Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite Get Embed HTML Code View Article Stats
1 comment

View Ratings | Rate It

The pro-business case for Minimum Health Care Laws

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
OpEdNews Op Eds
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)


opednews.com


Most Americans strongly support laws that mandate a minimum wage. The rationale is simple: companies should have to pay their workers some bare minimum, so as to prevent slave labor. Now, that same simple rationale is growing in a different area: health care.

In cities and states across America, there is a quiet but growing understanding that this country should have minimum health care laws, just like we have minimum wage laws. In New York, the city council passed a bill that forces large employers to provide minimum health care to their employees (more on the bill here via Nathan Newman). This follows legislation that passed both houses of the Maryland legislature that did the same (though it was vetoed by the state's bought-off Governor). And in case you thought this was just a "blue" state/region phenomenon, think again: the GOP House Speaker in the ultra-red state of Idaho is considering crafting a similar law there.

The arguments against this are not surprising: Corporate America says it is "anti-business" because it forces companies to shell out more money for their employees. But as New York City Councilor Christine Quinn noted, the measures are "a pro-business response that protects both the responsible employers who currently provide health insurance as well as the taxpayers who are seeing an increasing pressure put upon the publicly financed health care system."

Think of it this way: without these mandates, companies that provide health care to their workers are at a competitive disadvantage with companies that don't. That creates a race to the bottom, allowing our economy to reward companies that shaft their workers. These mandates are pro-business because they erases that competitive disadvantage by forcing responsible business's competitors to also provide health care.

Additionally, the minimum health care bills are pro-business because they keep taxes down. The fact is, when companies like Wal-Mart don't provide workers health care, those workers go on public assistance - programs paid for by higher taxes. Thus forcing companies to provide minimum health care, prevents state and municipal governments from having to raise taxes on individuals and businesses in order to fund public assistance.

Mark my words, this fight is only starting. If disparate places like New York City, Maryland and Idaho are all independently addressing the problem, it means the issue cuts across party and geographic lines. And while it is certainly true we also need comprehensive health care reform that brings down health care prices, these efforts are a major step in the right direction. It's about time we start coming together around the economic issues that should unite us.


 


David Sirota is a full-time political journalist, (
more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

a shame about common sense by ardee D. on Saturday, Aug 20, 2005 at 12:31:10 PM