The reality is either the "market" or "government" operate to allocate limited resources. The part of economics that is a science is the part that can be "repeated over and over again through social experiments". One of the first principles of economics is that people have unlimited wants and the world has limited resources. Both of these principles help address why most people never seem happy with what they have and want more and why everyone can't have what they want.
As long as those two principles stand, the only goods and services (including healthcare and childcare) that will be universally available will by those that the government supplies universally by taxing its citizens and forcing them to buy those things instead of other things that they want.
When government forces people to pay for more "universal services", there are clearly winners and losers in that exchange. The winners are those who get the universal services they want, and the losers are those who pay for them. And at some point, the people funding universal services push back and say no more, we want the money we earn to buy the things we want.
Absent the government providing "universal services", the other way to achieve that is for people to willingly pay higher prices for goods and services so employers can provide "mandated benefits". But again, at some point consumers push back and, in most cases, that point comes rather quickly.
An even bigger challenge for employers providing universal services is that unlike the government, they must compete with foreign companies that are not under US mandates to provide those services. So, while citizens can reject the "cost of universal services" by buying cheaper products made overseas, they have to elect representatives to reduce their tax burden and free up their money to purchase things they want. That takes longer.
Opposing these core economic principles is something I refer to kinship. Kinship refers to willingness of citizens to take from their surplus to provide goods and services to those that could not afford them. Kinship is extremely strong within most families, parents provide for their children, etc. But it also extends to our fellow humans, hence we give to charity and support a social safety net. But "kinship" also only goes so far and it varies from person to person and eventually you reach a point where people say "nope".
Within that paradigm, the cost of government is approaching 50% of what people earn. Adding all the "mandated" benefits suggested in the original post would easily push that past 60%. I don't think citizens are willing to pay that as "taxpayers" or "consumers". Studies also show that as economic output per capita declines citizens push back harder.
So, I don't think it will happen. My point was to highlight that "consumer" aspect of pushing back against the "proposed mandated benefits" which is why government often steps in to provide them as "entitlements", but all over the world citizens are beginning to push back against that approach also.
