[pdonis]

> One would think a private system would be more efficient ... but it's probably just as bad in the US.

The US health care system is not a "private system". It's a mishmash of private and public which combines the worst features of both. The reason we have it in the US is that during WW II, the government controlled wages, so businesses trying to compete for employees had to offer something else as an incentive, and they mainly picked health care benefits. Then, when the war was over and the government stopped controlling wages, instead of going back to competing on wages and dropping employer-provided health benefits, the system of employer-provided health benefits kept on growing. Which now meant it had to be regulated by the government, and so on, and so on...

[groby_b]

Let's not forget that health care is a great point of leverage for employers, too. Because often, your spouse is also insured on that same plan, and leaving a job is not palatable if either one is dealing with significant illness.

If you wanted to create a legal equivalent of indentured servitude, company healthcare plus high healthcare cost would be a great solution. I don't think that was the plan, but it sure works out that way.

[WalterBright]

Employer provided health care stuck around because it was paid for with pre-tax dollars, while buying it individually was with post-tax dollars. This hugely incentivizes employer paid plans.

It has become so entrenched it has more or less morphed into a "right" that employers should pay for it.