Revisions on Health Care

In light of yesterday’s historic vote on health care, looks like I will need to revise the chapter on “employee benefits” in Global Issues in Employment Law (co-authored with Samuel Estreicher).  Here is what the chapter introduction currently says: 

 

“In the United States, health insurance and pensions have tended to be tied to employment, with incentives in the tax code encouraging employers to provide these benefits and prompting may employees to request them.  Some employers do not provide their employees with these benefits; these individuals must rely on private resources and social security.  Many other developed nations, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, have nationalized their systems of health care and provide a more extensive set of social benefits than does the U.S."

Thoughts on how to revise?  (Yes, we were really an outlier among developed nations).

Comments

[Tim]

I know this is really an ancillary point to your post, but why does it matter whether we are an outlier?

I am not trying to be smart, I am seriously curious as to why it matters. I am also not saying that I can't be convinced, but I honestly don't understand why having a different policy from other similarly situated political entities matters, why we should care, or why we should be influenced to change our policy to conform to somebody else's policy. The same notion comes up with respect to capital punishment (and I am sure other issues) as well, and I have the same question. People throw it around as if it matters, and others seemed to accept it as being important, but I could never figure out why.

[Paul Secunda]

You could read my, Sam, and Rosalind Connor's book: Global Issues in Employee Benefits Law. :)

[Miriam A. Cherry]

Paul - would you mind a five second overview for the benefit of other commenters? Or perhaps it was you who was being smart. ;) Cheers, Miriam