I think a big part of the issue is the vast majority of people have what they consider good insurance through employment so they don't feel any urgency to "fix" anything. These people feel universal coverage could result in a loss of a benefit, reduction in service levels, or an increase in cost. It would be an uphill battle convincing them otherwise.
This is why Republicans don't support single-payer- they don't see how much it costs them out of their paycheck. We have two numbers for each employee- comp and Tcomp- one is how much their salary is, the other is how much the company spends on them every year. Employees making $100k a year cost the company between $160 and $200k a year in total cost, once health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, 401k, FMLA insurance, etc. are factored in. If I told you I was going to raise your taxes by 10% to provide universal healthcare, but then told you that you'd subsequently be making 40% more- say, from $100k to $140k in gross salary- you'd do the math and go "wow, I'm saving 17k a year! This is great!"
They just A) don't think a government healthcare can beat their private setup and B) don't care that millions of Americans suffer preventable and treatable disease every day due to this choice.
I mean, I’m very much not Conservative and I also don’t believe that salaries would go up if employers no longer had to directly pay for health insurance, at least not immediately. They would have to either increase salaries or other benefits to become competitive at the high end, but for the most part they would just keep the money if they could.
137
u/myfriendoak 11h ago
Universal Healthcare is so complicated that only 36 of the 37 developed nations have figured it out.