Largely because enough American voters, contrary to all of the evidence, believed that Trump was going to grow a sense of duty, eviscerate corruption in Washington, deliver an economy that works for the working class, and not engage in any new wars.
Number one expense for SMB is healthcare, providing a nationalized healthcare service would likely unlock trillions in value (imagine what Americans would do if they got $200-500 more per paycheck?).
Instead we are forced to watch some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burn money for fun because apparently the government is "wasteful."
The U.S. spends more money on education per student than any OECD country other than Norway and Luxembourg. Yet it gets quite mediocre results. Why do you think the U.S. will be able to do public health care in a more cost efficient way than it does public education?
I favor universal health insurance, but you’re going to pay more, not less. European countries didn’t flip some magic switch where they saved a bunch of money by just “cutting out the profit.” They do it through measures like the UK NHS setting the standards of care, so in a malpractice lawsuit the entity that says what the doctor ought to have done is the same entity that bears the cost of unnecessary tests and procedures. Efficiency is also achieved by aggressively rationing providers such as MRIs, keeping health worker salaries low, etc. There is no stomach to do any of that in the U.S.
>European countries didn’t flip some magic switch where they saved a bunch of money by just “cutting out the profit.”
They sort of have with pharmaceuticals (which to be clear is only maybe 10-15% of overall healthcare spending) by having the government negotiate drug prices nationally, instead of having individual insurers negotiate. This has monopsonistic effects, which really does cut the profit margins of drug manufacturers substantially. Of course, in many ways, they’re free riding on drug discovery funded by profits made overseas (particularly in America) but it does result in appreciable savings.
The U.S. system is neither fish nor fowl, there is more spending per capita than other countries' public systems and endless amounts of red tape because instead of one government bureaucracy you're also dealing with the insurance networks, the providers, etc. I certainly don't think it'll be automatically cheaper, but one can't help but think that the current system encourages hop-ons that exploit the inconsistencies and convolutions. It's like one big nightmarish parody of public–private partnerships.
There is zero evidence we would pay more for healthcare under medicare for all, what a bunch of neoliberal nonsense.
The idea that a for-profit system is more efficient than say medicare is hilariously out of touch. Medicare is one of the most popular programs in the country (like >80% from overall public, >90% from active users). There is no reason to deny such a program from the vast majority of Americans, unless you stand to profit from it.
Our healthcare system has its flaws (to put it mildly), but nationalized systems have their own. I know people who don't have primary care because they live in a country with a nationalized healthcare service and their government, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to allocate enough doctors to their town.
When you cut out the insurance middlemen and pharmaceutical companies driving up record profits at the expense of care you can get pretty far with less in taxes
So why did we stop doing that in favour of winner takes all weath centralisation?
Largely because enough American voters, contrary to all of the evidence, believed that Trump was going to grow a sense of duty, eviscerate corruption in Washington, deliver an economy that works for the working class, and not engage in any new wars.
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
What country are our boys occupying now?
AI destroys wealth, so what is that?
> Redistribution can only get you so far.
That "so far" being a middle class the envy of the rest of the world which the US threw away to create a new class of oligarch.
"Back at the tail-end of that era, in the early 1960s, America’s richest faced a 91 percent tax rate on income in the top tax bracket."
https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...
Number one expense for SMB is healthcare, providing a nationalized healthcare service would likely unlock trillions in value (imagine what Americans would do if they got $200-500 more per paycheck?).
Instead we are forced to watch some of the wealthiest companies on the planet burn money for fun because apparently the government is "wasteful."
What a crock of shit.
The U.S. spends more money on education per student than any OECD country other than Norway and Luxembourg. Yet it gets quite mediocre results. Why do you think the U.S. will be able to do public health care in a more cost efficient way than it does public education?
I favor universal health insurance, but you’re going to pay more, not less. European countries didn’t flip some magic switch where they saved a bunch of money by just “cutting out the profit.” They do it through measures like the UK NHS setting the standards of care, so in a malpractice lawsuit the entity that says what the doctor ought to have done is the same entity that bears the cost of unnecessary tests and procedures. Efficiency is also achieved by aggressively rationing providers such as MRIs, keeping health worker salaries low, etc. There is no stomach to do any of that in the U.S.
>European countries didn’t flip some magic switch where they saved a bunch of money by just “cutting out the profit.”
They sort of have with pharmaceuticals (which to be clear is only maybe 10-15% of overall healthcare spending) by having the government negotiate drug prices nationally, instead of having individual insurers negotiate. This has monopsonistic effects, which really does cut the profit margins of drug manufacturers substantially. Of course, in many ways, they’re free riding on drug discovery funded by profits made overseas (particularly in America) but it does result in appreciable savings.
1 reply →
Primary Education (K–5): The U.S. spends 21% of its GDP per capita per student. This is exactly in line with the OECD average, which is also 21%.
Secondary Education (6–12): The U.S. spends 23% of its GDP per capita per student. This sits just slightly below the OECD average of 24%.
2 replies →
The U.S. system is neither fish nor fowl, there is more spending per capita than other countries' public systems and endless amounts of red tape because instead of one government bureaucracy you're also dealing with the insurance networks, the providers, etc. I certainly don't think it'll be automatically cheaper, but one can't help but think that the current system encourages hop-ons that exploit the inconsistencies and convolutions. It's like one big nightmarish parody of public–private partnerships.
3 replies →
There is zero evidence we would pay more for healthcare under medicare for all, what a bunch of neoliberal nonsense.
The idea that a for-profit system is more efficient than say medicare is hilariously out of touch. Medicare is one of the most popular programs in the country (like >80% from overall public, >90% from active users). There is no reason to deny such a program from the vast majority of Americans, unless you stand to profit from it.
1 reply →
Our healthcare system has its flaws (to put it mildly), but nationalized systems have their own. I know people who don't have primary care because they live in a country with a nationalized healthcare service and their government, in its infinite wisdom, chose not to allocate enough doctors to their town.
How would nationalized healthcare get funded other than shifting that 200-500/check towards… nationalized healthcare?
When you cut out the insurance middlemen and pharmaceutical companies driving up record profits at the expense of care you can get pretty far with less in taxes
8 replies →