5 ms·

One large reason is the lack of universal health care in the United States. Should you or your family be hit with a major illness while you're busy being entre

One large reason is the lack of universal health care in the United States. Should you or your family be hit with a major illness while you're busy being entrepreneurial, you are sunk. One of the best things the United States could do to promote entrepreneurship would be to implement proper universal healthcare. Sadly, it's unlikely to happen in the near future.

crikli 16y ago
If that's what's holding a person up they probably don't have the necessary risk tolerance to be an entrepreneur.
- abstractbill 16y ago
  Or perhaps they just got genetically unlucky. Say someone has a chronic condition and would never be able to afford insurance outside of a group plan. Does that mean the world should be deprived of their entrepreneurial efforts?
- petercooper 16y ago
  The article is really talking about "self employed" people. It would be erroneous to assume that self employed people all need to have a high risk tolerance. There are more self employed low paid and menial workers than there are schmoozy, Valley "entrepreneurs" and I wouldn't expect a self employed cleaner, nanny or au pair to be adopting a high risk profile.
patrickgzill 16y ago
Isn't this supposition a little broad? There is no magic bullet, in anything.
natrius 16y ago
Easy access to insurance that isn't provided by an employer is important for entrepreneurship, but if by "proper universal healthcare" you mean single-payer insurance, I disagree. The individual insurance market sucks in America because of preexisting conditions and the higher taxes on individual insurance than on employer-provided insurance. The former is getting fixed. I'm not sure if the latter actually made it into the final bill, but I don't think it did, and that's a shame. Beyond that, the only advantage single-payer systems have is the lower prices that result from wielding monopsony power. I don't think it's possible to maintain the quality and pace of improvement of health care when people are funding it less than they would be willing to. Health care is expensive because we value it so much that we throw tons of money at it. People try to provide better care in order to get some of that money, and if you take some of the money away, there will be less people advancing the industry, which isn't what people want.
- onoj 16y ago
  Having lived in two countries that have free public health care at a good level, I can say that starting my own business is much more relaxing in that environment. I would not dream of doing the same in the USA at my age or family situation.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Of course it's more relaxing. You don't have to worry about researching your insurance options because the choice has already made for you. I don't think "more relaxing" is a very compelling reason to choose a policy on its own, especially when the cost of that relaxation is a slowed pace of advancement in medicine. If the U.S. government stops incentivizing the connection between employment and insurance, starting a company wouldn't need to have any effect on your health care. No single-payer system required.
    - pierrefar 16y ago
      I'm starting in the UK and I'm more relaxed because I don't have to worry about health care - I'm covered come rain or shine. I'm not relaxed because of avoiding researching options. Also, you assume a slow in advancement in medicine. This can't be further from the truth. Small example: all of the patients registered in the UK (i.e. residents) are getting digital patient records.
      - natrius 16y ago
        I don't assume a slower localized advancement in medicine. There is a global market for medical technology, and it will be sold wherever it is profitable enough to do so. The fact remains: the further the price of health care is forced down by insurers who comprise the bulk of their respective insurance markets (usually governments), the less money will be available to incentivize people to produce medical technology. Americans will be covered rain or shine once the healthcare reform bill kicks in. If you can afford it, you have to by insurance. If you can't, it will be subsidized so you can afford it. That's the goal, anyway. Markets require choice to function properly. I think the American approach is less likely to result in unintended consequences.
lakelse 16y ago
I have to agree. A few years ago I was in the states for a conference. At lunch, there was a bunch of us sitting around a table and we got to talking. Turned out, I was the only Canadian at the table and also the only self-employed. The rest of the table agreed that they couldn't leave their jobs because they didn't want to give up their health insurance. I recall feeling shocked at the time, realizing that there could be other incentives to entrepreneurship that weren't necessarily capitalistic.

crikli 16y ago

If that's what's holding a person up they probably don't have the necessary risk tolerance to be an entrepreneur.

abstractbill 16y ago
Or perhaps they just got genetically unlucky. Say someone has a chronic condition and would never be able to afford insurance outside of a group plan. Does that mean the world should be deprived of their entrepreneurial efforts?
petercooper 16y ago
The article is really talking about "self employed" people. It would be erroneous to assume that self employed people all need to have a high risk tolerance. There are more self employed low paid and menial workers than there are schmoozy, Valley "entrepreneurs" and I wouldn't expect a self employed cleaner, nanny or au pair to be adopting a high risk profile.

patrickgzill 16y ago

Isn't this supposition a little broad? There is no magic bullet, in anything.

natrius 16y ago

Easy access to insurance that isn't provided by an employer is important for entrepreneurship, but if by "proper universal healthcare" you mean single-payer insurance, I disagree. The individual insurance market sucks in America because of preexisting conditions and the higher taxes on individual insurance than on employer-provided insurance. The former is getting fixed. I'm not sure if the latter actually made it into the final bill, but I don't think it did, and that's a shame. Beyond that, the only advantage single-payer systems have is the lower prices that result from wielding monopsony power. I don't think it's possible to maintain the quality and pace of improvement of health care when people are funding it less than they would be willing to. Health care is expensive because we value it so much that we throw tons of money at it. People try to provide better care in order to get some of that money, and if you take some of the money away, there will be less people advancing the industry, which isn't what people want.

onoj 16y ago
Having lived in two countries that have free public health care at a good level, I can say that starting my own business is much more relaxing in that environment. I would not dream of doing the same in the USA at my age or family situation.
- natrius 16y ago
  Of course it's more relaxing. You don't have to worry about researching your insurance options because the choice has already made for you. I don't think "more relaxing" is a very compelling reason to choose a policy on its own, especially when the cost of that relaxation is a slowed pace of advancement in medicine. If the U.S. government stops incentivizing the connection between employment and insurance, starting a company wouldn't need to have any effect on your health care. No single-payer system required.
  - pierrefar 16y ago
    I'm starting in the UK and I'm more relaxed because I don't have to worry about health care - I'm covered come rain or shine. I'm not relaxed because of avoiding researching options. Also, you assume a slow in advancement in medicine. This can't be further from the truth. Small example: all of the patients registered in the UK (i.e. residents) are getting digital patient records.
    - natrius 16y ago
      I don't assume a slower localized advancement in medicine. There is a global market for medical technology, and it will be sold wherever it is profitable enough to do so. The fact remains: the further the price of health care is forced down by insurers who comprise the bulk of their respective insurance markets (usually governments), the less money will be available to incentivize people to produce medical technology. Americans will be covered rain or shine once the healthcare reform bill kicks in. If you can afford it, you have to by insurance. If you can't, it will be subsidized so you can afford it. That's the goal, anyway. Markets require choice to function properly. I think the American approach is less likely to result in unintended consequences.

lakelse 16y ago

I have to agree. A few years ago I was in the states for a conference. At lunch, there was a bunch of us sitting around a table and we got to talking. Turned out, I was the only Canadian at the table and also the only self-employed. The rest of the table agreed that they couldn't leave their jobs because they didn't want to give up their health insurance. I recall feeling shocked at the time, realizing that there could be other incentives to entrepreneurship that weren't necessarily capitalistic.