Bob Graham, Executive Editor

An op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun Aug. 3 suggested that universal health insurance is the great panacea for the workplace. The author, William J. Evitts, a historian, builds on the ideas of William Bridges, who in 1995 wrote a book called JobShift, which called jobs a present list of consistent responsibilities for one or more people to accomplish. Evitts argues that given that the definition of a job is shifting and more jobs are consequently being outsourced, the need grows for a non-employer-based health insurance system.

“Freed from the tyranny of employment-linked health insurance, we’ll follow our dreams and take control of our work,” Evitts writes. “The creative energy unleashed by this will electrify the economy, facilitating entrepreneurship and innovation by reducing the risk of doing without the swaddling security of a long-term job.”

Wow! If the author’s premise is true, then freed from workplace-generated health coverage concerns, employees will finally establish global peace, the cure for cancer and the end to fighting in the Middle East. Why not add humans settling on Mars and finally reaching the last digit in pi. These are no doubt oversights on Evitts’ part caused the distraction of  needing health insurance from his employer.

Evitts’ argument is creative, but completely specious. The freedom of not relying on the employer for coverage will create a bevy of new concerns. They include fear of rationing, delays in care and, no doubt, an increased tax burden on consumers who must ultimately foot the bill for greater access to health care.That will retard any efforts to expand business in this nation, much as the mortgage crisis and oil concerns have slowed business this year.

The potential pitfalls of universal health coverage in this nation are guaranteed to far outweigh of the so-called freedoms Evitts foolishly seeks to embrace.