Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SkyPuncher 1223 days ago
> But, unless you're a FTE you're not getting that.

I don't understand this prevailing notion that Health Care is some mythical thing that only employers can provide.

I contracted for a few years. I simply bought health insurance. It was "more expensive" because I didn't have an employer contributing to part of the costs, but it wasn't any more "expensive" than what I and my employer were paying for anyways.

4 comments

Some employers almost completely subsidize it.

It is hard to give up a job that pays $140k, subsidizes health insurance, std and ltd and offers good PTO.

This could equal to a total compensation of $170k.

Also, larger companies can get a better deal on healthcare than a single person.

Correct. This is well known for employers that "fully loaded" cost is 20% to 40% higher than base salary.

My point is simply that health insurance does not require an employer. Individuals can purchase it on their own. Like anything, that purchase costs money.

>It was "more expensive" because I didn't have an employer contributing to part of the costs

So it was more expensive, full stop, no scare quotes. Anyone who has ever shopped for insurance on the open marketplace or saw how much they would have to pay for COBRA can tell you that it is extremely expensive to pay for it yourself. If someone else is covering your costs, then it costs less.

I use the scare quotes because people seem to think that employer provided healthcare is anything different than a cash subsidy.

You and me as individuals can purchase the exact same product that our employer can. Only difference is your employer won't be subsidizing part of it.

You paid more of your income than you were before: the very definition of “more expensive” in this context.
I didn't actually. I received an increase to move to that role. Even after contractor expenses, it was a raise.
If you pay X for something, and then have to start paying Y > X for the same thing, it's become more expensive for you. I don't see how this is debatable.
How many people were you providing healthcare for, and between them how many chronic conditions that could become life threatening during a short lapse in coverage?