[flxmglrb]

Universal single payer health care would cause an explosion of entrepreneurship the likes of which the USA has not seen in a long, long time. In the current situation, anyone with a family or a chronic condition is pretty much restricted to working a BigCorp job unless / until this happens.

[Danieru]

I thought you were wrong but then I found this Government of Canada report: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/vwapj/SEC-EEC_eng.pdf/$...

The important figure is on page twenty. 5.5% of Canadians are self-employed with incorporated businesses compared to only 3.6% for the USA. Assuming this figure corresponds to entrepreneurship then there is definitely significant correlation.

Still, as a Canadian I am 95% confident that universal health care is worth it even without an entrepreneurship boost.

[anamax]

> The important figure is on page twenty. 5.5% of Canadians are self-employed with incorporated businesses compared to only 3.6% for the USA. Assuming this figure corresponds to entrepreneurship then there is definitely significant correlation.

That's not the only bogus assumption in your argument. You're also assuming that all other things are equal and that they're measuring the same thing.

I can look at two adjacent blocks in San Jose and find a much larger difference in entreprenurship measured the same way. Yet, healthcare is exactly the same....

[richardjordan]

Right but on a sample size of countries such regional differences will be ironed out. Neighborhood trends within a country are not the same as national trends being referred to. The larger point remains - a fifty percent higher level of self-employed with incorporated businesses (which is a fairly good marker for entrepreneurship unless you can suggest a better one) in the country with the safety net of health insurance.

[anamax]

> The larger point remains - a fifty percent higher level of self-employed with incorporated businesses (which is a fairly good marker for entrepreneurship unless you can suggest a better one)

"fairly good" doesn't imply that it has enough precision to support your 50% claim.

Canadian biz law is different, so I'd expect incorporation rates to be different.

> in the country with the safety net of health insurance.

Nope - the difference is due to hockey and average temperature. After all, if you look at neighboring states, which have those things, the difference goes away.

Or, it's due to the ethnic makeup. Asians in San Jose start biz far more whites, and whites far more than Hispanics and AAs. That alone explains a lot of the difference that you're observing. (Canada is white with some asian. The US is far more diverse.)

[anamax]

> Universal single payer health care would cause an explosion of entrepreneurship

No, it wouldn't.

The fraction of folks with chronic conditions isn't high enough to support your argument. Morever, the vast majority of them aren't shackled if they pay attention. (Staying married and/or staying covered is adequate in most cases and there are other ways to solve the problem.)

Do you really believe that there are a lot of good potential entrepreneurs with chronic conditions who can't handle this?

[richardjordan]

Your question is a straw man argument.

1) It's just not for entrepreneurs without coverage. Though that's not trivial - healthcare costs are non-trivial even for relatively healthy people, and the risks are very high particularly during a period where you're perhaps earning less money because you're starting a business.

2) It's not just about chronic illnesses, all healthcare costs money. Most people will have some expenses during any given year. It's a significant additional risk.

3) To grow a company you need to hire people. People need healthcare. You either are restricted to employees who can work without healthcare or you have to pay a lot for it because plans are more expensive at that scale. Healthcare is a challenge hiring older people with more experience.

There are lots of talented people who are discouraged from starting businesses or from joining startups because of the burden and risks associated with our staggeringly expensive, inefficient, employer-based healthcare system.

I have two children. I am divorced. Healthcare is always a concern when I choose to start a company or move to a company. This is not an atypical case.

[anamax]

> It's just not for entrepreneurs without coverage.

That was the claim. If you want to argue that said claim is wrong....

> healthcare costs are non-trivial even for relatively healthy people

Oh really? I've paid out of pocket for high-end healthcare plans while "old". Housing was a much bigger issue.

More to the point, you're going to pay one way or another.

And no, the US govt is not an efficent middle-man. Yes, they can cut a check cheaply, but the fraud admitted to by govt healthcare advoctes dwarfs the administration and profit of private companies. Since the likely numbers are higher....

No, you don't to point to other countries. We're stuck with the govt we've got. Fix existing govt healthcare programs (starting with IHS) and we'll talk.

> 2) It's not just about chronic illnesses, all healthcare costs money

Yes, but it doesn't get any cheaper funneling it the money through third parties.

> 3) To grow a company you need to hire people. People need healthcare.

And you're going to be paying for that, one way or another.

[anamax]

> Healthcare is always a concern when I choose to start a company or move to a company.

As is rent and food. So what?

One of the interesting things about this argument is that I'm arguing against self-interest. The programs that you folks are advocating end up subsidizing old people, even those who are relatively well off, like me. That subsidy is paid for by younger folk who are, on the whole, less well off.

Back when I was young and less well off, I found that absurd and wrong. Now that I'm approaching the other side, I'm beginning to see the error of my ways.

It's like social security. How many of you think that younger-than-you people will be willing to pay the benefits that you've "earned"?

I was pretty sure that your generation wouldn't stand for that wrt mine. I was wrong but are you sure that I just wasn't early?

If you want to rely on "a greater fool", be my guest.

I suppose that I should just take your money and shut up.

[eli]

Even assuming you've got your own situation handled, you are going to be at a huge recruiting disadvantage if you don't offer health coverage to your employees.

[anamax]

> Even assuming you've got your own situation handled, you are going to be at a huge recruiting disadvantage if you don't offer health coverage to your employees.

So?

You're going to be paying for it one way or another, just as they are.

Where's the disadvantage based on how the payment happens?