• SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    If they can hold your healthcare over you, you will do a lot more to make sure you don’t get fired, giving them more power over you. I guess they all assume that is more valuable than what they currently pay for health insurance.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 minutes ago

      I still don’t see how that makes sense

      • you’re covered again as soon as you get your next job, and prior conditions are covered
      • most employees are not actively receiving healthcare at any given time
      • COBRA exists for those desperate enough, and is retroactive for the rest of us.

      When I’m between jobs, I can usually choose not to have healthcare. If something happens I can choose to retroactively be covered by cobra. The day I get another job I’m covered again, even for pre-existing conditions. Sure there are some exceptions that don’t meet these, but I find it hard to believe it happens enough to justify as a way to trap employees.

      Over the economy as a whole that would be such a tiny percentage compared the the savings these companies would get from not needing to pay healthcare at all, especially for hourly employees

      As counter-examples, I’ve known several people who prefer to work on contract, but have gotten salary jobs temporarily for the sole purpose of health insurance. I’m positive these companies do not like the idea of going through the expense to hire a software engineer, pay software engineer salary, have them immediately maximize their benefits, then leave in 6-12 months when the health emergency is over