Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others who get a greatly discounted rate. Their employers will not necessarily savings with their employees.

The result for these employees could be more taxes for the same or worse care they’re already receiving.

In aggregate I believe it’s the right move but let’s not act like everyone wins here.

> Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others are a greatly discounted rate, who will not necessarily share savings with their employees.

Then require that savings be shared.

Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.

That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. The kind of bureaucracy you’re proposing is why things are already so complicated to begin with.

> That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate.

If you cut the salaries of employees who opt-out, but not those who don't, you'd be in very clear violation of the law I'm suggesting.

No, what I’m saying is that they wouldn’t offer an alternative to the state run health care, as why would they anymore? No incentive.

I'm not seeing the downside.

The downside is that you could be paying more taxes for something that you already had.

Then perhaps it's time to unlink employment and health care coverage entirely.

No disagreement here.

> Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer

It is not 'for free' it is part of your compensation! It's like saying your employer pays 6.2% + 1.45% in SS/Medicaid taxes 'for free'. That is part of your compensation.

I meant free in that you don’t pay a premium, but fair point.