Without further information, your second paragraph sounds like a straightforward correlation/causation fallacy. Can you add context which might dispel that impression?
Sure. The more we talk about it, the more he notices the differences when an employer has to actually compete for employees, not the other way around.
People in that country get the same level of care if they have been employed full time for 10 years, or have never had a job, or whatever. Because of this, people are free to move between jobs, or even outright quit if they want, because they know their health will not suffer.
Nobody in that country discusses health or healthcare like it's an issue, because it's something they take for granted. It's a given.
With that in mind, imagine how differently the conversation goes when someone says something like "I'm thinking about working for a non-profit" or "I'm thinking about taking 2 years off to explore my creative talents", etc.
I know a woman who moved from the US to the Netherlands in part because she has severe asthma. There are periods when she cannot work for a month or three, and in the US she'd have trouble keeping her job during those, and then she'd have trouble paying for necessary healthcare. In the Netherlands paying for treatment is a non-issue.
The US economy lost a smart woman with good skills both as a programmer and a project manager because of this. Her contribution to the economy easily outweighs the cost of her health care...
