National Health insurance is a blessing but its also a big burden for the whole society. So in order to ease the burden consider this:
Upon coverage of past treatment, a then successful person could decide to return the cost to the insurance company. The insurance company then returned to him/her all the premiums before that.
This coverage then would be recorded in the books as cost / tax deductible.
-----------
The cost of human resources should include their health right? So it is only logical to include their health costs against their revenue. However we don't pile up everything at once because its too expensive of a cost that way, but in truth it is always there lingering.
It is not a bad thing, not putting in the equation all of the health costs of a worker or a revenue receiver, only those immidiately associated with the context of the revenue. On the other side of the coin, wouldn't it be an objective assessment to acknowledge the rest of the costs as contributive too when a point has already been reached?
