There is a big difference between life saving emergency treatment such as blood transfusions and coverage for completely optional things such as contraceptive.
I had to get authorization from my DH to pick up his prescriptions from the pharmacy, but my employer could see all of my medical records because the company paid for my treatments.
That must have been many years ago. Employers can’t even get medical information to verify sick leave thanks to privacy laws now. They can’t see your medical records. The most they can see is a utilization report and that’s only if they are self insured.
And I know of more than one instance in which a career was destroyed because the employee was diagnosed with a serious medical condition.
Also not legal since the FMLA was passed decades ago.
Why should the quality of your medical coverage and treatment be dependent on where you work?
What should it be dependent upon? Employers have a strong incentive to provide high quality insurance in order to attract good workers. What would be the incentive for someone else (not your employer) to provide better-than-average coverage?
Yes, employers have an interest in keeping having healthy employee, but the state has a much greater one in having healthy citizens
But how would a person get better coverage? This is one of the criticisms levied at Obama-care in it’s more aggressive incarnations. If government is in charge of all third party payments, the health coverage that would be available would be a lower quality of coverage than most people can get through their employers now. The only people who could get better coverage would be those who can pay out of pocket (the rich). I don’t see that as an improvement over a system where a person can get better coverage by getting a different job.