A modest proposal for Healthcare Reform in the US

[Oniya]

A healthy insurance policy that isn't bound by an occupation, but instead bound by federal or state owned companies/the government itself might do wonders. A steel worker looses his insurance when he's sacked? I don't know about you, but I'd call that inhumane.

Not only that, but someone who works part time rarely has 'benefits' like an insurance package.  Someone can work up to 37.5 hours a week without being called 'full time', and if their take-home isn't at a certain level, they can't afford private health insurance.  When Mr. Oniya had the job before his most recent one, they deliberately wrote the schedule so no one went over the 37.5 cutoff.

[Xenophile]

Not only that, but someone who works part time rarely has 'benefits' like an insurance package.  Someone can work up to 37.5 hours a week without being called 'full time', and if their take-home isn't at a certain level, they can't afford private health insurance.  When Mr. Oniya had the job before his most recent one, they deliberately wrote the schedule so no one went over the 37.5 cutoff.

Bah! I don't understand how the American people have been able to tolerate those conditions for this long, without blaming it on ignorance of a better alternative or simple complacency.

[Zakharra]

Bah! I don't understand how the American people have been able to tolerate those conditions for this long, without blaming it on ignorance of a better alternative or simple complacency.

Because that is allowed. It's not against the law. It might be questionable, but it isn't illegal.

[Xenophile]

Because that is allowed. It's not against the law. It might be questionable, but it isn't illegal.

And laws are not written in stone (well, except for the Ten Commandments) and can be changed.

[Oniya]

Until this latest economic crisis, the 'average' American had a full time job, and therefore, benefits.  Being part-time with limited income was something that happened to 'other people'.  Now, people are working two and three part time jobs - if they can find any - just to make bills and house/car payments.  Therefore, it's now something that the 'average American' suddenly has an interest in.

[RubySlippers]

I have a friend that works at Target and they base his hours on sales most workers ,not management or specialized like the pharmacy staff, get anywhere from 8-30 (odd) hours latter only on holiday rush periods a week earning around $11 an hour (average). Most workers get around 20 a week on good weeks and they have been forcing the expensive older hourly workers out to save money not by direct means but by low hours figuring most would leave. 

[Oniya]

Most workers get around 20 a week on good weeks and they have been forcing the expensive older hourly workers out to save money not by direct means but by low hours figuring most would leave. 

Exactly this.  I've seen more than a few people who don't get 'fired' so much as just getting 'left off the schedule'.

[Xenophile]

Exactly this.  I've seen more than a few people who don't get 'fired' so much as just getting 'left off the schedule'.

Just how much of a notice do part-timers get ahead of their "let off" anyway?

[RubySlippers]

Well at Target they know their scheduled hours a week before, only Christmas month is assuring decent hours every year due to the major retail push. They aren't off the schedule every employee not salaried is assured on 8 hour shift a week under policy just some like pharmacy techs are skilled hourly workers on usually 32 hours a week standard as are hourly supervisors.

[Zakharra]

And laws are not written in stone (well, except for the Ten Commandments) and can be changed.

Agreed, but unless the law is changed, the activity isn't illegal, so  there's no real legal recourse.

[Oniya]

Just how much of a notice do part-timers get ahead of their "let off" anyway?

It depends on the state.  In Ohio, it's an 'at will' state, so there's a 90-day period where they don't have to give you any sort of reason.  After that, you typically get some kind of notice that there are troubles (you get 'written up'), but as far as I know, an employer is not obligated to give you notice a specific amount of time before you're let go.  They can all you into the office, say 'get your things', and escort you off the premises.

[Will]

Just how much of a notice do part-timers get ahead of their "let off" anyway?

If they have their hours cut to almost nothing?  You don't get a notice for that.  Your notice is when the schedule goes up, and you're barely on it.  That's actually a pretty typical way of getting rid of someone without firing them.  It's not a new practice by any means, but as Oniya said, more "average Americans" are having to deal with it now.

[Jude]

Until this latest economic crisis, the 'average' American had a full time job, and therefore, benefits.  Being part-time with limited income was something that happened to 'other people'.  Now, people are working two and three part time jobs - if they can find any - just to make bills and house/car payments.  Therefore, it's now something that the 'average American' suddenly has an interest in.

I think the average American adult still has a full time job, underemployment is only something like, 22%.  Your point stands though, even if people aren't experiencing it personally they know someone who is, and by extension they've come face to face with this reality.

I'd say the people who have healthcare are still, by and large, the people who "don't see a problem" with the current system, and I can understand why.  Right now things are being rationed according to wealth, but even in a non-profit system rationing is still going to be necessary, how and why are just going to be a different conversation.  When it's done according to wealth there's a certain degree of responsibility that falls onto the person who is "being rationed" (you don't have a job, you haven't kept your finances well, etc., that's why you're being denied healthcare).

I we were to move to a non-profit system we have to start deciding who does and doesn't get care on broader factors that may or may not be related to anything the individual is has gone.  The responsibility of deciding who lives and who dies will fall on society, and that discussion will bring us face to face with a very unsavory reality:  no matter what we do, we cannot give healthcare to everyone in all circumstances, so the cries of some people will always be ignored.

It's a big ugly can of worms that opposing reform helps us avoid, I kind of think that's partially responsible for the status quo.

[Oniya]

I suspect it's worse in some areas than others.  It's definitely hitting people at least as close as a 'friend of a friend'.

[elone]

Bah! I don't understand how the American people have been able to tolerate those conditions for this long, without blaming it on ignorance of a better alternative or simple complacency.

It is exactly that. We the people are too isolated from the rest of the world, and don't know what is out there. I recently moved to rural America from Wash. DC. It is amazing the lack of information available. Even more interesting is that people just don't really care.