Actually we do have something similar. They are called 'brokers.' However, the coverages available to small businesses are sometimes cost prohibitive in today's competitive business economy. Even Walmart no longer offers medical coverage to employees until they have worked for them for 6 months and there is a 2 year waiting period for part-time employees. Cutting costs, cutting costs...in order to compete seems to be the standard in the U.S. today.

I would not necessarily say that the American medical system is far from a free market system. In fact, anyone can get medical coverages and medical care if they desire it. It is available from a variety of sources. The problem is in afording it. While capitalism seems to spur competition and provide more products to society, in the medical care arena, it certainly spurs research and development but not affordable care. In the U.S. it seems that everyone is paying for this research and development via the rising medical coverage costs. In that area, Canada surpasses the U.S. by far...


>>Dragan,
>>
>>In the U.S. as I'm sure you know by now, the medical insurance coverage each person possesses and pays for is typically decided upon by the employer. The company enters an agreement with carriers and signs a contract which then binds the company to contributing a percentage of the costs along with the employee. The medical insurance benefits received by the employee can depend entirely on the contract or agreement between the employer and the carrier. It is often very stressful when the company changes it agreement and signs with a new insurance carrier. Often the employee has to locate a new primary care giver that is willing to abide by the 'agreed' or 'contractural' prices between the carrier and the medical person. Additionally, the doctor or medical facility has to agree to accept the approved cost that they are allowed to charge for services and to not attempt to receive additional funds from the employee other than the reimburseable costs agreed upon in the contract.
>>Sometimes, if an individual has a condition that is being treated and his/her company changes medical insurance, it can be a problem getting treatment for a 'pre-existing medical condition' from the new insurance carrier.
>>
>>Personally, I do not want government administered medical coverage. However, I would like to see standard medical insurance available to all for a reasonable cost but not for free. In other words, if you work for a small company of fewer than 25 employees and I work for a large corporation with thousands of employees, I believe that we BOTH should have the opportunity to have the same medical insurance coverages and contribute via our employers and receive the same benefits. There can be many plans and different levels of coverages to choose from, but the same choices should be availabe to all employed citizens of this country. You pay your portion as we do now but the choices should be available to all from their employers no matter the company size.
>
>
> I have a client in Ontario Canada that purchases large group coverage from insurance companies and then repackages and sells it to small businesses. These small businesses have a small number of employees. If you have a free market system what prevents a sophisticated insurance broker/adjudicator from doing the same thing? This would give employees of small companies the opportunity to have extended medical benefits similar to those given to people working for giant corporations. I contend that the American medical system is far from a free market system.