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?

I personally believe that the opponents of California’s Proposition 8 and similar measures around the country restricting marriage to a man and a woman should quit wasting their time and money fighting the laws. They should instead redirect their efforts toward what I see as the logical consquences of these laws. It mystifies me that nobody has demanded that federal and state laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation be rigorously enforced in the states which have enacted these laws.

If marriage is indeed a discriminatory institution, then states should immediately cease issuing marriage licenses, stop providing funding for training marriage counselors in public colleges and universities, and eliminate preferential tax treatment for married couples (the federal government should eliminate this as well). It should be illegal for anyone to ask one’s marital status or to use it as a condition in any matter (after all, stating that one is married is in effect stating one’s sexual orientation in those states).

Churches could continue to marry couples according to their beliefs, but there would be no legal standing for such marriages – simply a religious ritual. Those wishing some sort of legal recognition could establish a domestic partnership with as many of the rights, privileges, benefits, etc. currently afforded to marriage as they can identify and claim,

The idea that the health care industry can pass along the cost of treating uninsured or other non-paying patients to the insurance companies who then pass it along to those paying the premiums is just plain wrong. How big a factor is this in our rapidly escalting health care costs?  If the insured are going to wind up paying anyway, wouldn’t it be nice to be told up front?

It seems as though this is a sure ticket to a wild ride on a death-spiral: as insurance becomes less affordable, more individuals drop out, more employers either drop out or raise the employee share, and the rates keep going up in a futile attempt to keep the profit margin high.