Mr Urie, superlative article. If I might add a thought regarding why the youth didn't mobilize two years ago, in the case of Gaza there was a clear-cut and obvious "bad guy" making outrageously racist statements and strategems. As the 125th reading percentile indicates, few americans (even the open-minded) keep up with world events. Some recognize bullshit when they see cnn/fox/nyt vilifying Iran or Venezuela or Palestine but they don't grasp Russia is also vilified and is a far more positive player on the world scene than any of the US satellites and client states the media touts as the good guys.
Another great piece! My only potential gripe is that one *could possibly* flip the argument on the following statement "The concentration of low life expectancy (at birth) in the ‘Black belt’ of former slave states illustrates an American conundrum. A national healthcare system such as those that exist in civilized nations could go far in bringing healthcare to all Americans." I say this because how much of that lower life expectancy is from things either directly unrelated or indirectly effect the quality of healthcare? For example, ever since they began the process of centralizing the US economy in the late 1970s (it began before then, but that's when it went in to over drive) and all but eliminated the effective interstate capital flow inhibitors there was massive capita flight from most of the places in those states. Along with other things like using the powers of the national government to effectively nullify state usury laws, and not to mention so called "free" trade deals (which can be thought of as nationalizing because it erodes local economic prerogative and was done through power of the national government), along with other things, have very negatively harmed people's economic prospects there (some of these places have been on upswing in recent years, somewhat counter intuitively with Republican governments doing well thought out market interventions, but they have a ways to go) which may have greatly effected their lifetime health outcomes. So I think it could be argued that national centralization may be the culprit behind the problem that another form of national centralization (nationally centralized health care program) would be trying to solve :)
I agree with a lot of your points. I would argue that having quality food to eat is a healthcare issue. But the deep South (graph in piece) is one giant food desert once you get away from where the (relative) rich live.
So I'm not making anything like the full argument that needs to be made to improve healthcare outcomes.
The immediate reason for this is that the politics in the US are nowhere near solved to the point where much that is socially beneficial is politically possible.
For instance SNAP (food stamps) is an agricultural subsidy first and a public benefit second.
So my goal in writing about healthcare is to establish some principles around which the specifics can be worked out.
For instance, if 'we,' the people who care about this issue, can bring the politics to the point where the well being of every single person is paramount, then that would present an entirely different set of possibilities than leaving it to 'the healthcare industry.'
Yeah, I agree the healthcare industry requires a massive intervention. We spend an amount on total health (care + insurance + other bs) that adds up to almost 20% of GDP while the OECD countries average ~10%! I would add the food desserts may also be a by product of the havoc wreaked by nationalization and internationalization of every place into an almost (of course there are *some* areas, like pharma, where the money just too sweet for the cabal to do that) single economic unit :)
I've been in at least one country that has a seemingly well-functioning public health care system, and it would be nice to have that here in the US. However, getting from here to there presents us with a conundrum.
Public health care is always a government-administered system. And right now, given the shambolic state of our own government, the very last thing I would want to do is turn over to them the administration of something this important. Yet the current system is obviously broken almost beyond repair. So where do we go from here?
The ACA (Obamacare) was supposed to bridge the gap between pseudo-capitalist healthcare and universal coverage. As I've written multiple times before, since the ACA was implemented in 2015, the US has experienced something like seven million excess deaths (that were unrelated to Covid), meaning that had those that died lived in functioning nations, they would have lived because they would have received healthcare.
As the map in the current piece illustrates, most of those doing the dying are poor Blacks who live in former slave states.
So, capitalism hasn't produced a functioning healthcare system, and neither has the (captured) state.
The ACA doesn't work because its true goal (as I have written and provided evidence before) is to cut costs by denying healthcare coverage.
Insiders get rich while people die.
So, the US system is capitalist after all-- with the help of the capitalist state.
Mr Urie, superlative article. If I might add a thought regarding why the youth didn't mobilize two years ago, in the case of Gaza there was a clear-cut and obvious "bad guy" making outrageously racist statements and strategems. As the 125th reading percentile indicates, few americans (even the open-minded) keep up with world events. Some recognize bullshit when they see cnn/fox/nyt vilifying Iran or Venezuela or Palestine but they don't grasp Russia is also vilified and is a far more positive player on the world scene than any of the US satellites and client states the media touts as the good guys.
Another great piece! My only potential gripe is that one *could possibly* flip the argument on the following statement "The concentration of low life expectancy (at birth) in the ‘Black belt’ of former slave states illustrates an American conundrum. A national healthcare system such as those that exist in civilized nations could go far in bringing healthcare to all Americans." I say this because how much of that lower life expectancy is from things either directly unrelated or indirectly effect the quality of healthcare? For example, ever since they began the process of centralizing the US economy in the late 1970s (it began before then, but that's when it went in to over drive) and all but eliminated the effective interstate capital flow inhibitors there was massive capita flight from most of the places in those states. Along with other things like using the powers of the national government to effectively nullify state usury laws, and not to mention so called "free" trade deals (which can be thought of as nationalizing because it erodes local economic prerogative and was done through power of the national government), along with other things, have very negatively harmed people's economic prospects there (some of these places have been on upswing in recent years, somewhat counter intuitively with Republican governments doing well thought out market interventions, but they have a ways to go) which may have greatly effected their lifetime health outcomes. So I think it could be argued that national centralization may be the culprit behind the problem that another form of national centralization (nationally centralized health care program) would be trying to solve :)
Mike, thanks for your comment.
I agree with a lot of your points. I would argue that having quality food to eat is a healthcare issue. But the deep South (graph in piece) is one giant food desert once you get away from where the (relative) rich live.
So I'm not making anything like the full argument that needs to be made to improve healthcare outcomes.
The immediate reason for this is that the politics in the US are nowhere near solved to the point where much that is socially beneficial is politically possible.
For instance SNAP (food stamps) is an agricultural subsidy first and a public benefit second.
So my goal in writing about healthcare is to establish some principles around which the specifics can be worked out.
For instance, if 'we,' the people who care about this issue, can bring the politics to the point where the well being of every single person is paramount, then that would present an entirely different set of possibilities than leaving it to 'the healthcare industry.'
I hope this makes sense.
Rob
Yeah, I agree the healthcare industry requires a massive intervention. We spend an amount on total health (care + insurance + other bs) that adds up to almost 20% of GDP while the OECD countries average ~10%! I would add the food desserts may also be a by product of the havoc wreaked by nationalization and internationalization of every place into an almost (of course there are *some* areas, like pharma, where the money just too sweet for the cabal to do that) single economic unit :)
I've been in at least one country that has a seemingly well-functioning public health care system, and it would be nice to have that here in the US. However, getting from here to there presents us with a conundrum.
Public health care is always a government-administered system. And right now, given the shambolic state of our own government, the very last thing I would want to do is turn over to them the administration of something this important. Yet the current system is obviously broken almost beyond repair. So where do we go from here?
The ACA (Obamacare) was supposed to bridge the gap between pseudo-capitalist healthcare and universal coverage. As I've written multiple times before, since the ACA was implemented in 2015, the US has experienced something like seven million excess deaths (that were unrelated to Covid), meaning that had those that died lived in functioning nations, they would have lived because they would have received healthcare.
As the map in the current piece illustrates, most of those doing the dying are poor Blacks who live in former slave states.
So, capitalism hasn't produced a functioning healthcare system, and neither has the (captured) state.
The ACA doesn't work because its true goal (as I have written and provided evidence before) is to cut costs by denying healthcare coverage.
Insiders get rich while people die.
So, the US system is capitalist after all-- with the help of the capitalist state.
Read Lenin.
Thanks for your comment.
respectfully, the only worse thing than the govt running healthcare is the private sector, which is the goal of both parties.
I can't completely disagree, but you must admit that in the US, it would be a close contest.
yes, free throw off a bad foul closing seconds close. I take no pleasure in favoring anything about the rotting carcass in Washington, my friend.