The existence of employment tied health insurance isn’t that surprising historically. Some of the first companies to offer healthcare were risky jobs where the job could cause harm and then it became more standard as a non-wage perk under wage controls enacted during the second world war. This timing also coincides with the rise of modern medicine as we know it today (Labor, eduction, and R&D intensive).
The truly crazy part is that core issues with the system weren’t addressed over the last 70 or so years. Not working should not mean that I’m only able to participate in health-seeking behaviour if I’m wealthy enough to maintain my own health care coverage.
Not to mention conflicts of interest, had a former classmate who’s an ER doctor tweet that he saw a patient who’s chronic condition was causing emergency healthcare needs because insurance was paying for treatment every 4 weeks when the doctor prescribed every 3.
You're right. Health insurance was originally fought for by the unions, which was why they are historically provided by employers in the US. Other nations underwent similar demands from their people, but it ended up being tied to government provision, not corporation.
With employee unions being neutered in the past century, and exponential privatized healthcare cost increases, you start to see broad swaths of employees go without insurance in the US, while other countries nationalized their healthcare to keep costs down and continue providing it to their people.
The truly crazy part is that core issues with the system weren’t addressed over the last 70 or so years. Not working should not mean that I’m only able to participate in health-seeking behaviour if I’m wealthy enough to maintain my own health care coverage.
Not to mention conflicts of interest, had a former classmate who’s an ER doctor tweet that he saw a patient who’s chronic condition was causing emergency healthcare needs because insurance was paying for treatment every 4 weeks when the doctor prescribed every 3.