Interesting conclusion, not what I was expecting as I read the article….that employer based healthcare is the problem. And I agree. And not because I am so sure about the government paying for everyone’s healthcare, though clearly many developed nations do. More because it should be personal, portable, facilitate price competition that only consumers picking up the tab can push and get everyone on a system so that risks are spread as widely as possible. What we have now doesn’t work, and I don’t mean ‘ObamaCare’ as that could actually be a step in the right direction. I mean that a system whereby businesses (small business especially) have a 10% plus annual increase in health care costs for same or lesser coverage is just crazy. Where is the incremental benefit? I don’t think that it exists, and I don’t buy the story that advances in medicine are the cause of increasing costs (maybe with tech costs should be coming down?). I think that it is a bloated system, too many procedures or tests done without regard to cost, and too many people not taking care of their health which could actually change if they are motivated by the dollar to be healthy (since motivations like living a long and healthy life don’t seem to be compelling enough). Too big a change people say, or they are quick to point out all of the barriers, the things that would have to be figured out for it to work perfectly in a new system, the engendered interests, etc. But I wonder if we make it seem harder than it is. Maybe go with a pretty good plan, switch over and let it get figured out by natural forces (with some safety nets built in for the transition)?