It is possible to get health coverage in some states without having employment, but it is (in my mind, at least) outrageously expensive, not as good as employer-covered care, and if you have any pre-existing conditions you can expect to pay +50-200% of whatever the plan’s original cost was, depending. (Eventually, the plans were supposed to revert to the “baseline” for that group, but I don’t remember how long that took.)

At least, that was what I learned about five years ago when I very briefly worked for a large California HMO. Things may have changed. But I doubt it.

I know that as an employer I can’t afford to offer insurance, so I only subcontract to others, but I bet employers would love not to have to offer it.

And sympathy to Terri and SisterCoyote.

I think health insurance is tied to employment because a) only productive members of society deserve to get treatment when they fall ill, b) it’s an enticement from employers - I know a number of folks who have turned down a larger salary in exchange for a better health plan.