Why is health insurance tied to employment?

As some have mentioned, employee health insurance was initially offered as a benefit of employment. This concept has become obsolete, IMHO, partly because "group insurance" plans have degenerated into little more than rackets, with kickbacks paid to employers and nothing of value passed on to workers, after premiums and deductibles and co-pays and inflated bills and spiraling costs, etc., etc.

Why people have let this get to such a deplorable condition is beyond my ability to understand. Medicine-for-profit is not only crass, it's unworkable, and we need to replace it with universal health care now. People who have no job still need coverage, and (getting back to your original point) our employers don't pay our car insurance, or our phone bills - there's no logical reason they should pay for our medical insurance, either.

We can once again thank FDR. His administration created the National War Labor Board which set wage limits during WWII. In order to attract the best employees, companies offered health insurance (and pensions) in lieu of additional (and illegal) salary. The War Labor Board agreed that these 'perks' (or 'fringe benefits') were not part of 'wages' that would be controlled by the board.

After WWII, Congress, through the IRS, continued the non-taxable status of company provided health insurance in 1954.

Before WWII health insurance was up to the individual, at the individual's own cost. As was actual medical care.

"Without this tax benefit, very few employers would provide this benefit." - This is true to the extent that it would not hamper the company attracting the employees it needs. Once that company can not find the qualified employees it needs to do business, and if the primary reason the company can not attract those employees is its failure to offer health insurance, the company will offer health insurance as part of its compensation package.

I would prefer health insurance be treated as compensation much the same as wages and be taxed as such with the individual given a tax preference for at least part of his insurance premium. That would much more cost effectively expand the pool of insured, expand the available insurance products, and reduce the overall cost of medical care since people will be much more proactive in keeping their own individual costs down.

Having employer-provided health insurance might have made sense 50 years ago when many people worked for one company their entire career and employers used mass layoffs only as a last resort, not as the first resort like they do now. Today, when American companies lay off workers at will, and most workers change jobs frequently or are hired on a temporary or contract basis with no benefits, it is absurd to rely on employers as the main source of health insurance coverage. I think the insurance exchanges that are scheduled to open in 2014 might be a good step toward decoupling health insurance from employment.

You're right and wrong.

Employers do it as a "benefit", to attract and keep employees.

Even if you buy your own, you still have to get the coverage the State deems necessary. I have two sons, I'd still be required to buy the same policy as a woman. Pap smear and all.

It's ridiculous.

I agree 100% that those who are responsible enough should be allowed to pick/choose the coverages they want.

That alone will bring the cost of insurance down.

But Nooooo.. Democrats cannot possibly have people be that independent.

Originally it was a perk to entice the best and the brightest to join a particular company.

Now it is just a talking point.

It is time to remove it from the employer and make it personal.

Just like auto insurance.

Although a group generally gets a better rate.

EDIT: You can go to your local insurance agent and purchase a policy for yourself-you do not need to be employed, just able to pay the premium.

Historically it has happened in the US from the 2nd World War, when there were strict wage controls in place to help the war effort. Since they couldn't offer higher wages to attract employees, employers looked at secondary benefits such as healthcare etc.

Free market and healthcare don't really mix in my opinion, since the profit margin of private insurance providers and private healthcare takes priority over the actually provision of medical care

It is a BENEFIT of employment. Not all employers offer health insurance. The ones who do offer it as a benefit to attract good employees

Look at it this way, a business that provides a "health benefit" can tell an employee he is covering his (and his families insurance). They will say his "benefit" is worth $12,000 a year but they will only on average pay $8,000 (a $4,000 savings for them). In order for them to say "Hey, we will provide you health insurance by giving you the money for it", they would have to cough up the actual $12,000 (not $8,000). Why? Because Corporations are able to use their size / clout to cut much much better deals than a private individual. In other words, if a Company wants to use health insurance as a "benefit" it is better for THEM to pay for it as oppossed to having to give an employee a pay raise to cover it on his / her own.

In the olden days before your genes and mine had developed, businesses offered healthcare as incentive to keep good employees from leaving.

Nobody prevents you from buying your own insurance on your own. And it's cheaper for employers because they're buying in bulk.