• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

healthcare and businesses

Should businesses be forced to offer healthcare to employees?


  • Total voters
    30
Why is that? Why it is an employers responsibility to ensure that people have healthcare?
For moral, economic, and practical reasons.

From a morality standpoint, your question is like asking why is it an employer's responsibility to ensure that workers can afford food or housing? Why does an employer have any responsibility to pay workers anything?

It all comes down to the value the workers are providing, and morally how that value should be divided. If an employer is making enough money from the effort of his workers to pay not only the employer's own reasonable needs (e.g. other costs, and if the employer is an individual, his own food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) but additionally his workers' healthcare, I think he has a moral duty to pay the worker that money, rather than take it as an additional bonus for himself or his investors.

But even putting aside the more contentious morality question, which I'm sure you disagree with, there is still...

1. Employers will do better if their employees don't get sick often and have to take off work (or worse).

2. Employers will do better if the country as a whole is healthy and less worried about future health-related financial costs.
 
Last edited:
For moral, economic, and practical reasons.

From a morality standpoint, your question is like asking why is it an employer's responsibility to ensure that workers can afford food or housing? Why does an employer have any responsibility to pay workers anything?

It all comes down to the value the workers are providing, and morally how that value should be divided. If an employer is making enough money from the effort of his workers to pay not only the employer's own reasonable needs (e.g. other costs, and if the employer is an individual, his own food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) but additionally his workers' healthcare, I think he has a moral duty to provide it, rather than take that money as an additional bonus for himself or his investors.

But even putting aside the more contentious morality question, which I'm sure you disagree with, there is still...

1. Employers will do better if their employees don't get sick often and have to take off work (or worse).

2. Employers will do better if the country as a whole is healthy and less worried about future health-related financial costs.

By 2014, they can get it readily outside the 4 walls of the company. Employees do better if they have food too, but businesses do not have to buy their groceries for them.
 
By 2014, they can get it readily outside the 4 walls of the company. Employees do better if they have food too, but businesses do not have to buy their groceries for them.
I know, I was responding to the question of why employers who are capable should have to pay workers a sufficient rate for them to go out and get food, healthcare, etc. As I said in a previous post, I find requiring employers to directly provide healthcare plans to workers pointless and likely inefficient.

But rereading my last post I see there is one sentence that should have been phrased better.
 
I know, I was responding to the question of why employers who are capable should have to pay workers a sufficient rate for them to go out and get food, healthcare, etc. As I said in a previous post, I find requiring employers to directly provide healthcare plans to workers pointless and likely inefficient.

But rereading my last post I see there is one sentence that should have been phrased better.

The rate at which an employer compensates for labor is based on the value of that work. The employer must offer only enough to meet the legal minimum wage or enough more to attract/retain qualified applicants. Not all jobs offered are intended to attract the "head of household", entry level positions are not intended to be permanent or to pay a "living wage". It is foolish to expect any McJob to offer a living wage or for the gov't to make it into one via social welfare programs. You often only get what you pay for and only pay what you get for. :)
 
The rate at which an employer compensates for labor is based on the value of that work. The employer must offer only enough to meet the legal minimum wage or enough more to attract/retain qualified applicants. Not all jobs offered are intended to attract the "head of household", entry level positions are not intended to be permanent or to pay a "living wage". It is foolish to expect any McJob to offer a living wage or for the gov't to make it into one via social welfare programs. You often only get what you pay for and only pay what you get for. :)
I generally agree with you, I think this is a good post.

However, my point does not encompass all jobs, as I have been careful to caveat. As you say, "the rate at which an employer compensates for labor is based on the value of that work." And, IMO, if an employer is gaining sufficient value from a worker's labor to exceed its costs, then morally speaking, the profit should go first to employees up until the point their most basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare are covered. From that point, it can be split in whatever proportion they chose to agree at the outset. I think that is not only fair, but economically wise.

If an employer is not making enough value from a worker's labor to pay him more than minimum wage, then I agree that he is not morally required to pay anything else.
 
Should businesses be forced to offer healthcare to all full time employees? Why or why not?

I dont think they should.

Freedom does not mean forcing things upon people. I believe in freedom.

This type of regulation discourages hiring, giving hours, and even bringing jobs back or enticing foreign companies to bring jobs here.

Please dont turn this thread into an pro vs anti obamacare thread. Focus on the subject. Obamacare is about much more than just this.

Other countries run their national health care services on a taxation basis, because an insurance model is too probabilistic for geriatric care. If the US healthcare industry was not an artificial false market, and as big as 15 % of US economy, then it would have been returned to its free-market demand-supply conditions a long time ago.

The whole US healthcare industry is just another bubble, like all the others, trying to just buy one extra day for itself every day, by playing with legislation and people's pockets, until its inevitable burst. And when that burst happens, you'd better have moved your 401k/IRA portfolio to China/other, because you WILL have to come out of retirement ... let alone the jobless queues and uncleared student debths of healthcare graduates.
 
For moral, economic, and practical reasons.

From a morality standpoint, your question is like asking why is it an employer's responsibility to ensure that workers can afford food or housing? Why does an employer have any responsibility to pay workers anything?

It all comes down to the value the workers are providing, and morally how that value should be divided. If an employer is making enough money from the effort of his workers to pay not only the employer's own reasonable needs (e.g. other costs, and if the employer is an individual, his own food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) but additionally his workers' healthcare

If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that IF a company can afford to pay for something then they should be forced to. Is that correct?

, I think he has a moral duty to pay the worker that money, rather than take it as an additional bonus for himself or his investors.

So should we limit businesses/owners/investors can make? After X amount the rest goes to the employees?

1. Employers will do better if their employees don't get sick often and have to take off work (or worse).

Again I ask why that is the employers responsibility? An employer is responsible for paying a worker for the work that worker does. I dont think anyone would argue that.

2. Employers will do better if the country as a whole is healthy and less worried about future health-related financial costs.

Agreed. But however why is that an employers burden to bear? That is what this all boils down to.
 
Should businesses be forced to offer healthcare to all full time employees? Why or why not?

I dont think they should.

Freedom does not mean forcing things upon people. I believe in freedom.

This type of regulation discourages hiring, giving hours, and even bringing jobs back or enticing foreign companies to bring jobs here./QUOTE]
I say no, for the very reasons you described, yet at the same time, I think healthcare is a basic human right, especially in modern society. It's sort of sticky situation.

However, to the companies that deny health coverage for their employees, I wish them luck finding quality workers.
 
Sure they should offer insurance that way they have healthy employees that stick around instead of it being a revolving door. I pay $23 a week for my family on united healthcare for an employer that has less than 800 employees at both locations why can't bigger employers with higher margins offer the same?
 
No!
Not just no. Hell no!

It should just be an incentive/benefit that the employer chooses to offer to those they wish.
 
I voted no, but feel I need to quantify something on this;

In order for any system outside of employer provided coverage to work, there has to be some level of regulation in place to prevent collusion and corruption.

LCD makers settle price-fixing case for $553 million | Reuters
(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co, Sharp Corp and five other makers of liquid crystal displays agreed to pay more than $553 million to settle consumer and state regulatory claims that they conspired to fix prices for LCD panels in televisions, notebook computers and monitors.

Price-fixing is a major issue, and completely undermines a free-market economy. Without adequate and enforceable regulatory legislation in place, any market would be artificially inflated by companies that choose to collude with each other, for the purpose of avoiding being undercut, and having customers go to where they view the grass is greener.
 
I think business should pay no health care costs, that we should instead go single payer on catastrophic, eliminate the corporate tax, and eliminate the capital gains tax on investors who invest directly in a company's ipo. How many people do you see who want single payer plus zero corporate rate and zero capital gains tax on ipo.


My tax code that gets ignored by think tanks everywhere!

Scrap the entire tax code and start from scratch. Below will be the sole tax code; no deductions(I only tax income so obviously deductions for business costs), no joint filing, no payroll taxes.

0-$200,000 10% income tax rate no deductions
200,000-1,000,000 20% income tax rate no deductions
1,000,000 and above 30% income tax rate no deductions

0% corporate income tax rate
0% capital gains rates on ipo when a company tries to raise capital, all other capital gains taxed liked personal income at the regular 10%-20%-30% income tax rates
single payer public health insurance that covers solely catastrophic
 
I think business should pay no health care costs, that we should instead go single payer on catastrophic, eliminate the corporate tax, and eliminate the capital gains tax on investors who invest directly in a company's ipo. How many people do you see who want single payer plus zero corporate rate and zero capital gains tax on ipo.


My tax code that gets ignored by think tanks everywhere!

Scrap the entire tax code and start from scratch. Below will be the sole tax code; no deductions(I only tax income so obviously deductions for business costs), no joint filing, no payroll taxes.

0-$200,000 10% income tax rate no deductions
200,000-1,000,000 20% income tax rate no deductions
1,000,000 and above 30% income tax rate no deductions

0% corporate income tax rate
0% capital gains rates on ipo when a company tries to raise capital, all other capital gains taxed liked personal income at the regular 10%-20%-30% income tax rates
single payer public health insurance that covers solely catastrophic
The problem with something covering "catastrophic" is that emergency care is the most expensive part of healthcare, part of the reason why single payer countries can spend less than we do is preventative care, not emergency care.
 
I am S O GLAD (sarcasm) that you are for "freedom".

This "freedom" then includes the right of the workers to take back the value they created and to also form a union and get a contract....... (LMAO)


The ACA will work like this.

Every employer will dump everyone.

Then no employer will have any say in HC any more. (defacto single payer)
 
NO! This is another one of Obama's "brilliant ideas" that end up making the country even worse than it was before. Part of being free is not being told how you need to run your business!
 
Should businesses be forced to offer healthcare to all full time employees? Why or why not?

I dont think they should.

Freedom does not mean forcing things upon people. I believe in freedom.

This type of regulation discourages hiring, giving hours, and even bringing jobs back or enticing foreign companies to bring jobs here.

Please dont turn this thread into an pro vs anti obamacare thread. Focus on the subject. Obamacare is about much more than just this.

I don't think businesses should be forced to provide healthcare, no.

Rather, I think a universal health service should.
 
NO! This is another one of Obama's "brilliant ideas" that end up making the country even worse than it was before. Part of being free is not being told how you need to run your business!

Actually, Obama's idea was that of a single-payer system, but he couldn't get Congress to pass that, so he used the individual mandate that was the "brilliant idea" of Republicans.
 
Six votes for higher unemployment thus far...
 
Not if they give money to Obama and Democrats. Then they are exempt. That's how it works.

The US health care system is corporatised, the most expensive in the world and yet it is ranked 47th in the world for quality

About 31% of the budget for privatised Hospitals in the USA is used for marketing, profits, CEO bonuses and administration costs.

The USA spends about $8000 per capita each year on Health care - over double the amount of the next OECD country, and yet it cant provide health care for all its citizens and the health care that it does provide is one of the worst in the world.

The US health care system is a prime example of how corporatism institutionalises inefficiency, corruption, greed and exclusivity in the provision of a service or production of a product

The fascist US Corpocracy is sicker than what appears on the surface - the putird stench of this rotting corrupt corporate carcass is fouling the global air

You dont have much time to civilise yourselves into a law abiding compassionate society and join the global community of responsible states
 
Back
Top Bottom