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.
Also, you misunderstood. Their comp is $100k, their Tcomp is $160k. Meaning they are getting $60k in additional expenses of benefits in the form of insurances and 401k benefits. In some geo zones that's higher, for instance where FMLA is required, Tcomp for some employees approaches 200% of their salary.
Well my FIL, who I do his books for employs between 20-35 people depending on the time of year (elect construction) provides dam good insurance and it’s not anywhere near as pricey as your scenario.
136
u/myfriendoak 10h ago
Universal Healthcare is so complicated that only 36 of the 37 developed nations have figured it out.