OK but that doesn't make it positive or neutral to move even further in that direction.

Agreed. I was lamenting that it is seen as an essential part of the employer/employee relationship when the employer-as-landlord proposition seems so foreign and troubling. I thought drawing the connection would make people rethink the normal feelings we have about the American healthcare system.

Well, sure, I would like to see healthcare decoupled from jobs as well -- and frankly I'd think the startup lovers here would support it too, given that healthcare is actually a big barrier to entrepreneurship.

If I'm a healthy individual then the risk that I need my healthcare insurance are low (But it has a big impact on my economy if I do need it). However the risk that I need some form of housing is 100% and the impact of not having it is huge which to me makes it a bigger risk. However YMMV depending on your situation.

Circumstances change quickly.

I'm married, things happened, and we ended up having a baby. Due to various circumstances beyond our control. That cost $100k.

As a healthy guy in my 20's, I suffered an injury through no fault of my own that led to me needing a serious back surgery. Net cost -> $250k.

Rolling the dice on something that fundamentally life altering, and expecting society to pick up the tab for the consequences of your risk management is bullshit. It is a good illustration of why you can't treat healthcare as a market driven thing unless you're willing to drop the moral obligation to preserve human life (and expect the providers to "absorb" it).

So you had a baby due to circumstances beyond your control? And you had an injury, again through no fault of your own? And the sum of those are over $350K.

Who is responsible for your health? I'd argue that the baby is entirely on you, and $100K for a delivery is insane unless you had incredible complications.

And if the back injury wasn't your fault, you could seek redress from whom is responsible. If it's work related, then work should pay. If it's an accident, then whomever is negligent should pay.

Unfortunately, no one wants to take responsibility, and expects "society" to make an individual whole after a loss.

How do you feel about people with debilitating genetic diseases/disorders? Through no fault of their own other than being born into this world, and no health care provider wants to anything to do with them. They are guaranteed money losers, and if insurance companies didn’t have to deal with pesky regulations, they would happily find and drop these patients.

I make no judgements on your moral character, but to follow your philosophy requires a fundamental acceptance that certain human life has less intrinsic value than other human life.

I have no issue with society picking up after people who truly have catastrophic illnesses (though that's really what health insurance SHOULD be, not the way it is currently.) My issue is with people expecting society to pay for health care that's not catastrophic nor "accidental." If I choose to have a child, I should expect to pay for it. My partner and I had to have IVF, and we paid for it.

You paid for the IVF.

You likely didn’t pay for the prenatal care after the first trimester, and likely didn’t pay for the delivery beyond coinsurance.

My wife had a baby. We knew about that part.

What was out of control was a complication that nearly resulted in her death.

Those types of things happen. If you are married to someone who has a stroke, should you be sentenced to a lifetime of ramen noodles and destitution because your spouse needs care that costs $500/day.

The problem with litigation is that it takes forever. And while things are processing, you'll still be on the hook. If for example, you're the victim of a hit-and-run and the offender can't be found, you're still on the hook.

When this happens, the vultures will be circling. And this happens far too often.

I agree, there are lots of catastrophic events that can occur randomly. That's the ideal situation for real insurance (as opposed to what we have now). But statistically, most people use insurance for what amounts to either routine care, or care after they've neglected their health. And in the case of the poster I was replying to, he is basically giving up his agency and expecting society to make him whole.

Sometimes no one is at fault for an accident. Accidents aren’t always caused by negligence on someone’s part.

>If I'm a healthy individual

I don't think I know any family without a member of it having some kind of medical condition. (bad turn of phrase, but do I get the point across ?)

I think the point is while losing healthcare insurance is absolutely a big problem, it's often not an immediate problem - there's a decent chance that a typical Facebook employee doesn't currently have a pressing need for healthcare, and even if they do, there's a decent chance they'll find new employment and be covered relatively quickly.

On the other hand, being evicted from your home is going to affect everyone, and there's no avoiding the upheaval - you're forced to find new housing in a famously overpriced market at the exact moment that you just lost your job.

That sounds like a case for health insurance. Just, you know, insurance. Not an account with a healthcare company with a subscription model (close to what the U.S. has now).

> If you get fired, you basically lose your healthcare

Not in the US, at least not for 18 months anyway. It’s called COBRA and is available to anyone with work provided insurance.

And is insanely expensive

COBRA was cheaper than a comparable ACA plan for me. It was also WAY cheaper than what a comparable plan pre-ACA would’ve cost. If you just need “emergency” coverage, sure there’s cheaper options. But if you have a chronic health condition, COBRA will more often than not be a lot cheaper and offer better coverage with lower out of pocket costs.

If $600/mo for a single young person is cheap to you...

1) The $600/month depends on how expensive the plan you had before. I've seen COBRA be as low as $350 to as high as $800, depending on the plan you had before.

2) Everything is relative. $600/month is certainly FAR FAR cheaper than the $10k/month the medicine I critically take costs. Comparable ACA plan w/o outrageous deductible is usually $700-900.

Lesson to be learned is, just because it isn't cost effective in your eyes, doesn't mean that many can't benefit from it! Feel lucky that your health needs are so basic, it almost certainly won't stay that way forever.

Anyone with work provided insurance who can also afford the group rate the company pays.

Which is basically saying that when you lose your job they stop paying you.

It's a bit different because it's a hidden expense when it comes to budgeting. Six months expenses looks different if sometimes you emergency fund needs to cover CORBA that changes over time in a way that is transparent to you. If it all came out of your accounts, you could literally measure expenses and judicially tweak from there.

> you could literally measure expenses

I haven't worked for a company, Fortune 50 to small startup, in the past 20 years that provided medical insurance and didn't provide the employer covered cost data in an easy place for access on demand.

And that COBRA is not as free as people make it sound. In fact it's more expensive.

I pay $3.00/month for the group policy at work, but when I get fired I will also lose the company's payments to the plan on my behalf. So my expenses actually go up as a result of trying to take advantage of COBRA. Whereas if I were paying for my own policy, I would be aware of what it costs and would be paying the same price for insurance regardless of my employment status.

You can also just ask your employer what their portion of the benefits is while you're employed. They'll be more than happy to tell you.