Ok, good luck with that. When dems had both houses and Obama in the WH, the best they could do was the ACA which was a HUGE compromise (no public option, and in many ways a huge handout to the entrenched insurer lobby). But by all means, go for it.
Anyway, the reason for employer-based care isn't to be evil, it was to create risk pools. Insurance being purchased only individually has big problems: the insurers can't price the risk for a new individual subscriber in any sensible way without going back to the "pre-existing conditions exclusion" BS that all of us hate, or penalizing people with high premiums based on the conditions they've had. Employer groups fix that because they can look at a company as a whole and understand that say a gym chain disproportionally employs young and fit people, whereas, say, Walmart, employs a more health-diverse and age-diverse set of people, so maybe they need to pay more per person. So they can price risk efficiently without punishing individuals.
Of course I personally think the insurance idea itself is the wrong way to model paying for healthcare, but it's what we have, and distorting the market even further will only make things worse.
Bottom line, if you want major changes, work on convincing more than 49% of the public to vote for your party.
shrug I’m rooting for a public option. It’s a democratic republic though. Only way to get a change like that done is to convince more voters that your party actually represents their interests in order to get the power to push something like that through. Yet the Democrats have been losing support for years, because they now expend most of their political capital on unpopular policies, and appeal only to college-educated elites, showing disdain toward everyone that doesn’t already support them.
