Ergo, the consumer pays more for goods and services which has the exact same effect as paying a tax - the consumer has less money. The entire cost of all healthcare is borne by society as a whole. This method funds part of it.
The company has decided that their investment in developing a useful employee is protected by ensuring that the employee has access to health care. Healthy workers show up to work. They have longer productive lives.
The problem is that many workers, especially those at the lower end of the pay scales, can't be trusted to actually use their own money to buy insurance even if a reasonable allowance is provided for just that. It's the same logic that resulted in the establishment of social security, and withholding tax. Planning for the future is not a universal trait. As much as we may wish otherwise, people frequently do not behave in a responsible fashion.
We don't turn people away from emergency rooms in this country, nor should we. The cost of that bit of largess as some see it is also borne by society in the form of higher cost for all. Thus the individual mandate.
The fallacy that companies 'will' (as opposed to 'could') pay a higher wage instead of providing sponsored health care and the fallacy that people 'will' (as opposed to 'could') actually spend it on health insurance is what lead to the employer mandate.
Reality is in conflict with ideology on both sides of the debate. What we need is someone who can offer a workable compromise.
I fail to see that person.
As far as Walker... which blue states turn red with his nomination?
