Because healthcare has been free in Mexico for decades. This seems like the usual political posturing. Saying “healthcare is free” is an empty statement if people are turned away at the point of service because of a lack of medicine or service providers. Give them three months and then check again. Then you’ll know if it was a shallow gesture or not.
But a cursory google search shows that it isn’t currently free for everyone, and in particular tied to your employment status. This means that in your negotiations with your employer, your health is essentially a bargaining chip (and this is bad for you and your salary for obvious reasons). The new system abolishes this tie to employment. This is a huge step for workers and the unemployed alike. This is not a hollow gesture.
It is not part of your negotiations with your employer. You get health insurance through IMSS (social security) by law. It is not optional and the service is not tied to your salary. You can make millions, or minimum wage, your IMSS coverage would be the same.
We’ve had another coverage called “seguro popular”, this has been free and not tied to employment since early 2000s. It was revamped and gutted by the previous president. The only requirement to get coverage was to not have coverage by IMSS. So, employed, you get IMSS. Unemployed, you got seguro popular.
If you lose your job, you lose your coverage. That makes it a bargaining chip. The employer has one up on you in negotiations. When I negotiate my salary (my health insurance is not tied to my employment), I know that if I can’t work it out with my (potential) employer, and I get sick, I’ll be fine. Not so if my coverage was tied to employment. The pressure to accept an offer that’s worse for me would be much higher.
If you lose your job, you lose your coverage. That makes it a bargaining chip. The employer has one up on you in negotiations. When I negotiate my salary (my health insurance is not tied to my employment), I know that if I can’t work it out with my (potential) employer, and I get sick, I’ll be fine. Not so if my coverage was tied to employment. The pressure to accept an offer that’s worse for me would be much higher.
Because healthcare has been free in Mexico for decades. This seems like the usual political posturing. Saying “healthcare is free” is an empty statement if people are turned away at the point of service because of a lack of medicine or service providers. Give them three months and then check again. Then you’ll know if it was a shallow gesture or not.
But a cursory google search shows that it isn’t currently free for everyone, and in particular tied to your employment status. This means that in your negotiations with your employer, your health is essentially a bargaining chip (and this is bad for you and your salary for obvious reasons). The new system abolishes this tie to employment. This is a huge step for workers and the unemployed alike. This is not a hollow gesture.
It is not part of your negotiations with your employer. You get health insurance through IMSS (social security) by law. It is not optional and the service is not tied to your salary. You can make millions, or minimum wage, your IMSS coverage would be the same.
We’ve had another coverage called “seguro popular”, this has been free and not tied to employment since early 2000s. It was revamped and gutted by the previous president. The only requirement to get coverage was to not have coverage by IMSS. So, employed, you get IMSS. Unemployed, you got seguro popular.
So it is an empty gesture
Yes it is. A repeat of a previous comment:
deleted by creator
And if you’re unemployed?
It is linked to employment but equal and mandatory for all employees, so not quite a bargaining chip in the way it is in the usa
If you lose your job, you lose your coverage. That makes it a bargaining chip. The employer has one up on you in negotiations. When I negotiate my salary (my health insurance is not tied to my employment), I know that if I can’t work it out with my (potential) employer, and I get sick, I’ll be fine. Not so if my coverage was tied to employment. The pressure to accept an offer that’s worse for me would be much higher.
Got it
exactly.
Was it free for everyone? Or just select people?