It really amazes me how there are controversial topics where one side never presents any actual facts or figures to back up their stance. I would think that, in the absence of any hard evidence, the controversy would disappear. Yet it seems that anecdote and rhetoric alone are enough to sustain extreme controversy. Both health care and climate change in the US are excellent examples of this.
Edit: the statement about R&D costs is one excellent example of this. This thread is not the first place I've heard it, by any means. It's inevitably framed as the US subsidizing the rest of the world but without any quantitative analysis of it. The assertion evaporates when you actually look at the numbers, of course. Another excellent example was when my father claimed, no doubt prompted by right-wing talk radio, that the life expectancy gap was driven by the much higher murder rate in the US compared to European countries. Upon plugging in the numbers, I found that, assuming an absolute worst case (every murdered American is an infant, losing all ~80 years of life), dropping the US murder rate to zero would increase American life expectancy by six months.
I get how people can be wrong sometimes, but the way it spreads, the way people hear things and never check them or even apply a basic smell test, and the way these complete falsehoods manage to shape national debate is just crazy.
There aren't any. The parent to this thread doesn't know what they're talking about. :)
It's just a way that the media/government gets people to accept their poor health care situation: it's better! and you couldn't get it anywhere else! The high costs? That's just the way things are, never mind these examples in every other developed country in the world.
I upvoted you because this sort of thing shouldn't be anywhere near News.YC.
"owing to Obamacare"? Really? You mean employers weren't paying employee health care before Obama?
You have to LOL at the reasoning in this article, and the poorly reasoned/thought out tirade against "liberals".
Wait, you mean, Singapore created all these incentives ... because of Obama, right?
The funniest thing about the "Obamacare" thing in this post is that the author is actually arguing for universal health care (guess what Singapore has? :). You're essentially offloading your corporate health care costs onto the government. Hehe.
The point being made is that the health care costs in the US are very high. The author editorializes that this is "due to Obamacare". Costs were high before Obamacare, and they're higher now, and non-partisan projections (CBO, etc.) indicate they're going higher still. How you want to apportion blame is up to you - the fact that costs are high is inarguable. So is the fact that it costs jobs.
Also, you apparently don't know much about Singapore. Their (quite excellent) health care system works by forced savings - it's not, in any way, "socialized medicine" as the term is used in the US.
In fact, government spending on health care in Singapore is around 3-4% of GDP. Government spending on health care in the US is approximately twice that, as a share of GDP. So yeah, moving from the US system to the Singapore system would be "offloading your corporate health care costs onto the government" if by that you mean "transferring health care costs from the government to the private sector".
But please, don't let me get in the way of a good partisan food fight.
(And as for the "meme" that high taxes in the US aren't really killing jobs... Let's see, unemployment in Singapore these days is around 2%. What's your explanation?)
You are correct that I don't know anything about Singapore other than what I read in the press like the Economist and the CIA Factbook.
However I do know quite a bit about analyzing high tech enterprises, and the creation of said enterprises. And that analysis is a bit more nuanced than 'health care is more expensive.'
The Singapore Statistics Office disagrees with some of your numbers  they claim 4% unemployment. But it doesn't say what they spend on health care.
But lets say your ideal employee in Singapore cost your $70,000 USD / year. In California you can get health care on an individual basis for $500/month for most people, $1000 a month for older people (60+), and a lot less for young healthy people. But lets say you spend $1000 a month. So that means a $12,000 per employee per year health cost penalty. Now 25 employees at 70K each is a salary pool of $1,750,000. If you hire Californians at $70,000 and give them each $12,000 for health care ($82,000 effective salary) then you can only hire $1,750,000/$82,000 or 21 of them (and $28,000 left over in your pool)
So here is a different, but an important question. Can you achieve with 21 engineers in California what you can achieve with 25 engineers in Singapore? (this happens to be an interesting number because for those of us who have lived in the Bay Area for a few decades there is a saying that goes "With 20 people and a good idea I can change the world!")
I'm not trying to take anything away from Singapore, I'm sure its a great place and everything I read says it has great infrastructure and a very business friendly climate. What I'm saying is that using health care costs in this way is not an effective reasoning tool with regards to a high tech endeavor. Twenty technical employees who have already done a start-up or two each are going to be hugely more productive getting a new endeavor off the ground.
Okay, first, a minor point: Unemployment has continued to fall in Singapore; your link is for 2010, but it's lower now.
Next, let's assume you're correct about health care costs. There are still two logical errors in your argument:
1) There are a lot of differences between the US and Singapore. Health care is only one of them; the original article listed several more. Even if you're right that health care costs alone only lead to a 16% advantage (which is probably off by a factor of 3-4, given overall health care spending in each country), don't forget all the other areas.
2) Not everywhere is the Bay Area. Perhaps the Bay Area can compete with Singapore, but the Bay Area has a lot of unique advantages. Are we writing off everyone not in the Bay Area? And don't say "oh, they can just move here"; the infrastructure won't support it.
The original author wants to talk about Singapore and high tech jobs; you picked only one of several differences which made Singapore attractive, and then compared it to the most attractive region in the US. And even on that basis, it looks a bit like a toss up.
Let's close by turning back to Singapore. As you admit, Singapore is much more business friendly. And it has very enviable economic statistics. I already mentioned the 2% unemployment, so let's look at GDP per capita. Using PPP, Singapore comes in 3rd worldwide in 2011 according to the IMF, with a per capita GDP of $60k - 24% higher than the US.
Remember that per capita GDP is a measure of the value added in an economy. In concrete terms, those numbers mean that the average person in Singapore is so productive that they can afford a lifestyle 24% nicer than the average person in America. Your example tried to argue that Americans are so much more productive than Singaporeans that you can cover the health care costs and still come out ahead. The statistics say that on average, it actually the Singaporeans who are more productive.
(Mind you: Singapore is small, and in many ways unique. I'm not suggesting that it's possible or desirable to copy their model on the scale of the US. Also, they have high inequality, and poor protection of civil liberties. I suspect many Americans value their relatively low inequality and strong civil liberties. And yet...repealing Obamacare and properly reforming American health care to be along more Singaporean lines would not obviously lead to higher inequality or weaker civil liberties, and it is clear that it could lead to a wealthier society and higher job growth. Something to keep in mind...)
The OP completely missed the EB-5 program which is less a visa and more like free citizenship. And while the initial investment can't be borrowed, it can come from investors. But those investors specifically have to get equity rather than a promissory note to repay them.
Getting a EIN is also trivial, I got one on my phone, while signing up for a bank account for my LLC. It was just that quick and easy.