Imagine living in a society where reliable police and fire protection were available only to those who worked for the largest employers. In this fictional country, people with enough money might be able to buy personal protection - but perhaps not if they'd suffered a burglary five years ago, or once called 911 for a kitchen fire.

Would people with good ideas and a little bit of money be willing to give up personal security for the chance to start their own businesses? Or would they cling to the safety promised by a job at a big company or institution?

Substitute health insurance for police and fire protection, and you have one of the best - and least-heralded - arguments for universal health care, according to a small but growing number of economists.

It is an argument with potential appeal across traditional partisan boundaries: that severing the link between reliable health insurance and employment could unleash a wave of pent-up entrepreneurial energy, much as conservatives often argue that cutting marginal tax rates stimulates the economy.

One who makes the case is Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Gruber says the evidence that universal coverage would spur economic growth is limited, but "the logic is absolutely convincing - the logic is impeccable."

"The example I think of is the 50-year-old engineer at IBM whose wife is a cancer survivor and who wants to start his own company," Gruber said. "He's just not going to do it in today's world, because he just can't take that chance on health insurance. In a world of health reform, he can do that."

The basic argument is that two developments since the mid-20th century, together, are slowing down U.S. economic growth much as a sea anchor slows down a ship.

One of them is the link between health insurance and employment - a historical accident tied to World War II-era wage-and-price controls. Barred from offering pay raises, U.S. businesses began to offer health insurance as a "fringe" benefit.

The other is the rapid advance of medical care, which makes it possible to treat diseases and injuries that were once considered death sentences. Most Americans now view health insurance not as a fringe but as a necessity.

Gruber and others say those parallel developments are distorting the free-spirited market that made America an economic powerhouse.

"We think it's a major impediment to growth," said Robert E. Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship. "There's so much logic that supports it, it's almost impossible to deny."

The nub of the idea is basic market theory: that society as a whole benefits because some people take entrepreneurial risks based on how they weigh potential demand for the goods or services they create. Nor is that just theory. Although many new businesses fail, a wealth of data shows that small businesses are a primary source of job creation.

So what happens if some fraction of would-be entrepreneurs is scared off by a factor unrelated to their business prospects? Then the economy as a whole must be hurt, these economists say.

If that is true, why isn't this argument made more prominently - especially if faster growth could bring higher tax revenue to offset the increased costs? During the current health-care debate, economic arguments have centered on the benefits of controlling expenses vs. the costs of expanding coverage.

One reason may be that it hits at turbulent political crosscurrents. Those who care most about business and entrepreneurship tend to be wary of anything that suggests new spending or mandates. Those who care most about coverage tend to focus on protecting the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured, not boosting the economy.

Moreover, the problem could theoretically be addressed by solutions other than universal coverage - say, by creating special "entrepreneurs' policies."

But some say those pushing for universal access to coverage, including the Obama administration, are overlooking an argument with potentially strong bipartisan appeal.

"I think the administration makes a mistake by not making this argument, because I think it would dramatically enhance their appeal to the entrepreneurial and small-business community," Litan said. "Every small-business owner knows about this problem."

A case in point

Sandy Khaund makes the same argument from a different perspective - that of an entrepreneur who took the plunge and sees why others could be scared away.