To make matters worse, government added tax incentives to encourage employer-provided healthcare. The tax advantages were made even more attractive and fully codified in the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. Over the next few decades, employer-provided healthcare was the dominant form of insurance, which is no surprise.
The result? Workers are less likely to discriminate based on cost, for their employers are footing much of the bill. Providers of healthcare services have the incentive to provide more expensive services that are hardly more effective than the cheaper versions, because again those who receive the services are not paying for them directly (the employer is). It is difficult for an employer to monitor all of these healthcare costs while maintaining a successful business.
To add insult to injury, in 2000 43% of all medical expenses were paid for by government. The notion that healthcare is "private" in America is nonsense.
So when it comes to mobility, the problem originated with bad government policy decades ago, and has only been enforced since then and made mandatory with Obamacare.
Last edited by Lakryte; 07-06-12 at 08:48 PM.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."
Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 07-07-12 at 09:57 AM.
as for your question, i agree that health care should be in no way related to specific employment. it's a lose-lose situation that makes employers uncompetitive and screws employees every time they switch jobs. we'd be much better off with national basic coverage. the method i'd prefer would be expanding medicare, as that would give the program a lot more bargaining power when it comes to prices. if people wanted additional coverage, they could purchase it privately. however, as i've previously stated, i'd be willing to consider a plan custom made for America using other first world solutions as a template.