Your 20-30% claim is still way too high for even the median wages, ignoring typical SWE comp. it’s not clear where you got your numbers, but they’re not supported by the data.
The median US wages are covered by the subsidies above. Again, I want to emphasize that I support health care reform to improve coverage at the lower wages, but I’m trying to explain the discrepancy between the dire picture painted online and the seemingly irrational voting patterns of most Americans. The idea that you can move to a median European country and come out ahead financially due to government healthcare doesn’t really add up.
I wasn't the grandfather poster you're responding to. But I'll give you my perspective as a Brit. It seems to me a conflation of two separate things. The pro-business environment over the pond allows a lucky minority to capitalise and have a higher standard of living than most places in the world. That is a plus for people who can make it in the U.S. for sure. Glossing over the unlucky majority for the sake of the argument; this state of affairs doesn't seem entirely dependent on the lack of a national healthcare system. It just so happens that a slice of those lucky few don't want to lose their various golden geese, so they have been campaigning to keep the status quo.
Socialised healthcare is cheaper but my understanding. You could have your cake and eat it. I'm open to reading data pointing to the contrary.
The median US wages are covered by the subsidies above. Again, I want to emphasize that I support health care reform to improve coverage at the lower wages, but I’m trying to explain the discrepancy between the dire picture painted online and the seemingly irrational voting patterns of most Americans. The idea that you can move to a median European country and come out ahead financially due to government healthcare doesn’t really add up.