4 ms·

wow, what an irresponsible proposal. corporations already have free speech, now they need to get government paid healthcare also? why should US taxpayers reimbu

by borism 16y ago

wow, what an irresponsible proposal. corporations already have free speech, now they need to get government paid healthcare also? why should US taxpayers reimburse those entrepreneur's health care costs if most of them will fail to produce any jobs at all? looks like a great way to create even more moral hazard in US companies. health care of work force should be shared between employers and society as a whole, not offloaded back and forth from one to the other.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
The Norwegian solution-- actually, come to think of it, the rest-of-the-world-outside-the-US solution-- is to break the linkage between health care and employment altogether, thus eliminating the moral hazard, and guaranteeing adequate health care for all. In terms of the present discussion, it is easier for entrepreneurs to commit to a start-up if there is no fear of losing health-care coverage. That's a big win, if you ask me.
- orangecat 16y ago
  break the linkage between health care and employment altogether Policy wonks on the left and right have been shouting this from the rooftops for decades, but to no effect. The problem is that any incremental change in that direction is instantly demagogued as "taking away your existing coverage".
natnat 16y ago
You're conflating small companies with a few employees and revenues in the thousands to millions with massive quasi-governmental institutions with profits in the billions. The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books. The "free speech" issue really only applies to companies that have the resources to influence the government to begin with. A startup that has five employees and is only ramen profitable isn't going to hire a lobbyist. On the other hand, I do think you're sort of right. If a benefit like this were passed, a lot of unemployed people would suddenly become "entrepreneurs" to get free healthcare. Large companies would find ways to spin off into thousands of "new" shell companies and transfer their employees there to get free healthcare as well. Of course, the way the healthcare system exists now is basically that the government subsidizes entrenched players with tax incentives and allows employment to become essentially indentured servitude because the risk of losing healthcare while switching jobs is just way too high.
- borism 16y ago
  The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books. see, you identified a handful of problems that are worth solving, not postponing them by giving out "reimbursements".

by borism 16y ago

michael_dorfman 16y ago

The Norwegian solution-- actually, come to think of it, the rest-of-the-world-outside-the-US solution-- is to break the linkage between health care and employment altogether, thus eliminating the moral hazard, and guaranteeing adequate health care for all. In terms of the present discussion, it is easier for entrepreneurs to commit to a start-up if there is no fear of losing health-care coverage. That's a big win, if you ask me.

orangecat 16y ago
break the linkage between health care and employment altogether Policy wonks on the left and right have been shouting this from the rooftops for decades, but to no effect. The problem is that any incremental change in that direction is instantly demagogued as "taking away your existing coverage".

natnat 16y ago

You're conflating small companies with a few employees and revenues in the thousands to millions with massive quasi-governmental institutions with profits in the billions. The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books. The "free speech" issue really only applies to companies that have the resources to influence the government to begin with. A startup that has five employees and is only ramen profitable isn't going to hire a lobbyist. On the other hand, I do think you're sort of right. If a benefit like this were passed, a lot of unemployed people would suddenly become "entrepreneurs" to get free healthcare. Large companies would find ways to spin off into thousands of "new" shell companies and transfer their employees there to get free healthcare as well. Of course, the way the healthcare system exists now is basically that the government subsidizes entrenched players with tax incentives and allows employment to become essentially indentured servitude because the risk of losing healthcare while switching jobs is just way too high.

borism 16y ago
The first group doesn't have access to inexpensive healthcare (because their risk pools are small and they don't have much negotiating power), they don't have access to lobbyists to write laws for them, and they don't have access to armies of lawyers that can twist the meaning of laws already on the books. see, you identified a handful of problems that are worth solving, not postponing them by giving out "reimbursements".