If a large corporation or company can afford to pay for health insurance for all its employees, while still making huge profits and salaries for its chief officers and great dividends for its stockholders, should they do so? or does a company, whether large or small, have no obligation whatsoever to pay for health insurance for their employees?
Health care should be provided for everyone regardless of their employment status. Employer provided health care only gives employers one more thing to hold over their employees.
Well, I just think that it should be provided at no cost to the patient. It's not something should be tied in to employment. I don't say that because I want to let employers off the hook.
Company provided healthcare is an anomaly of government regulation. There was a time during WWII, when companies were not allowed to give raises. To attract workers, companies started offering more benefits including healthcare. Healthcare should be a responsiblity of the worker, not the company.
Health insurance? On the base of the Italian experience [where all workers pay the state to get a general health insurance] I can say that if it's the company or the employees to pay it the difference stays in the cost of the job: if the worker has to pay 100€ the company will have to pay contributions and taxes on those 100€. If the company pays those 100€ directly, the cost will be inferior. In Japan you can see something similar about holidays. A good part of Japanese companies prefer to offer holidays to their employees instead of give higher wages to them ... - - - Updated - - - So my answer is yes, not only on a moral base, but also on a quite pragmatic economical base ...
There is no moral obligation to provide health insurance. That must be something liberal just made up.
so an employer should care less about the health of their workers? how will they be productive, effective, efficient, happy employees if they aint healthy?
You provide sufficient skills and value to the company, the incentive will be theirs to try and retain your services with things like raises, bonuses, benefits, etc.
I think the amount that companies currently pay in healthcare costs should be paid to their workers, and the workers should be able to choose their healthcare. Workers should be paid according to their replaceability and their value in the marketplace. All of us are selfish, and I think you are among the most, as you seem to obsess on the subject.
And people should work, parents should care for their children, schools should teach all children to read and write, politicians should care for their country. There was a time, before the government ran healthcare, when everyone could afford health insurance. No longer. I'm glad to see, Ronstar, that you're willing to pay for other people's health insurance. Now, "If a large corporation or company can afford to pay for health insurance for all its employees, while still making huge profits and salaries for its chief officers and great dividends for its stockholders, should they do so?" Who decides if they can afford it, Ron? The same people who want to drive them out of business or out of the country?
If a company wants to provide health insurance then they can but they shouldn't be required too. It's up to the individual to take care of it themselves. It's called personal responsibility.
Health insurance should NOT be linked to one employer. . .but every employer of medium to large corporations should have the obligation of pay in a health care pool to lower the cost of insurance for their employees. The reason insurance should not be linked to one's employer is that it reduces the employee's ability to move to a better job and that he/she is at risk to loose his/her insurance if he is let go.
Employers never wanted to get embroiled in employees' personal concerns, like health care. But, after WWII, they started offering health care in order to attract top-quality people. The trend continued, and throughout the country, employers realized that they would have to offer good health care in order to compete for the best talent. Now that the scum-sucking Socialists have taken over with their Obamacare, employers will be only too happy to let "Uncle Sugar" deal with the problem. The rich will go right on buying their own health insurance for themselves, and the worker-bee schlubs can go stand in line with the welfare-sucking bustouts, leeches, and parasites. Where's the downside in this for the rich employers? Answer -- there isn't one!
The answer for me is no, but not for the reason given. It's no, because IMO the sole responsibility of a company in regards to employees is to provide the employee with a wage that he/she can support them self and a small family (spouse and one child) above the poverty line. Which at this time is around 10.00/hr. Now I think all companies should offer a health insurance plan, though not be required to pay into it. Give employees options. Health insurance, like any other insurance should not be a right, or a requirement. Yes this includes auto insurance. Theres beneifits to having it, but makign it a requirement IMO is the government over stepping its boundaries
No. If you want something you pay for it. - - - Updated - - - It is your health. It is your responsibility. If you are not healthy may I show you the door?
I agree. I believe that employers should pay a health care fee for EACH employee they have, but that fee should go into a pool and not be tied to a specific employee. Each employee would then have access to "subsidized" (by the health care pool) health care, and, depending on their income, would complement the cost of that health care coverage. However, health care should NOT be tied to specific employment, so that employees would be more free to change job if they wish, and wouldn't lose their health care if they are laid off. By the way, that system is working VERY WELL in European countries.
Moral obligation? Get serious. No decent options in the poll. I'm retired. I worked for only one company that didn't provide benefits, including insurance. Even a part time job I once had gave me benefits. Morals have nothing to do with it.
ok, this happens all the time, but from you? Why, Ronstar, are you created load answers in a false dichotomy to your question? The answer is if it suits them. Health insurance is a compensation - that's it. It's worked out well for employers because their large bartering power gets them better rates, and the government policies further incentivize it such that the 'value' of your healthcare package (the value being what you would likely pay for it on your own) is significantly more than what they pay for it. They also get the added benefit of having healthier workers, so it's very commonly in the interest of the business to provide health insurance for its workers. But there is no obligation to cover it. Health care is pay, that's it. This would be like asking if employers should pay all employees a minimum of $25/hr if they can do it and still make profits. b/c you see, all job 'benefits' are part of job compensation, which is essentially your 'pay'. There is little real distinction between any moral obligation under different methods of compensation.
I don't know why employers should be obligated to provide health insurance for their employees. There is a break in premiums for groups. I don't really know why that should be. However this insurance is usually a benefit to the employee in lieu of increased wages.
