Last night as I was working on homework, an idea related to healthcare popped into my head. It's quite hyperbolic: with healthcare and insurance becoming evermore expensive, in a way we're reverting to a feudal peasantry, based on employer provided health insurance instead of plots of land.
The other half is from a while ago. I had a thought that the people who would benefit the most from having healthcare independent of work seem to coincide with the group of people who are the most adamantly against the 'socialism'. That is the un- and under-employed, or mismatched, and people who work jobs that aren't career paths.
They can't afford to take the risk to do something more ambitious, such as finding a different job or starting a business, with the chance that they might lose their health insurance. When people find or get matched with better jobs or start new businesses, that's when the economy grows. Perhaps there's a sliver of economy we're missing due to people playing it too safe.
I wonder if, from a strictly business point of view, compared to the other Western countries which all have some kind of governmental or non-work dependent healthcare, the cost of taking an economic risk becomes greater in the US than elsewhere which would push growth offshore.
Back to my original thought, if the cost of healthcare continues to increase, it will become an even bigger part of people's financial decision-making. If things continue and healthcare costs more and more, I would expect that most people would then become 'tied' to whichever existing job they already have, unless something completely non-risky comes up, literally ossifying the economy and ensuring that inefficiencies aren't corrected, costing us greater amounts of economic development.
It might reach a point such that the lost economic growth is greater than the cost of government healthcare in the first place.
As for me, I'm not sure about government healthcare. I feel yes, but I think no.