What companies underwrite their own health insurance policies?

I would find that to be a ridiculous risk for those not actually in the business. The whole idea behind insurance is to spread the risk among lots of people. If a medium-sized business is underwriting their own policy, I would think they would quickly go bankrupt more often than not.

Most medium-to-large employers in the US are self-insured, although big insurers manage the plans for them. When I was working at a factory with a couple of thousand employees, one of them crushed her leg in a motorcycle accident and required a total amputation. Shortly thereafter (and before her return to work) we had an all-hands meeting where they emphasized the importance of vehicular safety during our off hours. HR didn't name any names, although everybody knew who they were talking about.

My company has about 1,000 employees and underwrites its own insurance. They allocate a pool at the beginning of the year and anything that isn't used is written off as profit at the end of the year. I don't know anything more specific than that, but our medium sized, successful company does do this.

Isn't this usually coupled with some sort of insurance that covers a major cost overrun? That secondary insurance might get skyrocket if it gets hit repeatedly.

There was that blow-up a few years ago when the AOL CEO basically blamed an employee with a sick baby for the company's unprofitability. (And maybe that overstates what happened, I'm sure you can find the details if you want)

Family farms.

If you're concerned about family farms you would oppose things too like ag-gag laws regarding un-hygenic food production/abuse and the general anti-humane industrialization of food products both animal and other.

These are far more potent threats to traditional pastoral and agricultural traditions than tax policy. If it was just a bunch of family farms competing against each other (or more likely forming co-ops given history) then it might be a bit more of a fair playing field.

Do businesses have these same concerns about hiring disabled people?

Classifying those with certain genetic mutations as disabled, could be another solution to this problem. Although it should, in theory render them immune from. discrimination, it's a highly imperfect solution that could lead to a very ugly society.

Id rather just keep that information completely private. Companies have been able to operate just fine without the data provided by genetic tests since time immemorial. Employers are not allowed to ask about whether or not you are. married, have kids, your religion, your ethnicity etc. It might not be fair, but it is a trade-off/tax that I would happily pay to ensure that people, through no fault of their own, experience a new class of systemic, institutional discrimination.

Yes, that's why the disabled are a protected class.

For now.

Between those two choices, one is unfair to people, and one is unfair economically. Life is inherently unfair and a lot of things can sink your medium-sized business, so passing the unfair buck from the people to the company makes sense to me. Businesses die and get reborn a lot easier than people.

> ... the solution is not to legally prohibit employers from performing genetic screenings, it's simply to cover [everyone]

OK, but then why would employers even bother to query the genetics of their employees? So they could STILL discriminate on the basis of genetics (regardless of whether it cost them in medical insurance)?