[nickff]

Well, the elephant in the room is the status of health insurance as a non-taxable benefit. If you removed that rule or made all healthcare tax-deductible, you'd de-couple health insurance and employment... But insurers like this system because they get the kinds of clients they like, and the government doesn't want to expand the tax exemption because it would cost them revenue.

[lotsofpulp]

No, large employers like the tax benefits of employer provided health insurance because it gives them an edge over small employers and makes it harder for employees to hop around jobs. Employees of large companies that mainly employ younger, healthier people with less risky white collar jobs might also like employer sponsored healthcare, because then their insurance pool excludes people with chronic illnesses and those who need more healthcare, as they wouldn’t be employed.

It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars.

[nickff]

Large employers seem to vary; some like the current rules, but others don't. I am not sure what the balance is.

I see you added to your comment after I'd responded:

>"It makes no difference to insurance companies if the premiums are paid by the employer with pre tax dollars or the directly by an individual vis healthcare.gov with post tax dollars. "

It actually makes a huge difference to their business model who is paying, and whether the dollars are pre-tax or post-tax. When the dollars are pre-tax, people try to get the most comprehensive coverage possible, so that everything, even routine expenditures (like eyeglasses) are covered by insurance, which increases insurance company revenue. Additionally, selling to businesses is very different from selling to consumers; with the former, you're in more of an enterprise B2B market, which is totally different from a B2C.

[amacneil]

Seems like something California could invest their energy into (at least for state taxes, which would spark a conversation nationally) rather than trying to outlaw contract work :)

[nickff]

I really wish they would, but the current political climate seems to be more about stoking rage than engaging in nuanced conversations about trade-offs.