Even more so when that person later loudly proclaims that they never made such a request, even when provided with written proof.
I can of course not say whether the people currently working at Twitter did warn that the recent measures could have such major side effects, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, considering their leadership's mode of operation.
Even as someone who very much detests what Twitter has become over the last few months and in fact did not like Twitter before the acquisition, partly due to short format making nuance impossible, but mostly for the effect Tweets easy embeddability had on reporting (3 Tweets from random people should not serve as the main basis for an article in my opinion), I must say, I feel very sorry for the people forced to work at that company under that management.
I worked in the games industry for a while, and came to understand how they could spend so much money and so much time, and yet release a game where even basic functionality was broken. It's exactly this sort of extreme schedule pressure that, ironically, makes a huge morass where changing one thing breaks 10 other things, so progress grinds to a halt.
This is like a case study in what happens when you fire everyone except the sycophants and yes-men.
I only feel sorry for remaining non-yes-men twitter employees who might still be there because for whatever personal reasons they're in a precarious economic situation where they can't quit (H1B?) or are tied to the company for healthcare coverage (Thanks, America, for being the greatest country in the world) because they can't afford any other health insurance option.
If an affordable or free healthcare option was offered on top of making employer provided healthcare illegal, then I completely am behind your idea.
Look at how these systems work in other countries
If I am sick I can just get an appointment with my GP within the day and not pay a thing, they can refer me to specialists or blood tests if needed, which are also fast and free. The remaining healthcare costs for medications or dentistry are so low I don't even notice them.
Hope this will shed some light to you about what's happening in other countries.
> Funding for all short-term health care is 50% from employers, 45% from the insured person and 5% by the government.
…
> Premiums paid by the insured are, on average, €137 per month for basic health care
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands
Only an order of magnitude if you're in base-2.
That said, this doesn't quite track with the numbers for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_dollar
But even then, counting all payers and not just the residents' sticker price, the USA is the high-priced outlier.
Nope. Look at how much the Netherlands actually spends on Healthcare, it's about 11.2% of GDP in 2021 [1]. Per capita GDP in 2021 was ~53k€.
((53k€*11.2%)/12) ≈ 495€
Only problem is, like most developed countries, close to a majority of people are net recipients (around 40%). Someone will have to pay their share too. Chances are, if you're posting on HN, that's you, as you'll be somewhere in the top 5% income bracket. I think if the OP does the math based on their actual numbers, they'd be more likely to find themselves in the ~1000€/month ballpark than the 150€/month they seem to think they are paying.
> But even then, counting all payers and not just the residents' sticker price, the USA is the high-priced outlier.
The Netherlands (11% of GDP) is not quite as extreme as the US (17%), but it's certainly nothing to write home about, especially as I don't get the impression that either health care expenditure as percentage of GDP or demographics are moving in a favorable direction.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2...
What's the difference between my first and my second? I don't know. If you force me to guess, post-retirement and/or terminal care, possibly?
> like most developed countries, close to a majority of people are net recipients (around 40%)
Yes, and? Isn't much the same also true for private insurance?
You've got the potential for arguing about what "fair" looks like; I'm fine with it being funded like a progressive tax, based on income rather than risk factors, but that's not hugely important.
> I think if the OP does the math based on their actual numbers, they'd be more likely to find themselves in the ~1000€/month ballpark than the 150€/month they seem to think they are paying.
I would assume that zer0tonin pays whatever they say they pay. They're likely to have better insight into their own finances than random internet strangers like thee and me.
> The Netherlands (11% of GDP) is not quite as extreme as the US (17%), but it's certainly nothing to write home about, especially as I don't get the impression that either health care expenditure as percentage of GDP or demographics are moving in a favorable direction.
The direction of movement may or may not be favourable (given the pandemic I assume "not"), but the USA is kinda the outlier in developed nations for spending a lot without delivering particularly good outcomes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_h...
(Sourced from: https://ourworldindata.org/us-life-expectancy-low)
