4 ms·

If the government wants people to have something, the government should provide it, and provide it to everyone. Does the government want people to have healthc

If the government wants people to have something, the government should provide it, and provide it to everyone. Does the government want people to have healthcare? Then the government should pay for it, not require employers to pay for it. If the government wants people to have paid leave or a pension, then they should pay for that too. Imagine if we tied other benefits to employment. Maybe the government could require your company buy you a car and dinner every night. People need transportation and food, right? So lets make employers provide it! It's free for the government and legislators get to feel virtuous for providing it, when actually they have just offloaded their costs to someone else. It's madness. The government should provide these things, and employers should focus on whatever it is they do best -- not being a healthcare provider.

res0nat0r 7y ago
The government requires a minimum wage, and companies pay for it...
davidw 7y ago
> It's madness. The government should provide these things, and employers should focus on whatever it is they do best -- not being a healthcare provider. The startup I worked for in Italy had about 40 people by the time I left. They dedicated ZERO person hours to anything health care related. No insurance, no administration, nothing. Italy has plenty of other obstacles for startups of course, so that in and of itself didn't make it easier to do one there - but what a nice thing for a business to be able to ignore.
malandrew 7y ago
The government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do. Now I'm not against taxpayers paying for something so long as all taxpayers pay for that thing that everyone enjoys. What isn't right is when someone votes for a tax they won't feel the burden of. Everyone who gets the benefit should also have skin in the game to pay for that benefit.
- markstos 7y ago
  So children should pay for playgrounds and schools?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dexterdog 7y ago
    If they have income yes. If they are supported by adults then those are the people paying.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    By the time my kid pays for his sandbox he'll be too old to care about it.
  - jonhohle 7y ago
    Schools are a net benefit to a community. According to some studies, it’s an annual 18% return on investment and a lifetime 11x return per dollar spent. There are not many places that one can get that kind of return over many decades. We’re pretty foolish for not investing more.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      Or you can bring in highly educated and highly motivated immigrants at almost $0 cost to your taxpayers. It's just the cost of vetting and processing applications. You also have the benefit of only getting the good eggs with few to none of the bad eggs. It's almost certain that H1Bs and other skill-based visas have a much much higher rate of return.
      - mcv 7y ago
        I'm not opposed to the idea of immigration, but proposing it as a replacement for education is bizarre. If you have a population of uneducated idiots, pretty soon you won't be able to afford those highly educated immigrants anymore.
nimish 7y ago
Agreed, and employers should pay taxes to fund the government services they rely on. Unfortunately the corporate world has decided that having to fund an extra HR person to deal with healthcare is preferable to any sort of taxation and oversight. Society suffers. The last 50-75 years of corporate thought has been to attack any sort of taxation entirely.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  It doesn't really matter what tax pays for this. Ultimately, the customer pays for it (the average person). Corporate taxes are just a roundabout way of taxing the investors. This means that it will affect where investors are willing to invest - they will still want investments to pay back what they expected. This means that investors will simply put their money elsewhere to get their expected returns.
- bluGill 7y ago
  It is good for companies, it makes it that much harder to quit or retire if you can't ensure your health care remains.
fyfy18 7y ago
Don't forget that you are still paying for healthcare even if it's not called a tax. Part of the revenue a company makes needs to go towards paying for healthcare, which comes out of the pockets of investors, owners and employees, and customers need to pay higher prices to cover it. Maybe it doesn't go to the government, but at the end of the day it is effectively a tax, as you have no choice over whether you pay it or not. In 2017 the US spent roughly twice per person on healthcare than France ($10,224 vs $4,902) [0], the next few months will show how effective that spending has been... [0] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
mcv 7y ago
Also because healthcare and other benefits provided by your employer are unreliable. If your employer can easily fire you when you're sick (it's illegal where I live, but there are probably ways around it, and I understand that in many US states it is easy to fire people for any reason), then getting sick directly threatens your health insurance, at exactly the time you need it most. Also, if something is essential, then it's also essential for unemployed people. Providing it through employment makes no sense.

res0nat0r 7y ago

The government requires a minimum wage, and companies pay for it...

davidw 7y ago

> It's madness. The government should provide these things, and employers should focus on whatever it is they do best -- not being a healthcare provider. The startup I worked for in Italy had about 40 people by the time I left. They dedicated ZERO person hours to anything health care related. No insurance, no administration, nothing. Italy has plenty of other obstacles for startups of course, so that in and of itself didn't make it easier to do one there - but what a nice thing for a business to be able to ignore.

malandrew 7y ago

The government doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do. Now I'm not against taxpayers paying for something so long as all taxpayers pay for that thing that everyone enjoys. What isn't right is when someone votes for a tax they won't feel the burden of. Everyone who gets the benefit should also have skin in the game to pay for that benefit.

markstos 7y ago
So children should pay for playgrounds and schools?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dexterdog 7y ago
  If they have income yes. If they are supported by adults then those are the people paying.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  By the time my kid pays for his sandbox he'll be too old to care about it.
- jonhohle 7y ago
  Schools are a net benefit to a community. According to some studies, it’s an annual 18% return on investment and a lifetime 11x return per dollar spent. There are not many places that one can get that kind of return over many decades. We’re pretty foolish for not investing more.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Or you can bring in highly educated and highly motivated immigrants at almost $0 cost to your taxpayers. It's just the cost of vetting and processing applications. You also have the benefit of only getting the good eggs with few to none of the bad eggs. It's almost certain that H1Bs and other skill-based visas have a much much higher rate of return.
    - mcv 7y ago
      I'm not opposed to the idea of immigration, but proposing it as a replacement for education is bizarre. If you have a population of uneducated idiots, pretty soon you won't be able to afford those highly educated immigrants anymore.

nimish 7y ago

Agreed, and employers should pay taxes to fund the government services they rely on. Unfortunately the corporate world has decided that having to fund an extra HR person to deal with healthcare is preferable to any sort of taxation and oversight. Society suffers. The last 50-75 years of corporate thought has been to attack any sort of taxation entirely.

Mirioron 7y ago
It doesn't really matter what tax pays for this. Ultimately, the customer pays for it (the average person). Corporate taxes are just a roundabout way of taxing the investors. This means that it will affect where investors are willing to invest - they will still want investments to pay back what they expected. This means that investors will simply put their money elsewhere to get their expected returns.
bluGill 7y ago
It is good for companies, it makes it that much harder to quit or retire if you can't ensure your health care remains.

fyfy18 7y ago

Don't forget that you are still paying for healthcare even if it's not called a tax. Part of the revenue a company makes needs to go towards paying for healthcare, which comes out of the pockets of investors, owners and employees, and customers need to pay higher prices to cover it. Maybe it doesn't go to the government, but at the end of the day it is effectively a tax, as you have no choice over whether you pay it or not. In 2017 the US spent roughly twice per person on healthcare than France ($10,224 vs $4,902) [0], the next few months will show how effective that spending has been... [0] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

mcv 7y ago

Also because healthcare and other benefits provided by your employer are unreliable. If your employer can easily fire you when you're sick (it's illegal where I live, but there are probably ways around it, and I understand that in many US states it is easy to fire people for any reason), then getting sick directly threatens your health insurance, at exactly the time you need it most. Also, if something is essential, then it's also essential for unemployed people. Providing it through employment makes no sense.