Pay or Pay
One of the hot policy proposals these days is a pay-or-play universal health-care plan, touted as a public-private alternative to socialized medicine. Employers would have to provide health benefits to their employees or pay a tax that would fund federal health insurance.
But is pay-or-play really that desirable? The plan would make it more expensive for firms to employ workers and would reduce employment. How much? Well, the Republicans on Congress's Joint Economic Committee estimate that a pay-or-play program with a 7-percent tax would cost 712,742 jobs nationally. Most of the jobs would be lost in small businesses. Firms with fewer than 20 employees would lose 308,265 jobs.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Pay or Pay."
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?