Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You would likely have a more nuanced view if you worked in a profession where it wasn't considered a mandatory benefit by your competitors in the labor marketplace.
|
By "nuanced" do you mean "different"? Because I don't see much nuance in this debate: Either health insurance should be tied to employment or not; and, if so, should be paid for by employers or employees. The only possible nuance I see is whether in making a decision that it's mandatory and paid for by employers if really there is such a thing as an "employer-paid" benefit.
Employer-contributed 401(k)s were considered "mandatory" benefits by competitors in my industry. Then someone realized that employees might rather have the cash on the barrelhead. Odd that. Then the principle was extended to health insurance as well, which became not an employer-paid benefit but rather an employee-paid benefit, with a choice of plans. Remarkably, enrollment in the cheaper plan skyrocketed. Odder that.
