[namdnay]

If tomorrow someone burns a red light and smashes into you and you can’t drive anymore, are doordash going to keep paying you?

Yes, these “jobs” are fine as long as everything goes to plan, but is it really that much to ask to not have to live under the sword of Damocles?

[devoutsalsa]

That was my situation. I had a sales job the was primarily commission based and I had health insurance. I had a bad bike accident and got sent to an out of network hospital. I went from a six figure income and no medical bills to almost no income and a six figure medical bill. I was devastated.

Probably the hardest part was how depressed I was, even as my body was recovering, I simply wasn’t prepared to start hustling to get my sales income back up, pay for physical therapy, deal with the hospital & insurance company, etc.

[SturgeonsLaw]

For-profit healthcare should be criminalised. It's hard enough to recover physically from an injury, but adding the need to recover financially from it as well is cruel.

[dagw]

The problem is not for-profit healthcare, but how it is implemented in the US. Lots of countries have for-profit healthcare without the users of that healthcare every worrying about recovering financially.

[namdnay]

At the end of the day, it's always "for profit". Either it's the doctors getting paid by the state getting paid by citizens, or the hospital getting paid by the state getting paid by citizens, or the hospitals getting paid by the insurers getting paid by citizens, or very often a combination of the 3.

The issue in the US is the setup, not the fundamental principal

[Broken_Hippo]

Getting paid for your labor isn't the same as "for profit". Hospitals can get their stuff paid for without there being "profit", and you don't have to expect sick folks to have extra money to pay for middle men.

[namdnay]

> Hospitals can get their stuff paid for without there being "profit"

They can, but it's not necessary. There are lots of private hospitals in France and it works just fine

> you don't have to expect sick folks to have extra money to pay for middle men

There are always going to be middlemen. Too few and resources are allocated inefficiently due to a lack of management. Too many and it's a waste of resources. The trick is to find the right balance

[Broken_Hippo]

"There are always going to be middlemen. Too few and resources are allocated inefficiently due to a lack of management. Too many and it's a waste of resources. The trick is to find the right balance"

Yes, agreed, though I'd argue that middlemen aren't actually needed - as actual middlemen are folks getting paid when they aren't really necessary. It is kind of like car dealerships don't really need to be as they are, but that is part of the service you pay for with cars. Instead, you simply need enough people to get things to work - and sometimes that can be lessened. For example, standardized medical billing and coding in the US would reduce the labor required to deal with insurance - and suddenly, fewer people are needed at the office. Fairly standarized coverage would help as well (fewer misunderstandings) and decoupling it from employment (US based: Would take away HR jobs, but reduce burden on companies).

But the main point really was that sick people, who could easily be missing work to see the doctor, shouldn't be expected to pay for everything.

[joenot443]

I imagine most contract delivery workers have considered this and factor it into their decision making. I don't think these positions are meant to be a perfect improvement across the board to traditional starting wage jobs, but it's up to the employee to make the judgement based on their own risk tolerance.

Like many folks here, I worked full-time minimum wage for years before eventually entering the professional world, and I can say given the choice now, I'd absolutely prefer the make-your-own-hours contract model to obligation of a fixed-hour in-person position. Of course there are drawbacks, like the lack of health coverage (though I'm Canadian so I'm not sure how this would work in the states exactly), but given the option, I'd still choose the former.

[larksimian]

Speaking strictly to the parent post's case, their car is worth like $4000, so it sounds like they could easily repair or buy a new one.

[namdnay]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I was talking about personal injury, not the car :)

[gedy]

If a car smashed into me and I couldn't code, my company wouldn't pay me either?

Or are you talking about workmen's comp coverage?

[extra88]

> If a car smashed into me and I couldn't code, my company wouldn't pay me either?

Mine would (not a company, a university). For the first two weeks, I'd use accrued Sick Time then switch to their Short-Term Disability that would cover 100% of my pay (for some positions with fewer years of service it would be 75%). Short-Term Disability coverage lasts for six months, beyond that my employer doesn't pay any salary replacement but I pay a few dollars a month for long-term disability insurance that would.

I think the federal Family and Medical Leave Act only guarantees I can return to my job for 12 weeks but Massachusetts increases that to 20 weeks. By policy, my employer won't dismiss someone on Short-Term Disability (26 weeks) and may not beyond that either.

[namdnay]

In this case, driving a car is part of his job, so indeed it would be like having an industrial accident - your employer is going to cover you for a work accident

[extra88]

These gig job workers are classified as contractors, not employees (except where a judge or a local law says they must be employees). I don't know how, or if, workers' comp applies to contractors, I suspect it doesn't apply at all.

[namdnay]

Indeed, my initial question was rhetorical.