with the insurance company that managed to actually read the information her doctor sent them and approve it within a few days the first time because they're based in a different state that the company I was employed by happened to be based in, and my current employer has no other insurance companies as options for me to pick instead. Even without all of the potential awful things that you mention people might go through with a subpar employer, the situation actually still sucks even when you do like your employer because your insurance options are tied to them. I like my job, and other than the insurance company sucking, it works well for me, but I also can't reasonably expect them to pick up an entire new insurance option for the entire company because of the bullshit I went through, so as much as I'd love to literally never have to deal with this specific insurance company again, there's no way to do that without giving up the job as well. Realistically, that would end up causing a lot more stress and uncertainty that my wife and I don't want to go through (especially when there's no guarantee that whatever insurance we'd end up with from a new job would be any better). At least in another country, we'd have some level of consistency in trying to get her treatment approved.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

>The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality. The only agency it reduces is the agency for people to make decisions about what should be done with other people's wealth. Which is not a productive agency for them to have as they've got an incredible conflict of interest to just waste it on themselves.

I have changed my opinions on this. Land reform initiatives have been carried out globally at different points and it has been seen as broadly useful and necessary. Why?

Medial and pre-medieval times, debt cancellation was also broadly necessary and done. Why?

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#83
post #16

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

It very much depends on life situation. For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. I am able to see my PCP and dentist within a week if I want. I read a statistic that in Europe and Canada you have to make those kinds of routine appointments months in advance. Also, my father-…

It is impressive how misinformed you are about the reality of health care in Europe. It is almost as if you were being lied to in order to make you accept being mistreated.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#84
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your…

Isn't employer dependent healthcare basically slavery, blackmail or both ?

Only to the extent that all waged employment is basically slavery (since healthcare is even less critical than food, water and housing).

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#85
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much depends on life situation. For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. I am able to see my PCP and dentist within a week if I want. I read a statistic that in Europe and Canada you have to make those kinds of routine appointments months in advance. Also, my father-…

For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though. They will always have enormous bargaining power over you and I think it also leads to chilling effect, when your health is literally dependent on your…

> Your healthcare insurance being dependent on your employer seems like hell though

It absolutely is.

America is great if you make at least 150k a year and never get sick.

The moment you get sick with anything serious your employer might fire you. Labor protections in America are a bad joke. Your boss wants to fire you because your taking time off to look after a sick relative, I guess you can sue, but they’ll blame something and probably win.

Your boss lies to your face about pay and benefits, ohh well sucks to suck.

Very minor illnesses turn catastrophic. Several stories have emerged of otherwise healthy young people going without insulin and not doing so well…

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-a...

Even if you have insurance, ohh well…

> Parents sue over son's asthma death days after inhaler price soared without warning Cole Schmidtknecht, 22, had insurance but couldn’t afford to refill his asthma inhaler after the cost jumped from $70 to more than $500.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/asthma-death-pres...

Half the country cheers this on. The idea of some ‘lazy’ person getting something they don’t deserve rationalizes this dystopian system.

Of course the American system ends up costing significantly more for worse outcomes.

Access to therapy is usually gate kept to those with expensive insurance plans. Medicare, if it covers it at all can easily have a 1 year wait list for therapy.

Not to mention that most people get no meaningful vacation time.

Want to quit because you’re burnt out. Even if you have savings you won’t have health insurance. You won’t be able to afford therapy without it.

Get back on the hamster wheel.

I do regret not making a better effort to leave earlier. It’s not going to get better

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#86
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.

You missed the point, If the floor and the medium are rising, why does the gap need to narrow? Why is this better factually, not ideologically.

Because the gap indicates unfairness and people care about that. If you are poor, raising the floor will be good enough, you primary worry will be sufficient income. Once you reach a comfortable life, your priority will - or at least may - shift, now you are in a position that allows you to worry if the situation is fair.

Also narrowing the gap is a way to raise the floor including in absence of growth while raising the floor without narrowing the gap depends on growth. But I think this is not too relevant in practice because taking a lot of money from a few wealthy people will often result in rather small changes as the money has to be spread among a lot of people.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#87
post #58
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK: A dentist will see you for an emergency appointment pretty quickly. I can usually get a routine appointment within a few weeks, but if it's a routine check-up I don't mind scheduling it for a few weeks/a month out. If I'm going private I can usually get a routine appointment same week. For more urgent enquiries with an NHS doctor I can usually get a phonecall next day, and they'll ask me to come in if it's seriou…

Finding an NHS dentist is nearly impossible in most of the UK, though.

In the UK, most people simply get Bupa dental insurance. A basic plan costs like 25 pounds per month. Affordable I'd say. Many people spend more than that on beer and public transport.

I know that does not help someone who has become homeless or lost their job and cannot afford the 25 pounds a month (300 pounds a year). That is why I say it is important for people who are employed to get a Bupa insurance plan. Most people do that anyway. This reduces the burden on the NHS Dental and help provide free dental treatment for people who genuinely need it.

For non-dental medical issues, I think the NHS is pretty good. When I lived in UK, I always got same-day appointments for routine check-ups and same-week appointments for more complex investigations.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#88
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not in the US, but laughed when I saw that my bike is ‘known to cause cancer or birth defects/reproductive harm.’ When everything is dangerous, nothing is dangerous.

And you know that it's not dangerous based on... Gut feeling? Have you read the health warning in detail and disagree from an informed point of view or are you just generally opposed to regulation? Even better, can you link the bike model and health warning and let others take a look at it for you? Or just your neighborhood chat bot :-)

I've read the list of materials that California knows cause cancer and birth defects. It lists things that people encounter every day. Alcoholic beverages, aloe leaf extract and aspirin are some of the most notable examples from the "A" section.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#89
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.

You missed the point, If the floor and the medium are rising, why does the gap need to narrow? Why is this better factually, not ideologically.

Because needs and preferences of lower level are less and less reflected in policies and production. They are becomming permanent underclass with no future. They dont matter for politics nor for economics. Preferences of super rich are overwriting them, while super rich become richer, while super rich offload all risk they take on others.

Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD

#90

As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.

Not to mention school shooting drills. Teaching kids how to behave when someone tries to shoot up your school, because it happens more than once a decade... And then not doing fuck all to fix the root cause, besides thoughts and prayers, because muh freedom. Incredible that this is the country that has been the dominant global exporter of technological innovation, pop culture and economic policy for so long.

> And then not doing fuck all to fix the root cause, besides thoughts and prayers, because muh freedom.

We can't do anything to fix the root cause because the root cause is an inviolable Constitutional right.

So we simply must accept that school shootings/mass shootings/gun violence in general are the price we pay to be able to shoot watermelons and the occasional politician and remain the only truly free nation on earth.

Post reply on HN