One argument is based on the high cost of care and the fact that group insurance is a better deal than individual insurance. Ok, I get that part. And there’s also the claim that companies, with their numbers and bargaining power, empower health care consumers and help them navigate the messy system. Makes sense.

But there are as many good arguments for breaking up the relationship. Young workers today are expected to have some ridiculous number of careers by the time they turn 40. It’s conceivable, then, that a lucky young worker today will enroll in separate health care policies for each of his successive jobs. Now consider that insurers’ administration costs play a large part in escalating health care costs. That administrative burden is exacerbated by an increasingly mobile workforce.

Many businesses, particularly the very small and the very large, have the most to gain from being released from their insurance obligations. Without having to pay health care costs for aging workers, they would have more cash on hand to compete with overseas companies, which have never had to provide coverage for their workers.

Proponents of keeping the link say that health insurance is an important way for companies to attract and retain their workforce. (In fact, that’s how it all started—in WWII, companies faced a labor shortage, and since there were wage controls in place, they started offering health insurance to lure workers.) This creates a winner-take-all situation in which small business get the shaft. They cannot afford to pay for insurance, and loose a lot of good workers as a result. And the large companies that could once afford to lure workers with health benefits now find themselves bogged down with aging workers who are draining the company funds. It’s a pyrrhic victory.

Additionally, employer-linked health insurance is a drag on upward mobility and personal growth. Consider the would-be Beethovens or Einsteins who are afraid to leave their jobs pushing paper clips or changing ink toner because they are scared to go without insurance.

By taking employers out of the equation, consumers would be forced to be better stewards of their health and more conservative in their health care spending. When your company is footing the bill, there is no such thing as care that is too expensive or perhaps unnecessary. The result? A country that spends way more on health care than most of the developed world.

Sever the connection, and you can also get rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs $200 billion a year. Why not give those billions directly to people and tell them to go buy insurance? Why give it to a middle man, the employer?

Ready, set, tear apart my argument.