4 ms·
No, the argument is, X is good, but incredibly expensive for individuals. X (interestingly) is cheap for employers. Therefore employers can provide this substa
by knowtheory 13y ago
No, the argument is, X is good, but incredibly expensive for individuals. X (interestingly) is cheap for employers. Therefore employers can provide this substantial benefit X to employees in a manner they would not be able to alone.
- mikeash 13y agoAdditionally, without X, employer faces a decent chance of being forced to choose between firing a newly-disabled employee, or continuing to pay their salary even though they can't produce enough value to justify it. With X, you avoid being forced to choose between two bad outcomes.
- baddox 13y agoAlso, if the event X covers occurs, it would put the employer in an awful ethical position.
- ataggart 13y agoI bring it up because there are downsides to coupling essential services to whoever happens to be your employer at the time. The upsides are mostly a consequence of the market adapting to decades-long tax policy. There's nothing special about employers, but I guess sometimes it's easier to reinforce a problem than to fix it.
- knowtheory 13y agoYes, I absolutely agree. I wish the US had a single payer healthcare system. But that's not the reality we live in (yet, hopefully). So if these sorts of opportunities exist, presumably we should consider them.