[maxerickson]

If that is the comparison you want to make, you have to look at what sort of healthcare private companies provide across their entire employment pool.

I bet American Express has a program that looks an awful lot like universal coverage for their employees.

[mikestew]

I really don't mean to be rude, but wow did you miss the point I was trying to make. I was making no comparisons, other than when a Canadian hears the word "socialism" they don't go into a mouthing-foaming knee-jerk fit.

[maxerickson]

I didn't miss it at all, your point doesn't hold water, lots of companies provide great health insurance to their employees so the "socialism" thing doesn't really explain anything about them not providing other benefits.

[brightball]

The biggest is that asking a company to provide parental leave means asking a company to pay somebody that they hired to do a job to not be there.

That means either, your value is low enough that you can be gone for that long without your company missing you OR that they have to pay somebody else to fill in for you with the knowledge that they'll be let go once you get back. Depending on what kind of work you do, this is no small task.

The types of companies who can afford to do this type of thing essentially boil down to subscription style, giant companies where the absence of any employee won't really effect anything from a business or customer standpoint...who also happen to be rolling in money.

If they're willing and able to provide that benefit...GREAT!

But different businesses provide significantly different cash flow models. Different businesses can't have their valuable employees AWOL for 52 weeks while paying them and somebody else to fill in for them at a higher rate.

You have to be in a money printing market position to even think about something like that.

[limeyx]

This seems like a pretty short-sighted view of the issue. Take a look outside the US for many ways this can be and is done

[brightball]

If it's via government program it can be done for everybody. Via business, the challenges are as mentioned above.

[foota]

The difference is that many Americans believe (I do not) that socialism benefits only lazy people who haven't worked hard. That is why they don't see a company providing benefits as socialism, because they think those people deserve it.

[boomboomsubban]

It's not a benefit in other countries, it's either a socialized system or a legal requirement.

[mikestew]

Did you miss the word "universal", then? Because what you describe does not fit that definition.

[st3v3r]

Their point does hold water, given that as soon as you decide not to work for the company, you're SOL. "Universal" would imply that I get it regardless of what company I work for.

[tkxxx7]

I think our thread grandparents were referring to the decisions of country/government itself ("Canada has x"), not specific U.S. companies

[wedowhatwedo]

Does American Express provide this insurance to people that don't work for them?

I don't believe they do, so that makes it fairly irrelevant to the conversation about universal health care.

[maxerickson]

I think it is sort of relevant because it reveals a certain amount of contradictory thought. Employer provided healthcare is often provided without any consideration of the actuarial cost of providing it. A group decides that everybody in the group should have coverage and shares the cost. But doing that for a bigger group, oh hell no.

[wedowhatwedo]

I don't understand your point. We agree that American Express should not provide insurance to people that aren't working there. I bet we don't agree that the government should provide single payer insurance to all citizens so companies do not have to do it. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter in the country because the elected officials right now do not feel the citizens deserve insurance.

[Dylan16807]

If a private company does it, then it's not socialist, and no taboo gets invoked. Very different from the government doing it.

[maxerickson]

I'm arguing that the difference is imaginary.

[brightball]

Well, you'd be wrong. A business has earned revenues that its owners can spend or use for benefits however they please. A business can't force people to pay for their services. A government can.

[maxerickson]

If you look at existing employment relationships, it also depends a great deal on how much leverage the employees have, not just on what pleases owners.