would no longer be required to provide health insurance to their employees? Freed from that expense, employers would absolutely be able to afford the $15 minimum wage.
I know, getting the $15 minimum wage passed is an enormous task in and of itself and combining it with the (perceived) horror of universal health care would really send the Republicans into a "But that's socialism!" hysteria. But just thought I'd throw the idea out there for discussion.
From a COTO Insurance website article:
There’s a growing number of businesses that have kept quiet when it comes to the health care debate. While they may be all about the free market, the reality is that the exponentially rising costs of providing health care to their employees is increasing overhead, reducing profits and making them less competitive with foreign markets.
Many believe a universal health care plan — a government-sponsored program in which medical care is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay — could help solve these problems. In short, companies could stop paying for health insurance. Presumably, that means they could pay their employees more, although much of the increase may be absorbed by higher taxes to fund the program. However, the competitive benefit for employers — both large and small — would remain.
[link:
https://www.cotoinsurance.com/the-upside-to-universal-health-care-benefits-nobody-talks-about/|
The article describes many benefits to businesses of releasing them from the obligation of providing health insurance.
Small businesses would no longer lose out to larger companies when it comes to hiring talent, as health care would no longer be a competitive benefit. Employees who would rather work at a smaller company would now have that option without losing out on a robust health insurance plan.
Employees would also be released from the phenomenon known as “job lock,” when many people stay at their jobs solely for health insurance benefits. This has a lot of downsides, from poor morale and lower productivity to curbing labor mobility and entrepreneurship. In terms of economic growth, small businesses account for two-thirds of net new jobs and represent close to half (44 percent) of U.S. economic activity. If workers aren’t saddled by the need for employer-sponsored health insurance, they would have the option to quit and start their own businesses.
This issue was recently spotlighted by a report that over the past 10 years, the employee share of health insurance premiums has increased 71 percent, while average earnings increased only 26 percent. Even workers with robust employer-sponsored insurance are increasingly paying more out of pocket. On average, employees pay $1,242 (singles) or $6,015 (families) a year for insurance premiums, and deductibles have doubled from $826 to $1,655 on average.
There are many other potentially significant advantages to broad-scale universal health care. First, it could reduce the overall cost of health care because the government would be able to leverage volume to negotiate better pricing structures for medical services and prescription drugs. Administrative costs — particularly for hospitals and doctor’s offices — would decrease because they could file claims with a single entity instead of multiple insurance companies. That would reduce provider overhead expenses, allowing these entities to invest in more medical personnel.
People who get health insurance from their work would be sure to object. But if a well-planned and well-executed universal health insurance program were in place, that would help overcome their objections. And if they still object, they should be educated about the fact that empoyer-provided health insurance is the third-biggest government-subsidized health care expense, after Medicare and Medicaid, costing five times as much as the subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act.
From a 2017
New York Times article:
As Republican senators work to fix their troubled health care bill, there is one giant health insurance subsidy no one is talking about.
It is bigger than any offered under the Affordable Care Act — subsidies some Republicans loathe as handouts — and costs the federal government $250 billion in lost tax revenue every year.
The beneficiaries: everyone who gets health insurance through a job, including members of Congress.
Much of the bitter debate over how to repeal and replace the law known as Obamacare has focused on cutting Medicaid and subsidies that help low-income people buy insurance.
But economists on the left and the right argue that to really rein in health costs, Congress should scale back or eliminate the tax exclusion on what employers pay toward employees’ health insurance premiums. Under current law, those premiums are not subject to the payroll or income taxes that are taken out of employees’ wages, an arrangement that vastly benefits middle- and upper-income people.
That one policy tweak could reduce health care spending, stabilize the health insurance market and, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, shrink the federal budget deficit by between $174 billion and $429 billion over a six-year period.
[link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/health/health-insurance-tax-deduction.html|