I just found this alarming article

[ShadowHM]

We are discussing the difference between the employee paying for their own healthcare, or the employer paying.  (NZ takes another option of the govt. paying via all taxpayers)

Actually, we were not. We were comparing NZ's Accident Tax (applied to all workers (? or is that all citizens who pay taxes?) at a rate of 1.34% of income, you said) to Ontario's W.S.I.B. system, where employers, not employees, pay a rate that is dependent both on the deemed safety of the industry/job type and on that specific employer's safety record. At least in Ontario, this is in addition to the universal health care we are entitled to, and which is paid for out of general government revenues. W.S.I.B. applies only to workers and to workplace injuries. (Just to make sure that the original comparison really is apples versus apples.)

The Ontario method is an attempt to make two things happen. First, it keeps the 'social' costs of production in the industry where it is generated. If you chose to operate a business that does have a higher likelihood of worker injury, you will have a higher cost of doing business.

The second thing is employer accountability for safety. If your specific workplace, by its safety record, proves to be less safe tha others in your category, you will pay more.

The result for the consumer, is that products of businesses that have higher likelihoods of worker injury do cost more, as DeeBye said. (The software producer is not subsidizing the welding shop.)