Dragon

As for the Capital flight, that is a myth

I'm not sure it's even negligible between countries, but I am specifically talking about capital flight between US states, where there is a very low barrier to exit. Do you have any reason to believe that isn't a phenomenon?

a flat amount rather than a flat rate

So a regressive tax

Under current economic conditions, economic wealth is necessary for the functioning of the economy. Some (including me) would advocate for a redistribution/government seizure of capital, but I don't know of any economist who doesn't see it as a problem if the wealth is lost altogether. If taxes are imposed on a national level, it is less likely that the wealthy will flee to other countries than it is if they are imposed on a state level. Unless the government seizes all capital, or bans capital flight, there will always be a risk of losing that wealth to emigration.

I never said it wouldn't be cheaper overall, I'm aware that's true. I'm saying for top earners, it won't. Insurance costs the same for everyone, taxes don't. The only way around that entirely is a regressive tax.

I understand that it saves money overall. I don't understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.

I'm conceding that it might not always be the case. I don't have an answer to your question because I don't feel like doing the research and math to figure out what the top earners would pay in any given state under universal health insurance. It seems to me obvious that it would represent a large tax increase, and that that increase would disproportionately effect top earners. If you have reason to believe it would universally save people money, I'm all ears for a reason or argument.

How so?

It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.

That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who don't have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up what's missing for those people.

I said under current progressive tax models.

Maybe. It's worth trying.

It's only cheaper if you consider current healthcare costs. It would require tax increases, and under current progressive tax models, those would be disproportionately high for the upper class, for whom the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium.