Lack of universal coverage. The piece argues that the only solution is universal coverage that is automatic, free and basic. The current U.S. system has many pathways to eligibility and coverage, resulting in many people falling through the cracks and remaining uninsured.
Incremental reforms are not enough. The authors argue that incremental reforms like extending coverage to more people or imposing minimum standards will not work. Over 50 years of such piecemeal policies have shown that this approach is not effective.
Coverage is complex and uncertain. Health insurance in the U.S. is complex, with many different plans and eligibility requirements. This leads to many people losing coverage or facing the risk of losing it. Even the Affordable Care Act did little to reduce this uncertainty.
Cost. While the U.S. spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP, only about half of that spending is financed through taxes. The authors argue that U.S. taxes are already paying for the cost of a universal basic coverage system, but Americans are not getting it.
The trouble is, none of those are the real reason, which is that the ruling class wants it to have all those “problems” because increasing the risk and cost of people changing jobs helps suppress wages.
You’d think a couple of ivy-league professors of economics would’ve figured that out. So why didn’t they mention it?
Because their arguments can be made empirically and therefore justified. Please find me a member of the ruling elite who will admit what you just proposed. No evidence, no change
Good question. I know this is an unpopular opinion but maybe… they are actual subject matter experts and you’re not?
I know, blaming a group of evil people is tempting, easier to understand and more satisfying that than a complex system of misaligned incentives grown organically through many decades of well intentioned but ineffective measures. Not that I know much about it, but, you know, conspiracy theories tend not to be true.
Summarized: So why don’t they have it?
The trouble is, none of those are the real reason, which is that the ruling class wants it to have all those “problems” because increasing the risk and cost of people changing jobs helps suppress wages.
You’d think a couple of ivy-league professors of economics would’ve figured that out. So why didn’t they mention it?
Because their arguments can be made empirically and therefore justified. Please find me a member of the ruling elite who will admit what you just proposed. No evidence, no change
Good question. I know this is an unpopular opinion but maybe… they are actual subject matter experts and you’re not?
I know, blaming a group of evil people is tempting, easier to understand and more satisfying that than a complex system of misaligned incentives grown organically through many decades of well intentioned but ineffective measures. Not that I know much about it, but, you know, conspiracy theories tend not to be true.