Maybe we could push public healthcare if we rephrase it as subsidizing companies, might as well try right?
post
replies:
Even Trump before said he favoured affordable healthcare because it means not tying healthcare to employers. Now, he did a u-turn probably because he's going senile and having been bought by the insurance industry.
They want to get rid of the only thing that keeps 90% of people working at shit jobs, thats some real consultant level smarts right there.
replies:
I thought they were required by law.
replies:
Slavery never went away in 'Murica
It was just rebranded
Or switching to worse providers, like UHC of all things.
I really struggle to understand HR's thought process there, seeing the news and still deciding to make that choice.
replies:
Yes! It was a horrible idea.
But this is a good thing. People think employers actually pay for their benefits. That’s not how total compensation works.
We need this. It won’t be easy but we need this.
Yeah, it's bad for we poors. But we're not the ones in power.
We're only allowed to have beneficial laws that don't cost the billionaires something.
90% of Democrats will do nothing to improve the status quo. We need a revolution.
replies:
Only for the employed.
From what I can tell from this article, Disney isn't covering spouses who have their own healthcare coverage through their jobs, Starbucks is not covering GLP-1 as much, and Deloitte is reducing paid parental leave and IVF.
Push everyone onto the private market and jack the prices up with worse service. Just like everything else.
Because even though the employer health care was shitty for a lot of reasons it did have one thing going for it: the ability of a powerful corporation to negotiate the best rates it could in order to keep its costs down.
If it’s no longer tied to jobs, we lose that last advantage.
replies:
Thank you, corrupt Union leaders, for being just like the oligarchs you are supposed to oppose.
replies:
all 49 comments