> In the long-term, it's in the private interest of those having sustainable companies to have a broad base of educated and healthy workers to employ.
Immigration affects this calculation significantly.
If your long game is to be an attractive destination to healthy educated immigrants, investing in the "land of opportunities" mythology has better ROI than investing in universal healthcare.
> If your long game is to be an attractive destination to healthy educated immigrants, investing in the "land of opportunities" mythology has better ROI than investing in universal healthcare.
Sure, but it's not a dichotomy either. I suspect they both have better ROI than average for government spending.
If you want to attract, say, a young PhD with a spouse and kid, the guarantee of healthcare for the family - even if they change jobs - is a huge selling point. Anecdotally at least, I've known several international students who left the US after college for Canada, France, or England and cited this as a factor. (The ridiculous artificial barriers like "go home to file this form and come back" don't help either.) And with non-open immigration, e.g. the Canadian model, there's no special economic burden to this approach.
Well, in this age, good luck finding enough "healthy, educated immigrants" who do not find the state of US healthcare system absolutely bonkers.
Maybe that's a good thing. Invite enough educated immigrants, and America will have more people saying "You know what, my country had a saner healthcare system thirty years ago when ordinary people couldn't afford air conditioners. What the hell is wrong with you America?"
Immigration affects this calculation significantly.
If your long game is to be an attractive destination to healthy educated immigrants, investing in the "land of opportunities" mythology has better ROI than investing in universal healthcare.