I'm fortunate in that my health care premiums are still covered 100% where I work, although we had to accept a doubling of our pharmacy co-pays to keep that last year. I'm okay with the trade-off. Let those (like me) who use a benefit pay a reasonable share. I simply think it's unfair that I don't get use of the extra dollars paid for those who are married, but those dollars are still a tax-deductible expense for my employer.
There are rumors that next year our company will introduce a cafeteria plan for all company benefits that can be covered by it, since there are many inequities. For instance, I take the free bus pass that costs them about $85, but if I drove, I'd automatically get a parking space that costs the company $175/mo. Where the wild difference is is in health care, of course. If I had a wife and kids, the entire premium would still be paid in full. A colleague and I figured out that the difference between him and I on our cost of benefits to the company (excluding retirement) ran around $1,000 per month. I'm single and take the bus. He drives and has a wife and three kids.
I'd like that $1,000/mo. to go towards my pharmacy and other usage co-pays plus the health plan yearly deductible, if there's anything left over. Like let me have a crown for a tooth paid in full, or new eyeglasses every year instead of every two years, if I wanted.
If Washington is going to redo the tax code, I'd like to see them do it in a similar cafeteria plan-style way. Allow a certain fixed dollar amount a company may expense per employee for benefits, then let each employer craft a plan that benefits their employees the most. They could sell it as an "enhancement." Just like the airlines do when they take away pillows, blankets, and food from our flights.
I suspect it would never fly, though, since it would hurt families to the benefit of singles, and that's Just. Not. Done. in America.