http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
It might be convenient to paint all business owners as 'ultra-rich' but the majority of employment happens through smaller businesses, which generally aren't in a position to 'charge clients more money'. Ask someone who is getting a start-up off the ground why they can't just pay everyone more money.
It seems like the general consensus on HN is that The Government should subsidize startups and small-businesses Just Because, but that it's evil when the same government subsidizes the employee that didn't work quite hard enough and needs to eat food and live in a house while they look for a job they can do better. I don't get it.
(I bet if I wasn't so sarcastic when I made the organ-harvesting reference, I would have been upmodded!)
'subsidize your likely-to-fail startup with their own health' Not sure how to respond to that statement, but all paid employees are offered to exchange their time and effort for cash compensation. It's up to those individuals if the exchange is worth it or not. If there is a chance of a detriment to their health, then they'd need to factor this in.
I think you'll find that your downvotes are because you disagree with the majority of readers of this site, not because of tone or sarcasm.
If he argued that the article author was wrong in a civil tone with a thoughtful manner, I doubt he would have downvotes. There are highly upvoted comments on this very thread that disagree with the article author.
Having unemployment benefits is not optional. Even 3rd world countries have this. However, I don't know that charging the companies directly for the unemployment is the best. Where I live workers pay an "unemployment insurance". The employer pays it, but it's part of the compensation like vacation etc. So when an employee is let go he draws from this insurance, the company is out of it.