> It's insane that any business should spend so many cycles on managing this. I would have thought Republicans (pro business) might be more open to a state role in healthcare precisely so business's don't have to manage this burden.
Two things to keep in mind, with this and a lot of other issues:
- The cycles spent handling it aren't a big deal to large corporations.
- The idea that small-business interests and large corporate business interests are one and the same is one of the Big Lies of the Republican party.
Hey Justin66. Not true at all! Large corporations have to grapple with this and spend a fortune managing health care for employees. The interesting question is what % more might they pay in payroll type tax to move this onto the state.
Consider the comparative overhead of dealing with this as a percentage of income (or percentage of attention demanded of management, or any number of things) and you'll see what I mean.
The issue isn't whether large businesses spend a "fortune" on health care, the point is that their political incentives are entirely different than those of small businesses because the effect providing health care to employees has on their business is so entirely different.
Hey Justin. All you're doing is pointing out that it scales better as they get larger. Imagine how much time and effort a company with 100,000 employees spends on optimizing and managing health care. Now compare that against their non American competitor who doesn't have any of this time/cost/concern/overhead. That's why I think irrespective of size businesses would want this off their plate.
Two things to keep in mind, with this and a lot of other issues: - The cycles spent handling it aren't a big deal to large corporations. - The idea that small-business interests and large corporate business interests are one and the same is one of the Big Lies of the Republican party.