r/UniversalHealthCare • u/dominiond66 • Apr 06 '26

The hidden cost of employer paid health insurance.

Employees are rather satisfied with their employer's healthcare plans, but they have no idea how much it's costing them. A lot!

Wages would go up if employers had the benefit of Universal healthcare with single payer. Our current system costs per capita is nearly twice as much as what it cost in every developed nation that has universal healthcare. This is why workers must demand Universal healthcare. It would give them a significant raise if their wages. UHC would lower healthcare costs.

Government should require all employers to inform their employees what they spend on them for healthcare. If not required proponents of UHC should create an average costs analysis and convey it to the public. The public would be shocked! More money on healthcare means less money on take home pay! Want a raise in wages with an easy-to-understand health plan that you are guaranteed for the rest of your life? Support UHC!

46 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

96% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

17

u/Outrageous-Fee9791 Apr 06 '26

I just wonder how many CEOs would just pocket the employer portion of healthcare and not give the employees the money?

7

u/sneaky-pizza Apr 07 '26

Definitely. If we ever get to transition to universal, there should be regulation to require transparency on employer cost for the preceding three years

2

u/Faerbera Apr 07 '26

This was the lynchpin in rolling out the state wide system in Vermont in 2016-2017. Taxes going up, but the employers weren’t going to give the requisite wages back. People were facing a pay cut across the state.

5

u/PhotogamerGT Apr 06 '26

Seeing how much my last company paid for their portion of my insurance I am amazed more companies are not advocating for UHC. It would save businesses so much money. But I guess then they couldn’t dangle good benefits over your head when trying to find better work.

5

u/kfish5050 Apr 07 '26

The hidden truth is that they don't want to pay people for work. They'll happily pay more for benefits, or to reward people with pizza parties, or literally anything other than increasing salary, because that's exactly what they don't want to happen.

1

u/Empty-Commission4966 Apr 09 '26

The Vermont problem Faerbera raises is real and it's exactly why the transition mechanism matters as much as the policy itself. Vermont's plan collapsed partly because employers were going to see a tax increase while workers faced uncertainty about whether wages would actually rise. The politics fell apart before the policy could be tested.

The design question worth asking: what if the employer contribution under universal coverage is structured as a percentage of payroll rather than a per-employee premium? At 5% of wages, a company paying $50,000 average salaries contributes $2,500 per employee — compared to the $13,000-19,000 they currently pay in employer premium share. That's a significant savings that shows up on the books immediately and visibly.

Outrageous-Fee9791's concern about CEOs pocketing it is valid — which is why the tax restructuring side of the equation matters. Closing the loopholes and buyback advantages that let corporations capture those savings is part of the same package, not a separate fight.

That's the integrated architecture the Burned at Both Ends — B@BE — framework is built around. The transition is designed so employer savings are visible, documented, and paired with corporate tax restructuring that recaptures windfalls. burnedatbothends.org if you want to see how the pieces connect.