I agree - but the comment above was, AFAICT specifically advocating for removing both Large and Small Group insurance pools provided by employers from the equation. Folks currently get insurance from a variety of sources, Medicare, Medicaid, Military Tri-care, Fed/State/County Insurance, Self-funded plans - there's a lot of variety here. I believe the comment above was advocating for closing Small and Large Group coverage (and probably self-funded pools as well) in favor of those customers being dumped on the Individual market which does exist - and does definitely have it's own problems.

Oh, and the Individual insurance market predates the ACA and healthcare.gov - it was much harder to navigate before the ACA due to the pre-condition exclusions but there were a variety of plans on offer to individuals.

>I believe the comment above was advocating for closing Small and Large Group coverage (and probably self-funded pools as well) in favor of those customers being dumped on the Individual market which does exist - and does definitely have it's own problems.

The only problems I know of in the individual market are due to the fact that so many healthy lives are locked up in the government/small/large business group plans. If everyone, and I mean everyone was dumped onto the market, then there would be sufficient healthy lives to balance the whole situation. Basically, it would be the same as taxpayer funded healthcare, except you get to choose your insurance company.

>Oh, and the Individual insurance market predates the ACA and healthcare.gov - it was much harder to navigate before the ACA due to the pre-condition exclusions but there were a variety of plans on offer to individuals.

The individual market pre-ACA and the one that exists now are completely different. It's actually possible to compare different insurances in the one that exists post ACA due to standardization and certain stipulations for being ACA compliant.

>so many healthy lives are locked up in the government/small/large business group plans

Well, that and the fact that many young individuals who don't have health issues, aren't making much money, and aren't covered by employer plans are often opting out of paying $7K/yr or whatever for health care.

Employers require employees to pay for health insurance and subject them to deductibles and copays just like healthcare.gov. The government even pays for a portion of most of the health insurance premium under certain income amounts, so it’s not any different than people with health insurance via employers.

Also, bronze level health insurance is closer to $300 per month for young people, or $3,600 per year.

https://www.nj.gov/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcrates20...

Of course, the deductible is massive but it’s the same with any employer sponsored bronze plan, just like a healthcare.gov bronze plan.

I don’t disagree. But the basic point is that a lot of younger people in poorly paying jobs still consider, whether one agrees or not, health insurance as being more than they’re willing to pay for.

Obama promoting the site on Between Two Ferns might be the most astute PR move by a President in the 21st century (35m views as of today)

I'm not only talking about healthcare. To get matching contributions to retirement accounts you have to use theirs.

Yes, I agree that there should be no tax benefits for employer's providing matching contributions to retirement accounts they can restrict investment options for.

I recently hit this up in Canada with a matched group RRSP which has a heavily restricted panel of options for investment and while contributions are matched and the transfer fees aren't too steep they are there and intended to capture clients within their spread of options.

I would prefer if group retirement plans had more flexibility on in/out flow and had to legitimately compete with the open market.