It seems to me that some important points are being overlooked in the health care debate. First, health care and other benefits were originally offered to employees to attract good people and retain employees who had gained valuable experience. Unions pressed for these benefits for their members as well. Apparently, employers no longer believe that retaining  qualified and experienced employees steeped in corporate culture and keepers of the corporate memory is as important as it was – or, perhaps the economic situation is so bad that they think they don’t have to worry.

At some level, all health care costs (except for the very wealthy) are employer-paid. The advantages of a group plan offered to employees are a presumed discount for the group premiums and the general acceptance of pre-existing conditions. When an employer opts not to provide benefits, the employee either does without health insurance, tries to save sufficient money to pay his own way, or buys an individual plan using money out of his paycheck. So, we might expect that a company which provides benefits can hire employees at both a lower salary and a lower total cost (given the group discount on premiums) than a comparable company which does not. Should the second company be able to hire people at the same salary as the first, we would expect to see higher turnover, increased absenteeism, and generally less commitment to the company (reflecting the lack of commitment of the company to the employees).

Does this really happen?