patrick.net

Consider if all employers decide to apply their portion of their contribution to employees healthcare to other uses, e.g. invest internally, return to shareholders, etc. Nothing will have changed from this mythical supply and demand perspective. A given employee would not be getting a better deal elsewhere, under this assumption, and the status quo would be maintained

And so under a pay less scenario, you could still get worse healthcare.

but with regards to voting, it comes down to those who vote, not simple population based majorities.

Yes it will. Employee take home pay will be reduced. Employees would decide that the new pay wasn't enough and would quit.

Not according to every available study that Ive ever seen.

Employee pay after taxes might be reduced to pay for the increased taxes to fund socialized medicine, perhaps. but as the employer contribution is not represented on their current paycheck, when it is not longer provided, it can't in and of itself reduce the paycheck

Which you won't reference. To be clear, a reference describing how care will be better in the USA under a scenario of paying less would be interesting to see

Right--so, as I said, employee net pay is reduced

lol--you think I can't find those studes?

Is it that hard for you to accept reality--that healthcare access differs based on $$?

I don't think you understand them. Please point out in any of those links information verifying your belief that by paying less, care would improve.

LeonDurham says

lol--if only it were that easy. Pretty sure a high school education and a job at Walmart doesn't keep you from being poor.

What is your opinion based on? The Brookings Institute studied decades of data.