1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system. We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.
If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.
This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life. We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale. Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.
I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.
2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice. I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us. The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people. the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against. Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.
The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year. We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them. We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.
1 - We have available data on the expenditure, not on the cost structure (those aren't released data) to affirm the origin of the higher cost on USA healthcare.
Sure private company are corrupt, but if they don't have the government to protect they or to pay for politicians to help keep high margin, the price of their products go down hard.
2 - I'm not talking about legal drugs, I'm talking about USA fighting against Drugsm as they fought against alcohol before... their total incapacity to do that would lead credentials to their inability to prevent guns on the US.
I mean, yes, equivalent services are significantly cheaper in Single-payer systems, for the government, than they are for individual consumers in the US.
It's the concept of consumer-sided monopoly. Companies are *forced* to accept prices and conditions set by the government, as there is no other way to access the market, at all. In the same way that a producer-sided monopoly hikes prices, a consumer-sided monopoly plunges them. Having several competing private healthcare providers would not allow this.
"The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around."
I can see that being a problem in Brazil, less so in fully developed democracies, with appropriate systems ensuring transparency. The expenses of individual politicians, and any meetings they might have with potential contractors are *very* closely guarded. Occasional "scandals" do appear, but there is a difference in scale which needs to be stated, here - the biggest one in Canada, for the last few years, was that several senators had used government funds to travel with business class, instead of economy class as they were supposed to.
The misconception of the first part is that the government isn't forcing companies to accept prices, the companies make the politicians arbitrate a very favorable price for them. Monopolies are very much a government thing that beneficial the companies that they like.
You are only looking at one type of bad use of public money. Still, as put before, overhead is added cost so you can't say COST (not price) is lower when you have administrative cost from the government PLUS the cost of the service itself against only the price of the service.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."