[yummyfajitas]

Nobody really debated health insurance in the US in 1980, because over 80% of Americans already received health insurance from their employer. Now it's barely two-thirds [0].

This is nonsensical, since a lot less than 80% of Americans even had an employer in the 80's (or even today).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO

The uninsured rate has actually remained roughly flat at 15%.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AU.S._Uninsured_and_...

And to tie it back to the OP, it also means education for those high-skilled jobs will be the best way to ensure economic advancement.

This is really unclear. For example, if education is primarily about signalling rather than skills (lots of evidence suggests it is [1]), all you do is waste resources on a signalling arms race.

[1] There is a fairly extensive literature about forgetting stuff. Bryan Caplan has written a fair bit about it, for example, and even has a book on the way: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/does_high_schoo.... http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/the_present_val_... http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/the_career_cons....

[yoloprocro]

Dude. You claim that "The uninsured rate has actually remained roughly flat at 15%." in response to nhashem's claim that there were fewer uninsured in 1980. But your graph only goes back to 1987!!

Geez.

[yummyfajitas]

Nhashem is definitely wrong. It is impossible for 80% of Americans to receive something from their employer if 80% of Americans didn't even have an employer.

My graph does go back to 1987, because that's when the census started collecting data on health insurance. If nhashem has data he is free to post it. It's up to him to prove his claim, not on me to disprove an unsourced assertion.

[scarecrowbob]

" It is impossible for 80% of Americans to receive something from their employer if 80% of Americans didn't even have an employer."

Data aside, that is not a logically true claim: in 1980, I had health insurance... through my mother's employer.

[DGCA]

Don't forget spouses.

[aalbertson]

ding ding ding!!! I was just about to chime in about that. Are these stats accounting for spouse and children and adults in school/military at the time? I'd be curious to see how the numbers break down.

Also of note is that when you do calculate in Spouses and children, they still had insurance because it was less common to "only insure yourself" (I have no data to back that statement up).

[yummyfajitas]

Nhashem didn't say "through someone else's employer".

[scarecrowbob]

If you want to be pedantic about it, understand me as just evaluating your proposition.

But yes, I suppose that on some level you're right: 80% of the population has probably never been simultaneously employed.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>80% of the population has probably never been simultaneously employed.

Nor will that ever be the case.