Plenty of reasons why insurance shouldn't be employer-based, and other letters

Regarding the Feb. 1 editorial “The future of employer-based insurance,” finally a rational discussion about this fundamental flaw in our system. There are numerous reasons why we don't need employers picking health plans for their employees, but we do need their money, which in reality is in lieu of wages and belongs to the workers anyway. Since there are free riders now, most firms that provide comprehensive coverage would pay less under a more equitable tax. And workers would be free to select plans that fit their real needs.

Also, by removing the artificial segmentation of the population, we might find we don't need health plans at all.

Ted Almon

About the Feb. 1 editorial “The future of employer-based insurance,” you've pinpointed the problem precisely.

I've never heard a reasonable explanation of why healthcare coverage should be an employer-provided benefit. Because that's the only way most of us have ever known, and because so many have joined the “never trust the government” cadre, we continue to perpetuate a system that no one would advocate on its merits.

Large, expensive, difficult undertakings that benefit everyone are and should be the responsibility of the government. Think about defense, law enforcement, infrastructure construction and maintenance, clean water and sanitation. We pay taxes or fees for those things, and expect the government to provide them efficiently and equitably.

Shouldn't healthcare be on that list?

I don't expect my employer to pick up my garbage, fight ISIS, or hunt down the punk who stole stuff out of my car. Why should I expect them to pay for my colonoscopy?

Our patchwork of payments from employers, government and private individuals has given us the highest healthcare costs per capita in the world and some of the worst outcomes. Could we really do worse by consolidating the spending?

Mark Harvey