Those incomes are by definition restricted to the top 5% of the general population - of course those top earners prefer not to be enrolled in a socialized medicine plan and prefer market insurance with a nominal price tag that is not proportional to income.
That's the entire point, to establish a social contract where the healthy and successful pay for the healthcare of the less fortunate, can benefit themselves from that social net if their fortune reverse, and deal with the risk they might never be net beneficiaries if they remain healthy and wealthy.
Given the option, high earners would argue that all public spending should be financed by flat nominal taxes, it's not like they personally require more work from the army or the police, or they drive longer distances on public infrastructure.
Those incomes are by definition restricted to the top 5% of the general population - of course those top earners prefer not to be enrolled in a socialized medicine plan and prefer market insurance with a nominal price tag that is not proportional to income.
That's the entire point, to establish a social contract where the healthy and successful pay for the healthcare of the less fortunate, can benefit themselves from that social net if their fortune reverse, and deal with the risk they might never be net beneficiaries if they remain healthy and wealthy.
Given the option, high earners would argue that all public spending should be financed by flat nominal taxes, it's not like they personally require more work from the army or the police, or they drive longer distances on public infrastructure.