The employer-funded schemes "happened" because of the peculiarities of the system at that time, not because it is the pinnacle of best practice. Initially it was a collectivist endeavor (lower costs, better benefits: in union is strength etc etc) and a competitive advantage for business, but costs grew quicker than wage growth and the drive for savings was inevitable. Now it's more of an actuarial process than a collectivist/socialist endeavor, plus it's increasingly unaffordable. Stats show that employer schemes already are reducing in number and scope as you might predict so there is no surety that this scheme can support itself indefinitely anyway, especially if the current economy persists.

The real question is WHY healthcare is so expensive in the US. Does equipment cost more in the States? Do physicians? Nurses? Medicines? Is quality better and if so, what part of the current process is responsible for that? Rather than focus on or try to micromanage the *inputs*, maybe the time has come to focus on the *outputs*. Is the US public capable of reviewing output/cost and deciding what outputs it is prepared to keep paying for? I think you are, but it won't happen if the focus stays relentlessly on maintaining employer schemes or fighting/supporting Obama or other stuff that happened along the way to the current bad result and may not contribute anything to the resolution. IMHO it is ominous that hardly a lay media line is dedicated to consideration of desirable outcomes and how the US costs are arrived at, only on whether Obama is a liar or whether the Conservatives can steer his plan into the mire as they did to Hillary or whatever. Meanwhile costs rise and benefits fall. And the deck chairs on the Titanic are rearranged again. ;-)