> Untie anything related to medical care from employment. By what measure is tying someone's ability to access healthcare to the beneficence of their employer remotely morally good? Someone has no employment (through whatever or no fault) and we decide that they are somehow fundamentally unworthy (or perhaps just 'less worthy'?) of access to health services?

Good comment a consultant we hired said. He and his wife had insurance for 25 years, then lost their jobs. Then his wife needed surgery.

It's a dick outcome when someone pays in for 25 years for a service and then gets denied because the economy tanked and they got laid off.