Well the most efficiently functioning welfare states are ones that serve small and homogeneous populations. The United States is neither small nor homogeneous (and it is incredibly geographically dispersed for extra kicks).
The largest country in Europe (Germany) has a population that is less than 1/3 the that of the United States, and more homogeneous than every US state (let alone all of them combined) with the possible exception of Vermont.
And I bet even within Europe you would find the best and most efficient healthcare, education and other public services come from the smaller countries. Finland and Norway likely to better than Germany and France.
Given how many of us deal with challenges of "scaling up" tech, processes and organizations as part of our jobs, I'm surprised more people don't really seem to consider the practical limitations of scale for projects of government.
Canada is larger, more geographically dispersed and less homogeneous than the United States, and yet manages to have a functioning single-payer medical system.
Larger by land mass, perhaps, but much smaller by most other measures. And substantially more homogenous (not sure how you're getting a different impression). "Functioning" is maybe a decent description and a pretty low target.
I would not consider 80% white Western European to be as diverse as the US. I don't think the Canadian French thing contributes a whole lot to diversity.
Not sure what you mean by one state being more or less homogeneous than another. The entities who would be receiving healthcare are 100% human, by population, regardless of state.
Are you working from a different definition of homogeneous?
Sure. Pretty much everything in the USA should be free-er and more market-based than other countries because that is one of, if not THE, bedrock founding basis of this country and what has led it to become the worlds only super-power.
Also, we should strive to have the best system and I don't think that's possible with single payer (eg Canada/uk vs France/Switzerland/Singapore/japan).
Superpower in what sense? I mean, I think I know what sense you mean, but there are some glaring socioeconomic inconsistencies with the label "superpower":
They sure do. We are not a superpower when it comes to how many people we put in prison. We are not a superpower when it comes to how many children die poor on our streets.
And we're not a superpower when it comes to ensuring that our population doesn't die due to lack of health care while driving up the costs for everyone else.
Each one of the issues I bring up occur because of market forces. Prisons are a booming industry (see Arizona's state prisons). Poverty has many ties to health care being market-driven as well as education.
But you don't seem interested in refuting any of my points, so I guess we're done here.
There's nothing free about a market that we're all forced to participate in. The point conservatives overlook is that it's not Obama who's forcing us, but our own mortality.
Markets are great, but they're the wrong tool for this job. I don't know what the right tool is.
> Sure. Pretty much everything in the USA should be free-er and more market-based than other countries because that is one of, if not THE, bedrock founding basis of this country and what has led it to become the worlds only super-power.
Disagree; the US was settled on freedom of religion, exploitation of natural resources, and as a dumping ground for undesirables, and revolted over lack of political representation more than anything else. What made it a superpower was largely having the sense/fortune/irresponsibility to stay out of the world wars until the end (and avoid being attacked at home), and what made it the only one isn't what the US did so much as what it didn't do (specifically, the Soviet Union's grossly excessive military spending).
> Also, we should strive to have the best system and I don't think that's possible with single payer (eg Canada/uk vs France/Switzerland/Singapore/japan).
My friend in Japan flies back to the UK whenever he needs to see a doctor. What measures make you think non-single-payer is superior?
But surely if we can observe that a "free-er and more market-based" approach is working less well than the approaches taken by other countries, we should change our approach? Our dubious superpower status will not be much comfort to those dying from treatable diseases they cannot afford to treat.
> Also, we should strive to have the best system and I don't think that's possible with single payer (eg Canada/uk vs France/Switzerland/Singapore/japan)
The system in Canada and the system in France are close to each other and both are miles apart from the system in the US. I agree that we should not blindly copy other countries, but if there was a successful system it would look more like the systems in Canada and France, i.e. a system in which a body like the government has a baseline affordable health insurance that average citizens can avail of, and other private companies on top that offer more privileges to those who can afford it.
In the US, even if you have health insurance there's no guarantee that healthcare costs will not wipe you out.
Our current system is the most free-market in the developed world and near the bottom in most categories (most expensive with worst outcomes).