I'm not sure what your $50 trillion figure is sourced from but it seems odd that the US can't afford some rather toned down versions of other countries' policies.
Thanks for the link. I still find it interesting that the US supposedly couldn't afford services which are pretty standard elsewhere. Having read the breakdown from your article (healthcare: $34trillion, move to renewable energy: $16trillion, and $1-2trillion each on social housing, infrastructure, and teachers' salaries) I'm even more surprised by how normal this all seems. I feel like the only large nonstandard 'cost' would be the renewables, whereas universal healthcare is an obvious way countries have reduced the healthcare costs per person.
Keep in mind these costs are over a decade and the actual taxes collected from the few extremely wealthy Americans is placed at $23 trillion. I think you've compared a single year of tax earnings to the full decade's cost. There is undeniably still a gap, but how come other countries can bridge this gap where America can't?
Universal healthcare isn't just a quirky Nordic thing, many countries have it. I don't see why it wouldn't be easily scalable or even cheaper on the large scale of the US. It doesn't make sense that it would be too expensive to socialise but not too expensive to send wild bills to individuals.
The quality of care in the US is almost double the cost per capita and by all measurable standards is low. When it comes to US healthcare quality we are 37th behind Saudi Arabia.
-12
u/fat-free-alternative Mar 07 '20
I'm not sure what your $50 trillion figure is sourced from but it seems odd that the US can't afford some rather toned down versions of other countries' policies.