The entrepreneurship lock statistic is the one that should be in every policy conversation — if a $50/month reduction increases self-employment entry by 9%, eliminating the premium burden entirely would be transformative for small business formation. That's not a marginal effect. That's a structural reshaping of who gets to take economic risks.
Your historical framing is exactly the right starting point — WWII wage controls created the system accidentally, the 1954 tax code cemented it, and now we're trapped by path dependence. The ACA helped at the margins but left the fundamental architecture intact. The employer-based system is the problem, not a feature of it.
I've been working on a policy framework that treats portable universal coverage as the structural fix — untethering coverage from employment entirely, funded through a payroll contribution mechanism that costs most families significantly less than current premiums. Paired with tax restructuring that closes the corporate loopholes that distort the labor market further. The two problems compound each other and need to be solved together.
burnedatbothends.org if you want to see the architecture. Your economic framing here is one of the strongest cases for exactly this kind of structural reform.
I'd genuinely welcome your economic perspective on it — particularly on the demand-side growth argument and the phase-in mechanism. A framework built by a debate coach benefits from economists finding the holes. Looking forward to hearing what you think.
The entrepreneurship lock statistic is the one that should be in every policy conversation — if a $50/month reduction increases self-employment entry by 9%, eliminating the premium burden entirely would be transformative for small business formation. That's not a marginal effect. That's a structural reshaping of who gets to take economic risks.
Your historical framing is exactly the right starting point — WWII wage controls created the system accidentally, the 1954 tax code cemented it, and now we're trapped by path dependence. The ACA helped at the margins but left the fundamental architecture intact. The employer-based system is the problem, not a feature of it.
I've been working on a policy framework that treats portable universal coverage as the structural fix — untethering coverage from employment entirely, funded through a payroll contribution mechanism that costs most families significantly less than current premiums. Paired with tax restructuring that closes the corporate loopholes that distort the labor market further. The two problems compound each other and need to be solved together.
burnedatbothends.org if you want to see the architecture. Your economic framing here is one of the strongest cases for exactly this kind of structural reform.
Thank you, Cathy. I had not heard about Burned at Both Ends. will be spending some time learning more about it. I appreciate the link
I'd genuinely welcome your economic perspective on it — particularly on the demand-side growth argument and the phase-in mechanism. A framework built by a debate coach benefits from economists finding the holes. Looking forward to hearing what you think.