A new paid leave bill in the District is once again driving the national conversation and stirring debate. If passed, it will be the most progressive in America—and, according to The Washington Post, the bill will probably have popular support. “People should be able to take medical leave, particularly during and after pregnancy, without worrying about getting fired or going broke,” the Post’s editors wrote in a second editorial last week about a national paid leave proposal called the FAMILY Act. I couldn’t agree more. While this and their earlier editorial on the DC proposal speak to the need for paid leave in general, the Post editors unfortunately present some misleading information about how leave would be paid for and maintained, both in DC and nationwide.

Here is what California, New Jersey and Rhode Island and most of the world have figured out: The most cost-effective way to ensure paid family and medical leave is a social insurance fund that pools small contributions so income is available to those needing leave, which is a fraction of those in the pool at any given time. In Rhode Island, for instance, the most recent state to pass such a program, less than one percent of the workforce used Temporary Care Insurance in 2014.

The program is similar to the way disability insurance works. Contrary to the Post editorial on the national bill, employers are not mandated to pay their employees’ salaries while they are out on leave. They make a small contribution per employee to the fund, so that if their employees need to take an extended leave to care for themselves or a loved one, the employee can draw wages from this pooled insurance fund.. That’s a big help to small business owners who likely can’t afford the full cost of extended leave themselves. It’s also a lifesaver to the millions of self-employed and contract workers (who can opt in), and workers who are underemployed or have multiple part-time jobs where they are ineligible to receive even unpaid family and medical leave.

More than two hundred business school professors recently sent a letter to Congress making the business case for paid family and medical leave for all families. They describe how it increases productivity, job retention, and attachment to the workforce; the professors refer to estimates that the median costs of turnover for companies across all occupations is equivalent to 21 percent of workers’ annual wages. Aside from its business implications, paid leave is a major issue for voters: In a recent poll from CBS/New York Times, four out of five respondents expressed support for paid parental leave.

In DC, the proposed bill would create a fund so that people employed in the District could draw wages while they are caring for a new child or a serious personal or family illness. Employers would not be mandated to pay full salaries for their employees who need to take leave. Instead, the fund would pool small contributions from employers whose employees live and work in DC, from employees who work in but do not live in DC, and from federal government employees. It would positively impact employment and financial stability for our nation’s capital.