[sokoloff]

Health care is another consideration. Many insurance companies are (in practice) US only or even subset-of-US only. That’s been one of the hurdles for us when we hire remotely (which is generally of the form “excellent current employee wants to move and we want them to keep working for us”)

[jordinl]

I would say one of the benefits of hiring somebody remotely is that the employer doesn't need to care about 401K and health insurance. The company pays the worker a salary and the remote worker takes care of their own taxes, pension and health care. The downside is that the remote worker is a contractor and not a real employee.

[exolymph]

If you're not providing and handling benefits, you need to pay a higher salary. But maybe still lower than you'd pay a normal contractor? Rule of thumb for contractors is generally 2x equivalent W2 salary, right? I assume that multiple doesn't hold up for remote employees who are classed as contractors legally but don't have all the business development expenses of a normal contractor.

[eliaspro]

That shouldn't really be a criteria, since at least in Europe there's no such thing as having your employer provide a healthcare plan for you.

[niij]

Not the case in Germany, as I understand it.

[sokoloff]

I’m pretty sure we do provide supplemental healthcare coverage for some of our EU employees. (I remember signing the contract for it, but the Benefits group does the negotiation and selection.)

[cyphar]

Employer-provided healthcare isn't a thing outside the US (in general). Almost all developed countries have socialised healthcare, and those that don't still don't have the US system that risks losing your healthcare if you change jobs (in that employees don't depend on it as the only healthcare they can get).

[planetburgess]

Not entirely true. Many developed countries even with excellent public systems still have very active private medical insurance. Like UK and Australia. This can provide benefits like access to private hospitals, choosing your medical professional, shorter waiting time, reduced cost for elective treatment.

[cyphar]

I live in Australia, yes we have private health insurance but there are three important factors that make it different to the US system:

* You don't depend on it for all of your healthcare, it's an additional extra so that you can get some level of coverage for non-GP visits (as well as easier access to private hospitals).

* It's not provided by your employer, which is the most major difference. You can quit your job and you still have your healthcare. You also aren't scared that a new employer won't hire you because you happen to be sick and need healthcare.

* Because the government can push down prices of drugs and treatments within Medicare, it's also not prohibitively expensive like it is in the US.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned most of those factors in my original comment. Also, you can choose your doctor under Medicare. You don't need private insurance for that (the primary benefit of private insurance is you get coverage for nonessential healthcare and easier access to private hospitals).

[planetburgess]

All good points regarding Australia. It's worth pointing out over half the Australian population is covered by private medical insurance https://www.canstar.com.au/health-insurance/who-has-health-i... So it's actually very much a thing. And my experience has been the same, more than half our Australian team use the health and well-being allowance we provide them for private medical insurance.

My company administers hundreds of remote workers in over fifty countries. A significant proportion of our clients and employees (in developed countries outside the US) ask us to provide private medical insurance. It's not as big a deal as the USA and not as likely to be a deal breaker when accepting a job, but it's actually quite common in many countries.