As you probably know, the national health system in England was also an offshoot of WWII. It was set up as an emergency wartime service, then when people liked it it was kept after the war ended.

>Employed-based health insurance started in WWII: finding employees was difficult (they were off at war), but employers could offer benefits as enticements. And then it just continued.
>
>And you're right: unburdened by health care expenses (making it a level playing field for all employers) would make the market much more efficient. Not to mention reduce the number of hours/employees required to administer these monsters.
>
>>>But what do you expect from a system in which health expenditures flow to the bottom line of corporations with >stockholders to please, and options for the executives on the line?
>>
>>Why should employers be paying for health anyways?
>>
>>A common statistic that I have heard is that a car comming off the line in Detroit carries $1,500 in health care costs for employees and retirees. Wonder why manufacturing is going abroad?
>>
>>It's awfully ironic to walk through a hospital parking lot and see all the Mercedes, BMW's, Audi's, and Lexus.
>>I guess not having to allocate $1,500 for health care will get you better auto engineering.
>>Do the smart health professionals know what has been maintaining their wages?
>>
>>Oddly, it is the American auto industry that has been a key driver in promoting the "superior" American health care system.
>>It began with Henry Ford
>>
>>Treatments skew toward healthy people that have insurance not people that are really sick.
>>
>>Isn't being ill and working at the same time an oxy moron?
>>
>>Ever hear of "insurance slaves". You know people that can't leave an employer because they can't get insurance through another insurance carrier because of pre-existing conditions.