5 ms·

Trying to pay for services through taxes in the US is like Tantalus trying to drink from the river. No matter how much money is raised, the "price" just goes up

Trying to pay for services through taxes in the US is like Tantalus trying to drink from the river. No matter how much money is raised, the "price" just goes up even more. Case in point: American health care. The US actually spends more, more, tax dollars per capita on healthcare than countries like the UK or Canada or Australia. OK, the US did put up the cash, so it should get universal coverage right... hahaha of course not. Likewise with the high-tax Bay Area, which has by far the worst roads in the US, with 71% in "poor" condition. Or high-tax New York City, where a single new subway station costs billions of dollars.

maxxxxx 10y ago
That's the feeling I get about the US. They hate government so so much that they don't even try to run the things they do at least well.
- apsec112 10y ago
  I don't think one can really accuse the ultra-liberal Bay Area of hating government...
  - mcv 10y ago
    Not the concept perhaps, but certainly the practical implementation in the US.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  The other angle is that Americans hate government more than Swedes, because US government really is much worse than the Swedish version.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
    The US discussion is totally binary. You are either pro-government or anti. There is no rational discussion about what could be improved in detail so nothing gets improved while it still costs a lot of money.
    - DamnYuppie 10y ago
      That is only true of the media, it isn't representative of general discussions. As such to many of us it feels like the argument is rigged and where either outcome is to the benefit of the ruling elites.
      - maxxxxx 10y ago
        I don't think that's true. A lot of americans complain about government in general but they don't have any specific suggestions (other than not changing the programs that benefit them like social security, medicare or VA). Maybe they have been trained to feel helpless by the elites?
afarrell 10y ago
One issue with trying to reform the American healthcare to be more efficient is that as the system is now, healthcare spending accounts for 17.1% of US GDP[1] while in the EU it is an average of 10%. There is a word for eliminating 7% if your country's GDP: recession. If you were to switch to, say, a single-payer system then you would eliminate whole categories of jobs. You might be able to replace that with additional service but it would be very hard. Imagine someone who's made a career out of working for hospitals and calling insurance companies to cajole them into paying up -- what would they do? It is like the IRS pre-calculating your taxes or US society as a whole taking meaningful action on climate change: change would threaten a large number of people's jobs and those people are very motivated to resist it. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
- mbroncano 10y ago
  Another way to think about it is, your country suddenly finds itself with an additional, disposable 7% GDP. Alternatively you can afford extra ~40% health coverage in the form of personal care, hospitals etc. Edit: grammar, numbers ...
  - afarrell 10y ago
    Except this isn't Age of Empires. That "7% GDP" is a bunch of unemployed people who have the potential to do useful things, but some-to-most their skills are geared toward navigating an inefficient system that doesn't exist anymore. Some will be able to easily re-apply those skills. Some won't. Even the ones that will are going to be scared of the transition because losing your job is scary. Of course, much of this would be offset by setting up services like the UK's 111 (medical advice hotline) and by being employed by companies like the one my sysadmin-for-the-federal-government father has always wanted to start but can't in case his cancer comes back. But those are both much more abstract and distant hypotheticals that don't yet have voters behind them.
- isostatic 10y ago
  That sounds very much like the the broken window fallacy

maxxxxx 10y ago

That's the feeling I get about the US. They hate government so so much that they don't even try to run the things they do at least well.

apsec112 10y ago
I don't think one can really accuse the ultra-liberal Bay Area of hating government...
- mcv 10y ago
  Not the concept perhaps, but certainly the practical implementation in the US.
BurningFrog 10y ago
The other angle is that Americans hate government more than Swedes, because US government really is much worse than the Swedish version.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  The US discussion is totally binary. You are either pro-government or anti. There is no rational discussion about what could be improved in detail so nothing gets improved while it still costs a lot of money.
  - DamnYuppie 10y ago
    That is only true of the media, it isn't representative of general discussions. As such to many of us it feels like the argument is rigged and where either outcome is to the benefit of the ruling elites.
    - maxxxxx 10y ago
      I don't think that's true. A lot of americans complain about government in general but they don't have any specific suggestions (other than not changing the programs that benefit them like social security, medicare or VA). Maybe they have been trained to feel helpless by the elites?

afarrell 10y ago

One issue with trying to reform the American healthcare to be more efficient is that as the system is now, healthcare spending accounts for 17.1% of US GDP[1] while in the EU it is an average of 10%. There is a word for eliminating 7% if your country's GDP: recession. If you were to switch to, say, a single-payer system then you would eliminate whole categories of jobs. You might be able to replace that with additional service but it would be very hard. Imagine someone who's made a career out of working for hospitals and calling insurance companies to cajole them into paying up -- what would they do? It is like the IRS pre-calculating your taxes or US society as a whole taking meaningful action on climate change: change would threaten a large number of people's jobs and those people are very motivated to resist it. [1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

mbroncano 10y ago
Another way to think about it is, your country suddenly finds itself with an additional, disposable 7% GDP. Alternatively you can afford extra ~40% health coverage in the form of personal care, hospitals etc. Edit: grammar, numbers ...
- afarrell 10y ago
  Except this isn't Age of Empires. That "7% GDP" is a bunch of unemployed people who have the potential to do useful things, but some-to-most their skills are geared toward navigating an inefficient system that doesn't exist anymore. Some will be able to easily re-apply those skills. Some won't. Even the ones that will are going to be scared of the transition because losing your job is scary. Of course, much of this would be offset by setting up services like the UK's 111 (medical advice hotline) and by being employed by companies like the one my sysadmin-for-the-federal-government father has always wanted to start but can't in case his cancer comes back. But those are both much more abstract and distant hypotheticals that don't yet have voters behind them.
isostatic 10y ago
That sounds very much like the the broken window fallacy