One more thougth: with "good" healthcare, the average marginal productivity of the general population should be larger. Thus, profit-maximizing businesses might be willing to incur in additional costs; the transition might be classified as pareto-optimal if/when the business incur in additional costs equal to the additional marginal productivity, while the population enjoys a higher level of healthcare. On the other hand, if businesses have to pay more than the increased marginal productivity, while citizens enjoy higher levels of healthcare, then we have a social conflict...

One more thougth: with "good" healthcare, the average marginal productivity of the general population should be larger. Thus, profit-maximizing businesses might be willing to incur in additional costs; the transition might be classified as pareto-optimal if/when the business incur in additional costs equal to the additional marginal productivity, while the population enjoys a higher level of healthcare. On the other hand, if businesses have to pay more than the increased marginal productivity, while citizens enjoy higher levels of healthcare, then we have a social conflict...

Getting diabetes compelled me to learn a lot more about health and medicine and to be honest I think a lot of modern illnesses in the UK at least, which has the NHS, are preventable by changes in diet and lifestyle, I dont know the extent to which government can influence those things, its not just about being abstinmonious but having knowledge and being motivated to apply it.

I've considered something which hasnt been proposed by anyone but which some health commentators and pundits have thought about and that is a single day, additional to existing time off each week during which it would be free of charge for anyone to use gyms or leisure centres. Although it would require more than that to tip the balance or motivate the necessary change it could be a start.

One more thougth: with "good" healthcare, the average marginal productivity of the general population should be larger. Thus, profit-maximizing businesses might be willing to incur in additional costs; the transition might be classified as pareto-optimal if/when the business incur in additional costs equal to the additional marginal productivity, while the population enjoys a higher level of healthcare. On the other hand, if businesses have to pay more than the increased marginal productivity, while citizens enjoy higher levels of healthcare, then we have a social conflict...

At least one person in here can provide a decent economic argument.

The thing is, the extent of any gain in marginal productivity would be so uncertain and intangible, whereas the rise in marginal cost would be more-or-less certain and highly tangible, that that the effect of any expectation in marginal productivity increase would almost certainly be negligible compared to the effect of the expectation in marginal cost increase, and thus hiring would still more-or-less undeniably be inhibited by the legislation.

The thing is, the extent of any gain in marginal productivity would be so uncertain and intangible, whereas the rise in marginal cost would be more-or-less certain and highly tangible, that that the effect of any expectation in marginal productivity increase would almost certainly be negligible compared to the effect of the expectation in marginal cost increase, and thus hiring would still more-or-less undeniably be inhibited by the legislation.

The capabilities of an ill or well individual can certainly be quantified. Sick days aren't just a loss in wages, they're a loss in productivity. Health promotion is crucially important for the economy, especially one as vulnerable as ours.

The capabilities of an ill or well individual can certainly be quantified. Sick days aren't just a loss in wages, they're a loss in productivity. Health promotion is crucially important for the economy, especially one as vulnerable as ours.

Considering our current health system is not so inept, and any potential future system will not have proven itself to be so much improved, and that 84% of the populace was already insured to begin with, and there is no credible evidence that sick days would actually go down under the new system, that, if there was to be any expected positive effect on productivity, it would not be anywhere enough to offset the expected cost of increases for most employers. If you think it would, you, once again, are just showing that you have no idea what you're talking about.