Then they are grossly misunderstanding relative risks and shouldn't be launching their own startup.

And its terrible reasoning. Existing law already provides for cobra, giving them an 18 month window of coverage in which they can retain your employer's insurance (by paying the full premiums). That's more than enough time to validate an idea and secure insurance in the new company, or fail and spend 6 months finding a new job. Or if you are an engineer, 1 month finding a new job.

sure, if you are using the "build a prototype, get investment, move from there" model... that's fine.

Personally, I think bootstrapping, taking no outside investment at all is also a completely reasonable model (and often ends up with a more sustainable business, and can be executed by people that lack the sales skills to get investment)

If you are bootstrapping? 18 months is not a reasonable period of time to get something to the point where you can get group coverage. (In most states, to get group coverage, you need at least two employees on that insurance.)

also, I think it's quite valid to support yourself doing contract work. same problem; if you don't want a body shop to take half your pay, well, you need two employees before you can get group coverage.

My company bootstrapped and we just initiated a group policy 13 months after our doors opened. This is, of course, anecdotal, but I think it's very well in the realm of possibility. Regardless, even in states like CA high-deductible plans (i.e. catastrophic care plans) are very much attainable both by small businesses and by individuals.

Contractors in the US get hit with a fairly sizable self-employment tax. This tax would no doubt go up to fund any sort of universal health insurance.

Regardless, I don't see the need to 'scratch your entrepreneurial itch' as a valid reason to stick you neighbor with your medical bills.

"we just initiated a group policy 13 months after our doors opened"

Doors opened means started development or launched? If after you started development, how long were you in development?

"Regardless, I don't see the need to 'scratch your entrepreneurial itch' as a valid reason to stick you neighbor with your medical bills."

What if you change your statement to:

-->I don't see the need to 'educate children' as a valid reason to stick your neighbor with your school bills.

-->I don't see the need to 'protect your life' as a valid reason to stick your neighbor with your police bills.

The reason the government provides these services is because it is in the common interest.

I'm sure if you think a little while you can come up with some reasons why having universal health care might be in our collective best interest.

So you think entrepreneurship is solely about people's personal entertainment?

Incidentally, do you pay for your own police force, or are you taking money from your neighbors to pay for your property-owning itch?

>Regardless, I don't see the need to 'scratch your entrepreneurial itch' as a valid reason to stick you neighbor with your medical bills.

Problem is that with two employees, you can get a group plan, and yeah,you've gotta pay your five hundred bucks per person a month or what have you, it's not cheap, but you can buy insurance.

My problem is that two employee minimum. I mean, am I that much lower of a risk because I work at a company with two employees, rather than just one? sounds unlikely.

By relative risks you mean the possibility that an event occurs that requires medical care?

If so, there are many cases where a founder or their family member has a pre-existing condition that makes them uninsurable. If someone loses the genetic lottery and has a severe case of asthma it can greatly change their calculus. Would you advise someone to start a company if they knew that in 12 months they'd have to hit it big or give up due to the prospect of future medical bills?