Remember that this expense is also reducing the cost of employers.
One of the best ways to finance this would be a payroll tax that is basically equal (in aggregate) to the insurance the company is (usually) already paying.
One of the best ways to finance this would be a payroll tax that is basically equal (in aggregate) to the insurance the company is (usually) already paying.
And the fact that you can't actually take time off of work to pursue a career change or look for a new job, because you need your job in order to be able to afford basic healthcare. Which makes it a lot harder to pursue a career change or look for a new job, because you are stuck/busy at your current one + whatever other life responsibilities you have (not to mention the really high commute times in NYC).
Large metro areas have a large # of services available. From office furniture delivered in hours to a wide range of service industries available on demand.
From food delivery to sign printing to courier services, large, dense, cities have economics of scale.
Nobody is going to believe that there are savings to be had, so it's best to start by reducing friction.
Whereupon there is no reduction in cost to any employer.
Theoretically there could be a reduction because the state would be a larger pool of cross-subsidization than any particular employer. In reality the costs are worse since the state will use the taxes to subsidize non-employed persons.
For example imagine a company attracts talent by paying median + healthcare, and another that just paid median. For the latter they would have more costs, no?
The savings aren’t offset unless they were already offering the incentive.