It is not the responsibility of the company to provide health care benefits to employees?

Question

It is the Governments or the Individual's responsibility. ( Please help me with some back - up on these two issues) Thanks!

For a project , I need to debate that it is either the Government or the Individual's responsibily to provide health care.
Thanks!

Answer 1

All these answers are biased to the US approach to health care. If you really want to argue the two sides of this question, you are going to have to do so on the merits of whether the government should provide health care as a "social good" that all citizens deserve, or whether the individual is solely responsible for health care, and "deserves" not to get it if they can't afford it.

Personally, I would argue that the Government should provide some level of health insurance as a basic "common good". Otherwise, there is a significant bias against the poor, who are often also the ones who cannot afford / do not have employers who provide health care insurance. Also, a group payer (like the government) can have much more influence on how health care is delivered and what the costs will be. Individual payers (like HMOs, for instance) can influence only within a small subsection of the overall country -- and, as has been attested to by many, often influence negatively in terms of treatment options and so on. A broader based payer can also influence a broader base, and can bring some fairness to how treatment options are applied.

However, the government is not responsible for every whim of the individual. I don't think the government should pay for all kinds of care, nor do I think that the government has to treat individuals as unable to manage their own health decisions, by regulating alternative health care and the like. So, I think that it should be a combination of individual responsibility with government responsibility, with as much individual choice and as little regulation as possible.

Answer 2

What, the government is some "big brother" that takes care of everyone and wipes their rear end?? In my opinion, having the government take responsibility for people, including health care, is the biggest insult to adults that there is - it basically tells them they are incompetant, and that politicians can take care of them better than they can take care of themselves. (If you think that's true, look how "great" the government programs are - look at the overhead, cost, and fraud. Government programs are the least coverage for the most cost, with the highest overhead. See everyone running to get into government housing?)

Clearly, it's not the company's responsibitliy to provide health care benefits, ALTHOUGH, if they do, they attract a better quality worker. Otherwise, the good workers go to the better companies, that DO provide health coverage. It's usually part of a compensation package - so the worker has to be "worth" the extra benefits.

It's up to individuals to learn skills and work hard, to be valued by the companies - or if they don't want to, then they can start their OWN companies!!

Answer 3

nicely, offering to short-term workers would be impossible - they generally are actually not employed long sufficient to qualify for the convenience (that's often ninety days for coverage). section time workers do get the supply from some employers. I used to artwork for a residential care company that presented section time workers their scientific well being coverage - the top type depended upon what proportion hours labored in a month era, and the worker had to artwork a minimum volume of hours each and each month as a manner to preserve that top type. So some do supply that threat - i think of it relies upon on length of the corporate. would desire to they be required? i don't comprehend if requiring them is a necessity, because of the fact some are rather offering the possibility without needing to.

Answer 4

it is your own responsibility to get yourself health care. An employer is not obligated to provide these for you but this is why they are called "benefits". It's your choice not theirs. They only offer these to you as a way of attracting employees. The government doesn't owe you anything. And an employer doesn't have to pay you if you get laid off. I'm sick of hearing about people who cry foul when their company has to lay off because of decreased revenue. They don't owe you a living. It's not their fault you have limited skills and education!

Answer 5

YES, but wouldmake a great incentive to attain higher qualified potental employee's i think more employer's could at least offer co-pay of insurance to better able the government to get large families off of state funded program's.

Answer 6

I know that in Texas an employer is not required to provide health insurance, but IF they choose to they must provide it to 75% or more of its employees.

Answer 7

In the U.S., it's the individual's responsibility to provide health care. Only exceptions would be contractual arrangement.

Sorry--I know it's bad news.

Answer 8

Heh, in the USA, the government does almost nothing for healthcare.

SOME employers provide healthcare (usually expensive) to their employees.

And the rest of us are S.O.L. That's why over half of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills.