#1 was the attempt with the legislation in question but it gives too many people an easy way out which is part of the problems it creates. But the other problem

#1 was the attempt with the legislation in question but it gives too many people an easy way out which is part of the problems it creates. But the other problem is that not everyone can contribute evenly. Thus begins the problem of pushing for fairness so that some pay more than others. Then to be more fair there's a push to increase the limit as to what constitutes "too poor" to pay. Next thing you know politicians are using it to buy votes. Today it's "vote for me or they'll take away your Social Security!" and tomorrow it will be "vote for me or they'll take away your health insurance!" #2 is the most common way in the US but not necessarily through just unions. It's all about group plans and whatnot in an effort to control pricing. The problem is that this method doesn't cover everyone and discourages certain types of employment as described elsewhere in this thread. In some cases, large unions use the benefits as leverage against their members for various reasons and/or against the employer as a PR tool such as "they are hurting our kids!" type of tactic. #3 is part of my point as one of the reasons that companies went wild on offering health benefits to workers was to get around a government enforced wage freeze during war. There were companies that offered such benefits before but during the wage freeze it started to become normal to be offered the benefits. I find it fascinating that after decades of escalation in the problems in US healthcare and insurance the best solutions anyone can come up with and/or get passed is to increase the very thing that almost everyone agrees is broken. "He's been shot three times and he's dying! What should we do?" "Shoot him three more times and see if that helps. Otherwise, we'll have to think of something else."