Weintraub: End Employer-Based Health Care

Does Daniel Weintraub read CLEL? His editorial today says ...
The biggest problem with our current system is that it injects a third party - the employer or its representative - between patients and doctors and between consumers and their insurance company.
He claims that employer-based health care started as a way around wage-controls during World War II. [Is that really all there was to it?-CLEL]

Weintraub is writing this in the context of urging readers to vote no on Proposition 72, which would enmesh the practice of employer-based health care.

What's his suggested fix?
We can do this by taking a page from a policy that has proven successful in Switzerland: require every individual to have health insurance that covers at least catastrophic, or unpredictable, costs * * *People who are too poor to afford coverage would continue to get their care through government-subsidized or charity-based health clinics and hospitals. The working poor could get vouchers or refundable tax credits to help them transition to taking charge of their own health insurance purchases.
You've got a lot more selling to do, Dan. How would costs be controlled by consumers when they have to have the insurance? Isn't that a seller's market? How would you foster competition--FTC action? CLEL agrees that employer-based healthcare should go away; it's especially onerous on small employers; but for the economy needs healthy workers. Wouldn't these vouchers end up having a secondary market? How do you have enough competition in the health care market with each provider having a big enough pool? Isn't it a natural monopoly or oligarchy? We need more answers.