Employer-Independent Coverage Transition Model

Why the card currently reads this way

This topic card feels strong because it targets a real distortion in the current system: labor mobility, household security, and employer burden are all bent around the employment link. It feels weak wherever advocates imply that portability alone solves cost, provider reimbursement, or rural access. The card is useful because it isolates one structural choice without pretending that every downstream problem disappears with it.

What would move the card

• A clearer phased transition showing what happens to wages, employer contributions, tax treatment, and coverage continuity year by year.
• Better evidence on how much labor mobility, entrepreneurship, and household resilience actually improve when medical security becomes more portable.
• Sharper comparison with public-option and single-payer pathways so portability is not treated as an isolated abstraction.

Quick ways to pressure-test this card

You do not need to settle the whole topic. Pick one lane, make one sharp move, and let the ledger handle the rest. Each button opens Ledger View with an editable starter draft already loaded.

Strongest objection

Detaching coverage from employment can sound elegant while simply moving complexity elsewhere. If replacement pathways are confusing, underfunded, or politically unstable, households may lose familiar protections without gaining real security.

Strongest evidence

Job lock and labor-mobility research

Useful for testing whether workers stay in suboptimal jobs because they fear losing coverage or continuity of care.

Unresolved pressure

No open pressure is currently visible on this card. Open the ledger when you want the full contribution record and review state behind that calm.