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

California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 387 posts

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#201

Post by bhupy »

sidlls wrote: post #169
bhupy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having medicare for all and a social safety net is standard in all European countries and other Global North countries. No disagreements that having a robust social safety net is a necessity, but just want to nit-pick a little here and point out that not all European/Global North countries have "Medicare for all" or single payer systems. Germany has a public-private mix, Netherlands has a purely private universal h…

The Medicare “mix” is from supplemental insurance—insurance in addition to Medicare. It’s also contentious and arises due to the same issues that cause us not to adopt Medicare for All: the private insurance companies’ purchasing of politicians.

It's not. When you turn 65, you have the option to enroll either in "Original Medicare", which is what we usually think of when we talk about "single payer healthcare in America", or you can enroll in Medicare Advantage (aka Medicare "Part C"), where the premiums that would go to the CMS instead go to private insurers like Humana, United, Oscar Health, and Clover. These plans replace Original Medicare, also cover Part D prescription drug benefits, and often include supplemental benefits that Original Medicare doesn't already cover. The supplemental insurance you're talking about is "Medigap", and that's for people that choose "Original Medicare", but wish to fill in the gaps with private insurance. Today, Original Medicare only covers 80% of costs, and does not cover Part D drug costs. It does NOT apply to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, which is what I'm talking about in my original comment.

36% of Medicare beneficiaries are on private Medicare Advantage plans instead of the public "Original Medicare". This number has been growing so rapidly, that we expect by 2025, more seniors to be on a private plan than the public one. There's also great variance by State. In Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Alabama, Hawaii, and Connecticut — over 40% of beneficiaries are on Medicare Advantage[1].

For most beneficiaries, Medicare Advantage costs about 39% less than Original Medicare[2].

Medicare Advantage plans are, on average, of higher quality than the public "Original Medicare"[3].

In Urban areas, Medicare Advantage costs less per capita to administer than Medicare [4] — and that's not including the extra Medicare Part D insurance that you would have to buy if you're on the Original Medicare plan. From this same research, public "Original Medicare" is still cheaper in rural areas, but not by a whole lot.

Disclaimer: I write software for claims processing and payment systems. I love talking about this stuff, so happy to chat more about it.

[1] https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/a-dozen-facts-about...

[2] https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/medicare-advantage-...

[3] https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/medicare-advantage-...

[4] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#203

Post by virmundi »

jrowley wrote: post #180
virmundi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

Yeah, they can have no minimum wage because they have organized labor. But if you’re a 1099 for Uber and you attempt to organize a union, you’ll just get fired. Without the ability to form a union, or wage protection, workers are going to be racing to the bottom.

You can make your own Uber. There is nothing stopping people from doing that. Lyft and Uber are all powered by VC money. There is nothing stopping a communalist approach to software and profit distribution.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#204

Post by apta »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Many of those pro-voters are drivers who voted for what they want. Let's not pretend to know better than the people working in the field.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#205

Post by apta »

dkural wrote: post #115
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #101

Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…

Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.

Yet people call for socialized healthcare. How is the taxpayer affected anymore in this case comparatively? Too much double standards.

As is the case with many of these issues, the underlying cause is never examined, but only attempt to patch the symptom.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#206

Post by bzbarsky »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

Your claim about gay marriage is just empirically wrong. Popular "support" for gay marriage passed 50% in 2013 according to https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... and passed the "oppose" level in 2011 (it looks like ~10% of survey respondents consistently pick neither option, so the lines crossed at the 45% mark). Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015.

Support for gay marriage was at the 25% level nationally in ... well, per https://web.archive.org/web/20050517033538/http://www.aei.or... page 21 I would put it in the mid-1990s, 20 years before full nationwide legalization. Of course legalization in various states preceded national legalization, as expected.

The other things you list predate modern polling (except maybe Black voting rights, depending on how you define that). But just looking at women's suffrage, it was a constitutional amendment. That means is got 2/3 majorities in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. It's hard to see how something with only 25% popular support could manage that, so at this point I'm going to ask you for data to back up that extraordinary claim.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#207

Post by [deleted] »

mdorazio wrote: post #170
silexia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.

Many Californians would willingly work in 1900s factory conditions with machines eating body parts and people passing out from exhaustion because that's the only work they can get. This kind of completely unregulated employment market that you seem to want is exactly the thing that people fought against for decades for damn good reasons.

[deleted]

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#208

Post by bhupy »

dkural wrote: post #198
bhupy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.

It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks. Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Ub…

> It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks.

Yes, and that stuff costs money. It doesn't come out of the profit margins, of which there are virtually none since the market is so competitive. It instead manifests as price increases.

> Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more.

Yes, and people who ride UberX aren't billionaires. They're white collar workers, families, even other Uber drivers. And it isn't just Uber rides, it's also UberEats. Food delivery isn't just used by the uber-rich. If you're in the middle tax bracket in America and don't own a car, odds are that you've used ridesharing at least once. If you're in that same cohort, odds are you've ordered food or groceries on one of these platforms, especially during the pandemic.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#209

Post by apta »

whimsicalism wrote: post #159
nickpp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.

> there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great Free to be forced to work off medical debt because they didn't have health insurance, yeah?

In which case the state should cover their health benefits, make a vote for that, not for a private employer.
Post reply on HN