Comment by nradov
3 days ago
This is an example of what economists call path dependence. In principle there's no good reason for access to health care to be coupled to employment and we wouldn't design the system that way if we were starting from scratch. Originally it started during WW2 when the federal government imposed wage controls to hold down inflation, so employers took advantage of a legal loophole to offer free employee benefits such as health insurance in order to attract workers. At that time healthcare was pretty cheap because it couldn't really do much. That system stayed after the war ended largely due to inertia. It probably benefits large employers because it gives them a cost advantage over smaller competitors but overall it's a terrible burden on the country.
A better approach would be to mandate that everyone purchase individual or family policies directly from insurers on open exchanges using pre-tax dollars, with subsidies for low-income consumers.
Why mandate it at all?
It's essentially the free rider problem. If we want to make affordable healthcare available to everyone then we have to force everyone to pay into the system to spread the risk around and get the healthy to subsidize the sick. It kind of has to work that way regardless of whether we have a single public payer funded by taxes or multiple private payers funded by insurance premiums; in the end the money has to come from everyone.