5 ms·
This is an interesting point in the argument for universal public healthcare. I doubt companies work care much if they weren’t responsible for paying part of em
by pm90 7y ago
This is an interesting point in the argument for universal public healthcare. I doubt companies work care much if they weren’t responsible for paying part of employee healthcare premiums. This was kinda already the case with the pre existing conditions nonsense before the ACA, but as costs skyrocket and companies are forced to make intrusive lifestyle demands from employees I wonder if it will finally tip the scales.
Universal healthcare already polls very well though... so maybe this won’t be significant.
- bluejekyll 7y agoIt would be significant if companies start realizing that they could offload some of their debt for “free” instead of using it as a bargaining chip in keeping employees.
- alistairSH 7y agoI assume large employers have already done the math and decided keeping the status quo (locking in employees via health coverage) is a net positive (vs a nationalized system of some variety).
- pm90 7y agoI don't think it has ever been presented as a possible option for anyone to seriously consider. Ultimately it would have to come down to the specific plan.
- corporate_shi11 7y agoUniversal public healthcare would just encourage even more policing of people's habits. If I as a taxpayer am funding someone else's healthcare they better not be drinking heavily, smoking, doing other drugs, eating excess sugars, avoiding vegetables, etc.
- sidek 7y agoYour argument is not supported by data. The NHS and Canada's universal healthcare systems have been around for decades. Yet there is no evidence to suggest the factors you describe have ever been part of the public discussion in those countries. And the US is the country with the most draconian drug laws in the Anglosphere.
- refurb 7y agoCanada led the way in making smoking much less attractive, more so than the US. High taxes, large warnings - the govt had a strong incentive when it’s footing the bill.
- TheRealSteel 7y agoNope - Canada has a higher smoking rate than the US: https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/adult-tobacco-use/smoking-canada/historical-trends-smoking-prevalence https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/adult-tobacco-use/sm... https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adul...
- refurb 7y agoThat doesn’t contradict my point that the Canadian govt did more than the US govt to stop smoking.
- notatoad 7y agoThere's a big difference between taxing it and marketing campaigns to warn of the dangers, and "policing" it like the parent said. The government is not forbidding anybody from smoking.
- mthoms 7y agoNot really conclusive for several reasons. The Canada numbers include teenagers (persons aged 12+) while the US ones do not (persons aged 18+). Also, the Canada numbers went from 13% (lower than the reported US rate) in 2015 to 15.1% (higher than the US rate) in 2017. That 13 to 15.1% increase over two years seems to be a statistical anomaly as it goes sharply against the overall trend (according to your source): "Despite the overall prevalence increase in the most recent survey year, from 1999 to 2017, the overall trend was an average annual decrease in prevalence of 3.2% of the previous year’s value" TLDR; the average over the last several years is more or less the same.