The argument is that companies do arbitrary things that are both harmful to the health of employees and also harmful to the profitability of the companies.

So the idea is that companies (and society) can actually make more money by doing things that are less impactful on employee health and that they should do them.

That sounds like a good argument that nobody would disagree with but by the end of the day I think that being unemployed is probably worse to your health than having a work "that kills you"

Well, the article isn't arguing that unemployment would be better, so that's apparently just a tedious reaction to the title?

Just vote for smarter politicians.

If you are out of job: - The goverment should pay your health insurance, or it should be free.

If you are in job: - You employer should pay your healh insurance (for GOVERMENT not for private indistry). The rate should be fixed or as fixed percentage of your income - the same no matter if you have any illness or not.

This system works in Europe flawlessly.

3 pillars of socialism:

- Free healthcare - Free education including university level education - Pension by goverment for ALL people who retire.

In communist countries we had it all since 1945...

Whats the point of goverment who is not giving you anything?

Point of government is not to give but, you know, to govern.

In communist countries millions of people were killed, so you probably should pick better examples.

That they are not wrong that the standard of living for the average person in a lot of ex-soviet (which I assume they are talking about) countries did indeed decrease sharply after their "liberation".