Hacker News Reader

I bring it up because there are downsides to coupling essential services to whoever happens to be your employer at the time. The upsides are mostly a consequence of the market adapting to decades-long tax policy. There's nothing special about employers, but I guess sometimes it's easier to reinforce a problem than to fix it.

Yes, I absolutely agree. I wish the US had a single payer healthcare system.

But that's not the reality we live in (yet, hopefully). So if these sorts of opportunities exist, presumably we should consider them.

Additionally, without X, employer faces a decent chance of being forced to choose between firing a newly-disabled employee, or continuing to pay their salary even though they can't produce enough value to justify it. With X, you avoid being forced to choose between two bad outcomes.

Also, if the event X covers occurs, it would put the employer in an awful ethical position.