To some extent, that would just move the problem around rather than solving it. In the US, the individual States have a lot of control over how healthcare is im

To some extent, that would just move the problem around rather than solving it. In the US, the individual States have a lot of control over how healthcare is implemented, as a Constitutional matter. Every time a State looks into eliminating employment-based insurance, rudimentary analysis shows systemic risk due to arbitrage and adverse selection that is nearly impossible to design out of the system legally. Due to fundamental differences in how individual States are governed and funded, and their respective Constitutions, this is a durable feature of trying to change the way the system works (i.e. harmonizing it is infeasible). The US healthcare system is stuck in a deep local minima. The cost of transitioning to a different equilibrium is so high that it is obviously politically infeasible any most if not all States. I don't like the current system but if there was a viable path to a different model, at least some States would have taken it.