Question

Compared to national health care, would it be more advantageous to make a policy that requires businesses to provide health care for their employees? Considering other regulatory policies you have learned about, such as those provisions required by the ADA and FDA, what would be the economic and social implications of this type of regulation? Would you advise it?

Economic implications:

Social implications:

Why is or isn't it a better idea than national health care?

Advice?

Answer 1

based on what I know, mandatory employer-provided health insurance decreases premiums and increases the scope of health coverage, making it more affordable and available for employees

for smaller business, offering health insurance may be costly and may require the business to recuperate the cost from their employees. Also, it might be difficult to create a program that will satisfy the needs of all their employees.

Answer 2

would you advice it?

Answer 3

personally I think it's a good thing

Answer 4

for a couple of reasons, better coverage and employee benefits, promoting overall health, increasing productivity and employee retention, better regulation of the standards of minimum care, etc.

Answer 5

Why is or isn't it a better idea than national health care?

Answer 6

personally I don't think the government is effective at budgeting/distributing resources for a national healthcare system. A small percentage of sick people use up a disproportionately large amount of healthcare services so it unfairly burdens healthy people to provide the cost for sick people

Answer 7

also see: tragedy of the commons