3 ms·
...society. If workers pay for it, there's less money to spend on other things (and they might not have the same bargaining power). If companies pay, they'll ha
by forinti 16y ago
...society. If workers pay for it, there's less money to spend on other things (and they might not have the same bargaining power). If companies pay, they'll have less money to invest. If the government pays, it comes from everybody's taxes.
You can't dissociate any player from the others.
It should boil down to the question of finding the most efficient way for society overall.
- jambo 16y ago"You can't dissociate any player from the others." Exactly. Companies will still have to worry about it, whether they pay for insurance directly or indirectly. "It should boil down to the question of finding the most efficient way for society overall." To what end? And as judged by whom? The majority?
- jbooth 16y agoCompanies will still have to worry about it the same amount that they worry about russian invasion or about the state of the pavement on the interstate. i.e., not much, yeah they pay for it through taxes, but it's not a business concern.
- jambo 16y agoTaxes and the macroeconomy are business concerns.
- natrius 16y agoSingle-payer systems are the cheapest way to provide healthcare for a society. However, they necessarily fund the healthcare industry at a lower level than people would on their own. Some of these savings come from actual improvements in efficiency and the elimination of marketing costs, but the rest comes from the government using its monopsony power to drive down prices. Some see this as a feature, but I see it as a bug. It results in less investment going towards improvements in the field, which I think is undesirable. I think the healthcare bill that was passed was a good way of avoiding disrupting the healthcare market while still providing healthcare for everyone.