As an American, does the concept of free healthcare make you angry

@mighty-lu-bu: You're arguing that we can't allocate the funds for universal healthcare because those funds are locked up in military spending that is "as large as that of the next 30 countries" and we have to keep military funding at that level because other countries don't?

Calling Jacanuk a leftist? Really? Did you just discover this place?

Also don't have to much faith in the open marked. You want it to work for the people, you need laws designed to keep it that way. Otherwise you will end up with a few or only a single option. With no real competition, the prices go up and quality of service goes down.

No, I am saying that universal health care systems don't work- any health care system where the government 100% controls it does not work. It may make it affordable for an individual and it can be decent for VERY basic services, but it is not affordable (or sustainable) by the country. The problem is, the minute you want the government to control health care, you are de-incentivizing people who want to join the medical field. Under a universal health care system, the government dictates that a doctor HAS to provide medical services at given price point- again forcing someone to work at a pre-determined cost is a violation of the 13th amendment. This will result in less doctors and less medical providers which ultimately results in a shortage of care and we have already seen this in other universal health care systems where they have high wait times. Again, look at how wildly inefficient government health care already is; I have extensive experience with the VA health care system it is absolutely terrible. People have literally dropped dead in waiting rooms or while waiting for surgeries or other important appointments and the 60 billion dollars that congress provided the VA a few years ago changed nothing. Literally every country that has implemented a universal health care system has been plagued with long wait times and it is a huge issue. There is also no free lunch and universal health care truly isn't free. In the UK and in other European countries that have a universal health care system, taxes have been raised on an almost annual basis- can you imagine the shit storm that would be created if our taxes where raised on an annual basis? These systems are a huge strain on countries and they can cause huge debts. Furthermore, since universal health care eliminates the free market, there will be no more competition and no more innovations.

This is why if our health care system was 100% privatized, we would see more competition, lower prices across the board and more innovations in the sector.

however it turns out the actual numbers do not support what you are saying

From what I have heard (and no i dont have the links) universal health care in other countries is CHEAPER then privatized health care is here. cheaper in total

You never provide facts or evidence, what else is new? Also, health isn't even fully privatized in America so that argument is null and void.

Also, I am calling him a leftist because he is promoting a very leftist ideal. Health care should be what it is, a commodity and not a right. It is literally a third party service which is classified as a commodity. You also do realize that in a government controlled health care system that there is no competition, there is no innovation and that the quality of service goes down right?

FYI I think Jacanuk just flips back and forth for argument sake

@tryit: I agree, at least you don't change your view points and are fairly consistent if anything.

I wonder who told people that that is how countries with "free" healthcare work... I assume politicians and right-wing media?

I could go now in the middle of the night and get checked out for whatever, it would be stupid if it wasn't urgent but I still could.

@mighty-lu-bu: Healthcare doesn’t work in a free market. If you’re in need of a kidney and dying you’re not going to be able to shop around like you would shop around for a car or the lowest price on a Nintendo Switch. Additionally, there isn’t any incentive for a hospital or doctor to lower their price considering they know you will pay any amount since your life literally depends on it.

Healthcare in the Nordic countries and Canada also aren’t operated entirely by the government. The government only steps in by providing national health insurance like you would get health insurance from your employer and operate their own healthcare facilities. This way, the government is also a competitor to private companies and insurers so they can’t jack up the price when the populace can get it cheaper at a government-run facility.

In a national healthcare program, the existence of private providers and competitors doesn’t cease to exist. Rather, the government operates in that sphere as well and gives the populace a baseline of coverage. If you don’t like the coverage from the government you can always pay directly to the private provider, like so many people do.

I work in the healthcare field in Canada, btw.

Hmm, so let me see if i get this.

You claim that Universal healthcare does not work because of

- Lack of medical staff because of slavery-like conditions which result in long wait times and subpar health care.

Sorry but your arguments does not have any support in actual facts, according to the WHO the top healthcare systems are actually universal healthcare systems not a "free market" like the us. But I bet you call the WHO and other various agencies which disproves the arguments, fake news right.

Also, a 100% privatized system is against basic human rights and are just bad business.

Well hey, yeah we can agree on that then, the best systems do generally win. Governments will look at other countries' systems around the world for inspiration, and either adopt or adapt that model to their own nations. I think the fact that the majority of the top-10 rated countries by the inequality-adjusted HDI index, operate a mixed economy rather than directly emulating the U.S. model speaks for itself. Furthermore, I would argue that not only does this prove socialism can work alongside capitalism, but also that it does a much better job than pure capitalism of allowing the whole population to prosper, rather than just the top 1%.

Okay now I would describe it as universal rather than free healthcare, since as I mentioned it's all funded through public tax. Of course there is no such thing as free healthcare, but there is a better way of organising your national budget and tax system. Yup, I'd agree with that statement, the Nordic countries are a good example to follow on the application of socialism. The United States has paid ALL of their defence budgets for the last 40 years, are you sure about that? Sweden and Finland are not even a part of NATO, and all NATO members allocate what they deem necessary to their own defence budgets anyway. Now you could argue that the presence of U.S. military bases in Europe is an expensive contribution to the collective defence capabilities of the continent. However that is arguably motivated as much by the desire to remain the dominant global superpower, and protect American interests throughout the world, as it is by any treaty obligations under NATO.

Absolutely, I'm all for working towards achieving a better system than what is in place now. I believe we should always be fostering evolution of governance, public policy and the political economy, rather than just resting on our laurels. Just because we can't currently envisage a better system, doesn't mean that future generations won't develop something superior to what we have at this point in time. Now here's something we will probably disagree on, but I don't believe there is a single best country in the world. I mean how would you even determine that, and by what metrics: military and economic power, cultural influence, happiness, climate, education, social mobility, heritage, entrepreneurship, human rights, a clean environment or quality of life?

There are so many positive and negative attributes to every country, that to try and rank them overall becomes largely subjective. Certain aspects of a nation will hold greater importance to different people, when deciding what constitutes the best place to live. Now having said that, I'll definitely admit that the U.S. is undoubtedly the most powerful economic, military and culturally influential nation in history, with unmatched innovation and entrepreneurship. And yeah agreed, despite some obvious issues such as corporate lobbying and partisanship, democratic debate is a great thing for reaching a consensus, and fixing issues within our countries. Of course people from somewhere like China would likely have wildly different viewpoints than us on this mind you.

Yeah indeed, I think they make up about 2% of the overall population in the U.S. Do you believe that your government has an obligation to support the remaining Native Americans then, given the historical context for the situation they now find themselves in? Nope I haven't heard that phrase before actually, but it an interesting one and has a lot of truth to it. The only problem I have with that argument is that I don't want to live in a world where only the strongest survive. Your grandparents were obviously very strong, driven people, and made of tougher stuff than many of us living in the western world today. Ultimately though, I wouldn't want to have to struggle through the same tough times that any of our grandparents faced, and don't believe we should have to in today's world. You can point to governments providing welfare provisions as having made people less self reliant than they used to be. However technological advancements, globalisation and a much higher quality of life have equally impacted our self reliance. We are certainly not the same people as previous generations, but I don't see that as a bad thing. Rather, it's just natural human progression, and evidence that we have it a lot better now than anyone did in the past.

Perhaps though you are right, and it is still possible to have strong communities in the present day. My only concern is that our societies appear to have become more antisocial, in part due to the rapid advance of technology, and that there is far less of a community network now than was previously in place. Most people I know can probably count the number of neighbours they actually know, let alone feel they could rely upon for support in a time of crisis on one hand. Sure, government assistance is open to abuse in some cases. However I believe that welfare provisions and social security were put in place, primarily because alternative forms of assuring disadvantaged people's wellbeing had proven to be inadequate.

@Jacanuk: I wouldn't call the WHO fake news, but they have been known to flip-flop on issues such as transgenderism being a mental disorder or not, but that is a discussion for a different time. I see that you keep failing to address the complete inefficiencies of the government run VA health care system here in the United States and I ask why?

Furthermore you keep claiming that health care is a right and sorry, but it isn't. In fact, what you are saying is that since health care is a right, individuals have the right to take the rights away from doctors and other medical staff and this might work in socialist countries, but in America this is unconstitutional. You are literally saying that people have the right to affordable health care, but doctors don't have a right to charge what they want- how absurd is that mentality? I will give you a hint, it is pretty absurd. You cannot give rights to a group of people while at the same time taking rights away from people because it goes against our U.S. Constitution, a subject you seem completely unfamiliar with.

You have manged to steer clear of some of my biggest issues with a universal health care system such as excessively long wait times and de-incentivcizing individuals from wanting to go to medical school- why spend a lot of time and money going to medical school if the government is just going to force these people to work at a wage? How do you not see the issues with this? You want the government to stick a gun to a doctor's head and force them to render services at a set price- again do you not see what is wrong with this? Can you see the moral issues here? Do you see the unconstitutional nature of this? You do realize that in countries such as the UK, have had their taxes raised almost every year to support their health care system... do you think such a ploy would work in America since most Americans are against higher taxes? You also have completely failed to address the posts of people within this thread who come from countries that have universal health care systems and who have self admittedly said that they were not good systems- again why are you cherry picking your arguments? I think we can have a rational discussion, but if you are just going to attack my political views at every opportunity and refuse to address the real issues that I have presented based on such a system then we are not going to get anywhere.

I applaud your willingness to actually discuss the issues and share different viewpoints- probably one of the most intellectually stimulating conversations that I have on here in a long time.

Most likely people with political agendas, yes. There is a wave of misinformation regarding the cost, waiting times and general competence of the UK's NHS for example. Sure there are legitimate criticisms to be made of the system, and it could certainly use some work. However the fundamental foundations of it are solid, and most commentators fail to mention factors impacting the waiting times, such as seasonal weather effects, or the fact that there's currently an exodus of EU born doctors moving out of the UK to find alternative work, thanks to brexit.

Yeah exactly, same here really. In my country, the NHS accident and emergency departments operate to a clinical standard which states that a minimum of 95% of patients attending A&E should be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours of their arrival. They will of course prioritise the most serious life threatening cases first. Now in terms of the maximum waiting times for non-urgent hospital referrals it is 18 weeks, although this is an absolute upper limit set by law, and the vast majority are seen far quicker. There are various exceptions to this however, for example the maximum waiting time for a patient with suspected cancer to be seen is two weeks, and they try to do this as urgently as possible.

Not to mention there are private healthcare alternatives to the NHS available such as BUPA, if people wish to use that instead.

Ah hey well thanks, I am flattered! Haha. Yeah likewise, it's always interesting to hear different opinions on such topics. :)

Well, WHO is a science-based organization and science change, so I would not call it flip-flopping when they change a view on something since it´s based on current scientific data.

As to the VA system in the US, well it´s because of incompetence and red tape not to mention that it´s vastly underfunded for the number of people who are actually needing it. Remember we have been at war now for the last 2 decades (almost)

And I don´t claim anything, I am simply stating what is written into the UN human rights Charter, the EU charter, and European human rights. And also what is recognized by most of the western world. Which is healthcare is indeed a human right. Even the US recognizes this to some degree, why do you think a hospital can´t refuse to treat someone in need.

As to doctors, you seem to miss what a universal healthcare system is, it´s not a system where the government goes in and dictates prices and the public has to pay it, most systems work by the cost of care is paid by the government, meaning doctors are paid market prices, so I am not sure where you came to that conclusion. In fact, The Netherlands is according to medical organizations the country in the world where doctors are paid the most. Also, where did you hear people don´t have an incentive to go into medical professions? in most countries in Europe and Nordic, education is free so people find professions they like and each year the top applied to is medical fields, especially medicine.

But let´s take a look at some of your other "concerns" Insane waiting times? what is insane for you? most people in Europe can call up a doctor and get a time within a few days , if they get sick they can either choose to go to their GP or in serious cases call up a service where a doctor decides if a visit to an A&E/ER is warranted or people can simply go directly there. As to after the diagnoses, well again what is insane for you? an example is again the NHS where there are max wait times for most treatments depends on the seriousness of the diagnoses, In urgent it´s 2 weeks and in non-urgent it´s 18 weeks which is not insane, and in cases where the wait times are too long, in some countries, they have the right to seek care abroad or even from the few private hospitals that exist.

And let´s look at taxes, do you know what the tax is in the UK? the max tax rate if you earn more than 150.000£ is 45% and then it goes 40-20-0 %, In the US it´s 25 %, 28% and max of 35%

So actually most people in the UK pay less than in the US and also get a pretty good healthcare system.

So i am afraid that your arguments is not entirely valid.

Problem is just that the opinions are not based on actual facts.

There are many reasons why you may dislike a universal healthcare system and as shown in Europe there are also many ways of doing it, but as with democracy, it´s right now the best and only system any western country should have.

Personally, I'm somewhat torn on this issue because my employer pays for all of my health insurance and I really don't think I'd be able to get a huge raise to compensate if the government took over. I do think that universal healthcare is by far the best system if we are concerned at all about the health and welfare of the typical American, though. We probably should switch to it sooner than later.

@PurpleMan5000: Your employer-provided healthcare wouldn’t just disappear in a system with government-provided healthcare.

That is actually true

Even in Europe, there is employee provided health insurance.

I agree that having a universal healthcare system would be a good thing for the U.S., and may even end up allowing the government to spend less on healthcare in the future than they do right now. Having said that though, attempting to implement universal healthcare in America wouldn't be an easy task. Dismantling the current system would definitely cost a lot of money and insurance company jobs in the short-term, which would be a tough sell to voters for any party.

Then there's the challenge of trying to make something like this work on the scale of the U.S., and across all states. The closest example population and geography-wise of a country with universal healthcare is Russia, though they have had some troubles in providing the same level of service, and adequate number of staff to the more rural areas of the country. You'd also have to decide how coverage for immigrants would impact the system, and plan accordingly. And of course there is still the whole debate as to whether healthcare is a basic human right, or just a purchasable service.

Nothing is impossible though, I'd like to see everyone in America have basic, affordable healthcare available to them. There's no reason you couldn't have even just a universal single-payer system, while still keeping the alternative of private healthcare open to people who prefer it.

@Jacanuk: First of all, the VA doesn't have a funding problem, they have plenty of money. I think you mean to say that they have a leadership problem.

The UN is also one of the worst organizations in the world and I am really hoping that they are either replaced or just completely dismantled. Based on your comments, you seem to show some ignorance on this matter, but that is an argument for a different time.

Do you actually know why America's health care costs are so high? There are several factors, but some of the main reasons are Obama care, state regulations, emergency room visits, both medicare and medicade, the fact that you can't purchase medical insurance across state lines and of course medical malpractice lawsuits. If we find solutions to these issues then overall medical costs will go down. Also, The U.S. ranks number 3 in the world when it comes to how doctors are paid, but if you look at the numbers, the average yearly salary for specialists in the U.S. is $230,000 vs the Netherlands $253,000. However, if you look at general practitioners, the U.S. is the highest in the world with an average of yearly salary of $161,000. The Netherlands GP averaged annual salary is just $117,000. Weird.

The Nordic countries are just a utopia and nothing more. We already know that socialist ideas can work for small periods of time, but there is no longevity. You can use the Netherlands and other Nordic countries as an example all you want, but you are only telling half truths here. In most of these countries (especially the Netherlands) they literally have no defense budget and it is important to note that these countries are racially and culturally homogeneous, which differs drastically from the U.S.'s demographics. In addition, the Netherlands, among other Nordic countries, have some of the highest tax rates in all of western civilization. Do I even have to get into the astronomically high prices that these countries pay for alcohol, food and for vehicles (why would anyone want to pay 30k for a base model Honda Civic)?

I think are listening to Bernie Sanders too much- perhaps a health care system like one that the Nordic countries use can be applied to Vermont, but not the entire U.S.

Well, that is your opinion that the VA is not underfunded but many experts say different, not to mention the horrible red tape and leadership incompetence, but if they took a page from Europe they may actually get a working VA that takes of the people who serve our nation and who we should do everything to help.

And you can complain all you want about the UN but the human rights charter is recognized by every member and even the US. So you may not like it but that is a fact.

Also yes i am aware of why the cost is so "high" and while you can partially blame Obama care which was badly implemented and went through without the proper scrutiny, it´s not the only reason, there is also a whole medical industry behind it which have made it their task to earn as much as they can. which is also the reason why your argument fails, the prices will not become lower if Obamacare is removed. The only way for it to get lower is to remove the private factor and not let greed dictacte who can get help and who can´t. , As to the wage, well according to OECD data Netherlands is highest earners.

It´s funny that you fall down to coming with a defense argument, despite what you may have been taught America is not the reason Europe is free or not in the hands of some crazy dictator. But no matter what you try to counter with, facts are that Europe and the Nordic countries are fine with a universal healthcare system and that they have plenty of doctors that earn a very healthy and decent wage, plenty of nurses who also earn a good wage and plenty of students in their respective medical fields. And as to the tax rates, actually considering the extra´s you have to pay in America the tax is not to bad in comparison and actually, the tax is not that much higher if you take the cost of healthcare and other benefits you get in europe/nordic

And you need to stop listening to radical conservtives who distort facts and knows nothing.

Again the master of cherry picking.

I didn't say health costs would go down simply if we got rid of Obama care, I said that if we fixed the issues that were causing health care to be so high (which I listed previously) we would see a dramatic drop in health costs.

They might have free health care in these Nordic countries, but you do realize that the cost of living in these places is astronomically high right? When you have to pay almost double for a car in these countries (as opposed to what we pay in America), when you are talking about spending $100+ on a bottle of Jack Daniels, and $15 for a hamburger you know your country is having issues. Also, you don't have your facts aligned with the whole tax situation. Like I mentioned previously, these Nordic countries pay the highest taxes in all of western civilization. I make just under 70k and based on my income I am in the 22% tax bracket in the U.S. If I was making that kind of money in the Netherlands, I would be at a 52% tax rate- if you are failing to see how crazy these rates are then you are mathematically illiterate.

Again, tell me which of these Nordic countries could a) protect themselves from an invading force, and b) is actually a superpower in terms of economical, influential and military power. It's OK, I will wait. Also, if you think Ben Shapiro, a classical conservative, is a radical conservative then you have lost all credibility- I might as well be debating a house plant. Please stop getting free health care advice from your liberal professors at your local community college.

@mighty-lu-bu: let's for arguments sake agree that these countries have issues. Now how are you going to tie those issues to them having universal healthcare?

@perfect_blue: It might not disappear, but it would be a lot less valuable. What would it cover that universal healthcare doesn’t?

I mean, their astronomically high tax rates exist because of their health care system- I am not sure why everything is grossly inflated, but if their inflated goods directly relate to their health care system then I think that is a problem. If you look at lot of the universal health care systems out there in general, they usually all have ridiculously high tax rates.

According to the numbers, we have the 3rd highest paid doctors in the world (1st of you just go by GPs) and we don't have any of the problems that these Nordic countries have: We don't have grossly inflated market goods and our tax rate is significantly less. Also, I would like to point out that the Nordic countries are unique and just because a universal health care system works in these countries, doesn't mean it works in the U.S. We need to remember that from a cultural and racial prospective, that these countries are homogeneous, which is quite different than the U.S.

When I graduated and entered the work force there was nothing wrong with the system at the time. If you wanted wanted healthcare you paid for it or got a job that had benifits.

Once the Affordable Care Act(Obamacare) happened it did nothing for me but raise the amount I paid in healthcare and raised how much I needed to pay out of pocket. I essentially got less coverage for more money.

No one is entitled to healthcare, it’s not a right, and it’s not the responsibility of a country or it’s citizens to make sure you have it.

I can’t wait till we get more hospital on board with the pay a monthly/yearly fee and get whatever services you want directly from that hospital. Basically the same insurance hospitals already give to their employees, they are realizing they can offer that same thing to the general public and make money especially off the people that don’t use/abuse the healthcare system.

that is strange.

its been different for me, i worked before ACA and I got health insurance via my employer (just like you said)

I work after ACA and I get health insurance via my employer

why is your employer post ACA different? maybe you just need a better job?

@lamprey263: you show me the country that has a population of 325+million people and has a successful universal healthcare and thriving economy and then I’ll give you the time of day.

the number of people is about as important as saying 'give me a country that starts with the letter A and I will give you the time of day'

its not relevant

@tryit: nope same employer, local county government job. We had amazing insurance and I paid $123 a paycheck for it. I had a child in 2007 and 2009 all I paid was a $100 copay when they were born and nothing else. After AHC things had to be restructured and changed without our cost rising drastically prepay check. I applaud my agency for that as I only pay $153 a paycheck now for the same coverage, but that coverage now has higher deductables, more out of pocket. I’m not for fair and equal, I worked hard to get where I’m at and be in the job I am in and have the benifits I wanted.

People shouldn’t get a cheap subsidized insurance just because. Especially when it negatively effects others.

If I were to have my kids now, I’d be spending $600 out of pocket. Plus $25 per every visit to the doctors office. By no means is that horrible or bad, but it’s not what it was or as good as it could be.

sounds like you need to improve your skill set and get a better job.

mine was literally completely and totally unchanged

@tryit: well seeing as you think the population of a country means nothing, and nothing has changed for you. Even though millions upon millions complain about exactly what I just mentioned.

I’ll just not argue with blind ignorance and say “ok buddy” ?

that is right it doesnt matter.

when you have a system that is scalable 10 million vs 100 million really doesnt matter.

now if you are talking 100,000 I would agree but for the most part its just scalablity, just like walmart for example.

so go back and come up with a different reason that one is lame

Their taxes are very high, but if you add what my employers pay for my health insurance policy to my pre-tax base income, then divide the insurance contribution plus my taxes, I lose well over 50% of my paycheck to healthcare and taxes. That is probably more than I would pay in any of these countries with universal healthcare. Of course, that assumes that all of the insurance benefit would go to my base pay if we were to ever get universal healthcare, which I sort of doubt would happen.

@mighty-lu-bu: and what makes you think they pay high taxes because of their healthcare system?

At my current company, prior to Obamacare, people were getting $120 taken out of every pay check and co-pays were just $15 across the board. Now, It is pushing $168 taken out of every paycheck and our co-pays got bumped up to $35. It is still excellent insurance, but Obama care definitely made it more expensive.

All Obamacare did is raise the costs of health insurance for those who got it through their employers. In addition, it forced people who couldn't afford it before, to get it and if they didn't they would suffer penalties. My roommate filled out covered California forms and they just base it on income- it doesn't take into consideration how much you pay in rent, if you have other bills or debt and at the time he was making about 35k per year and they wanted him to pay about $380+ a month for a basic plan which he couldn't afford. For the last couple of years, he has owed money to the IRS because of these penalties of not having insurance which is ridiculous. Trump did a really good thing by appealing the original mandate of Obamacare and removing these penalties for not having insurance.

again..

the company I worked for the insurance had ZERO CHANGE between before and after ACA.

In fact it was a few years that the ACA was in place and I didnt even know it had passed!

so you need to find a better employer is all

@toast_burner: Because that is how universal health care systems work. Their governments can't afford to pay for it so what do they do? They jack up the tax rates. It isn't just tax rates that are high too, a lot of things are high, like the prices of alcohol, prices of food and the prices for vehicles (which is about double to what we pay in the U.S). They also have to pay ridiculously high registration fees.

Look at some of the countries that have a universal health care system in place: Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, France, and the UK have some of the highest tax rates not only in all of western civilization, but in the entire world.

You should ask how much the company is contributing on their end sometime. My employer pays about $1500 per month for my family coverage. Individual coverage was significantly less back when I was single. I currently pay nothing. If I could get universal healthcare plus an additional $1000 per month in pay, I would probably come out on top even with the higher taxes and my company would save $500 per month per employee. Universal healthcare without a big pay raise would end up costing me a lot of money.

@tryit: maybe work for a larger company, you and those 10 other guys working wouldn’t really be affected now would you

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not an American but as an outsider it seems to me that the cold war left a scar in the American society that maybe will last forever, where the idea that something can have a semblance of being communist is automatically evil. And this argument is used as a weapon against the American people manipulating the its collective psych.

@tryit: In 2017 thanks to Obamacare, the cost of health insurance nationwide rose about 25% (averaged of course, but that is still high). This year, Obamacare is said to raise costs by 37%.

So far this year my employee has paid almost $1040 towards my PPO. Also when I am breaking down the math, I forgot that our premiums rose again at the beginning of 2018 and we are now paying roughly $177 per pay check.

I do not work for a mom and pop company, I work for a multi-billion dollar international corporation.

@PurpleMan5000: they use to pay 100% of the cost if you were a single person and wanted insurance. There was nothing out of your paycheck. Now a single person with insurance pays around $60 a check. They pay a ton of the cost between $1200-$1400 for families. All in all there isn’t much to bitch about cause the insurance is really good even for now. But it was better and the long term employees know and felt it. New employees just flip there shit and say omg this is great.

for the third time.

my employer paid insurance was unchanged other than regular increases that have been going on at the same rate for more than 20 years

I do not believe you.

I have been single my entire life and working for 24 years. I have never seen an insurance policy that had zero taken out of the check for being single...never

This is similar to what I have, but my employer still pays all of it. It's a great deal, but if we had universal healthcare and my employer would just move what they currently pay for my insurance into my salary instead, I think I would come out well ahead. It's just sort of hard for me to get fully behind universal healthcare because that is a pretty big assumption that it would end up working out that way. I'm sure that over time, employers would adjust pay to compensate for the higher tax rates, but there might be a few years it would be painful.

Most Americans are not nearly as fortunate as me when it comes to healthcare, though, and I may not always be as fortunate myself. I'd probably be pretty excited about universal healthcare if the government would actually start talking seriously about it.

I have never in my 24 years of working ever seen a employer pay 100% of a persons health benefit. I asked around here at the office and nobody has ever heard of that either.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/9-companies-that-cover-100-percent-of-employee-health-insurance-premiums.html

9 companies ..thats it...9