5 ms·

History will look back at how one of the most prosperous nations in the world's history (modern America) had millions of people living without decent access to

History will look back at how one of the most prosperous nations in the world's history (modern America) had millions of people living without decent access to housing and healthcare. I don't know what the right model is for sure, and whether it is the Swedish one, but whatever it is, it isn't what we're doing now.

drewcoo 6y ago
In what empire throughout history is that not true? The USA will not be notable in that respect.
- Ozzie_osman 6y ago
  I'm not a historian so I can't definitively say whether any empire was able to provide a decent standard of living for its own citizens (even if it was at the expense of other people it conquered). But this is probably the first time we've had resources, technology, information, and supposed social structure (ie democracy) that should make it all within our means.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kitotik 6y ago
  It seems fairly notable already. It doesn’t even take a future look back. Compare the current access to healthcare amongst citizens of the wealthy “1st world” countries to the United States. Amid a pandemic, the number has dropped by millions for Americans.
- acituan 6y ago
  It will, because 2020 USA has a GDP per capita in PPP that is at least an order of magnitude higher than any empire in the history. It is the floor of the life experience one can suffer compared to what wealth we have. There are both historical and contemporary societies that are much better at social policies and wealth redistribution than USA.
unclebucknasty 6y ago
Like too much these days, the alternatives we've been provided are at the extremes. They seem to be offered less as viable solutions and more as tools for sorting people into one of two buckets. So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation. But, of course real solutions--particularly to such macro scale challenges--are seldom found at the extremes. If we could spark an earnest discussion about what a saner version of capitalism would look like, then we could find a solution, and relatively easily vs what our "manipulated" experience might suggest. EDIT: looking at the responses, then rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is the state of things is such that the solutions offered are characterized as communist, with the offered alternative being a form of laissez-faire economics, positioned as "standard" capitalism. My bad. I blew that one.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation. Actual options recently offered or widely discussed on healthcare, one of the key issues raised, have included: Medicare for All — private providers with a public monopsony purchaser (the most “socialist” option, but it's not even really socialist in the sense of public control of the means of production, the way UK-style NHS is.) The ACA model with an added option to buy into public insurance. Return to the ACA model (restoring the parts that have been unfunded or reauthorized) without adding a public option. Return to the heavily regulated pre-ACA private insurance model, with additional federal transparency regulations for providers, and federal rules allowing interstate sales. These all have arguments for and against them, but that it's a binary choice between communism and laissez-faire capitalism isn't a remotely accurate complaint.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    You didn't include the option Obama was pushing during the 2008 campaign, which made obvious sense to me: Take the health care policy that's already in existence for all Federal employees, and extend it to all US citizens. The Federal government already has agreements with health insurance companies providing a wide range of options across the country. Why not just extend those agreements to cover everyone, not just Federal employees?

drewcoo 6y ago

In what empire throughout history is that not true? The USA will not be notable in that respect.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago
I'm not a historian so I can't definitively say whether any empire was able to provide a decent standard of living for its own citizens (even if it was at the expense of other people it conquered). But this is probably the first time we've had resources, technology, information, and supposed social structure (ie democracy) that should make it all within our means.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kitotik 6y ago
It seems fairly notable already. It doesn’t even take a future look back. Compare the current access to healthcare amongst citizens of the wealthy “1st world” countries to the United States. Amid a pandemic, the number has dropped by millions for Americans.
acituan 6y ago
It will, because 2020 USA has a GDP per capita in PPP that is at least an order of magnitude higher than any empire in the history. It is the floor of the life experience one can suffer compared to what wealth we have. There are both historical and contemporary societies that are much better at social policies and wealth redistribution than USA.

unclebucknasty 6y ago

Like too much these days, the alternatives we've been provided are at the extremes. They seem to be offered less as viable solutions and more as tools for sorting people into one of two buckets. So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation. But, of course real solutions--particularly to such macro scale challenges--are seldom found at the extremes. If we could spark an earnest discussion about what a saner version of capitalism would look like, then we could find a solution, and relatively easily vs what our "manipulated" experience might suggest. EDIT: looking at the responses, then rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is the state of things is such that the solutions offered are characterized as communist, with the offered alternative being a form of laissez-faire economics, positioned as "standard" capitalism. My bad. I blew that one.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation. Actual options recently offered or widely discussed on healthcare, one of the key issues raised, have included: Medicare for All — private providers with a public monopsony purchaser (the most “socialist” option, but it's not even really socialist in the sense of public control of the means of production, the way UK-style NHS is.) The ACA model with an added option to buy into public insurance. Return to the ACA model (restoring the parts that have been unfunded or reauthorized) without adding a public option. Return to the heavily regulated pre-ACA private insurance model, with additional federal transparency regulations for providers, and federal rules allowing interstate sales. These all have arguments for and against them, but that it's a binary choice between communism and laissez-faire capitalism isn't a remotely accurate complaint.
- pdonis 6y ago
  You didn't include the option Obama was pushing during the 2008 campaign, which made obvious sense to me: Take the health care policy that's already in existence for all Federal employees, and extend it to all US citizens. The Federal government already has agreements with health insurance companies providing a wide range of options across the country. Why not just extend those agreements to cover everyone, not just Federal employees?