I'm surprised that a company with only 19 employees ever paid 100% of their health insurance costs. I've been either an employee or a co-owner of small businesses for my entire adult life ~ never worked for a mega-corporation ~ and shared healthcare cost between company and employee has always been my experience. In some cases, a company might pay 100% of the individual employee's coverage, but require the employee to participate in paying for spouse/family insurance.

Check out your alternatives; I doubt that you can do better all by yourself on the open market than what your employer is offering, even though they're offering decidedly less than they used to. Buying health insurance when you're not part of a "group" (which almost always means a group of employees of a single organization) is only only prohibitively expensive, it also usually involves tougher restrictions about "pre-existing conditions," etc.

The only REAL solution is a whole new system, of course. "Sicko" is not slanted or "propaganda" ~ it's flat-out accurate reporting (with a bit of showmanship thrown in). The insurance companies do everything they can to refuse coverage to anyone too likely to need it, and when a plan member does require help, especially in cases of serious illness and expensive treatment, they go to great lengths to avoid paying. Hey, it's business, right? The first priority is to take care of the shareholders, not the customers.

Also, of course, a very large portion of health-insurance payroll expenses (paid for by premiums, of course), goes towards efforts to deny coverage. That's why US residents/citizens get the least value for their healthcare dollar ~ we're paying lots of health-plan money for refusal to care, plus another big chunk of change for the expense of processing a gazillion different kinds of paperwork. People in the rest of the industrialized world pay almost exclusively for medical services when paying for health care.