The poorest fifth of American working age households are better off than those in Canada, Denmark, Britain, and Germany because their market income is higher and their taxes are lower, after accounting for all monetary benefits:
The House Ways and Means committee claimed Medicare would cost $1.3bn in its first full year. It actually cost $4.4bn.
W&M predicted Medicaid would cost $0.15bn; it actually cost $1.8bn.
This is precisely *why* we created CBO.
The recent OECD report finding that several other developed countries have higher healthcare prices than USA has attracted surprisingly little attention:
There's been a lot of negativity about this country's performance over the past year, but history will mostly remember that the virus began in China and American capitalism ended it.
Payroll taxes to finance pensions mean the poor in France really do pay more of their income in tax than the rich. A huge difference with USA, where taxes are highly progressive.
In 2021, the 17% of Americans aged 65 and older held 35% of the nation’s assets, received 66% of its entitlement spending, but contributed only 11% of its tax revenue.
10-year aggregate figures in trillions mean nothing to people, but this is $46,000 per household per year in new spending and $23,000 per household per year in new taxes.
The fertility rate is largely unchanged over the past 50 years, given marriage rates. Any policy which doesn't alter the career/educational/lifestyle reasons causing people to marry later, is unlikely to change the birth rate much.
It shows the proportion of people in UK/USA/Ger/Ita with each level of disposable income. USA doesn't have more very poor people, but the non-poor people here earn a lot more.
Sci-fi always portrays the future as looking radically different to the past, but a striking feature of technological progress is that people often want to use it to live in simpler older ways.
The value of neoliberalism is hard to appreciate from US history, where policy changed little in the grand scheme of things. But the difference in UK economic performance of 1946-79 and following Thatcher's radical reforms is hard to deny.
The projected increase of Medicare spending accounts for 3/4 of the increase in the primary deficit over the next 30 years. Merely slowing the growth of Medicare fixes most of the problem.
Something I truly believe after seeing it in action around the world. A lot of 🇺🇸 problems would get better with compulsory national service. At 18 you’re required to give 2 years to military, Peace Corps, Americorps, JobCorps etc. It’d be an equalizer, give people purpose & help
US out-of-pocket healthcare costs aren't out of line with most other countries. Insurance in USA is very comprehensive, even with substantial cost-sharing. In other nations, many services need to be bought fully out-of-pocket:
In 2017, only 39% of Americans lived in households with disposable incomes under $30,000, compared with 48% in Germany, 56% in the UK, and 65% in Italy.
Promoting an idea that you know to be bad in order to make more moderate versions seem more palatable -- a bad idea in substance, and a political gift to fear-mongering opponents.
The person in the article is a single parent of two with an income of $54,000. In all countries such a person would be a net taxpayer, but in US her net taxes are significantly lower.
One of the more ‘exceptional’ things about the US (among the many amazing things) is how hard and merciless life is for the American working class. In no country of comparable wealth are the working poor treated so badly and harshly.
@Noahpinion
The FT's data also seems to have been assembled from a variety of different sources with inconsistent definitions. With consistent data, it's a different picture:
The main objective of union power is to raise compensation in an industry by colluding to restrict its output below the competitive level. That may benefit those in the particular sector, but if done across all industries clearly leaves everyone worse off.
@karlbykarlsmith
@ModeledBehavior
@paulgp
I don't think anyone, including you, really believes the working class is better off in a world without unions than in a world with unions.
The claim that Democrats are rigging elections is not going to be particularly convincing if Rs spend the next few years winning in all kinds of places.
The variation in federal TANF grants by state per child in poverty ($3,876 to DC; $276 to MS) is so enormous, it barely makes sense to talk about it as a single program.
Anglophone countries have done a pretty good job keeping state pensions from eating up their economies over the past 40 years. Mediterranean countries haven't.
They find that high U.S. healthcare spending is mostly the result of the fact that it consumes more than double the volume of medical care than the OECD average.
@benjaminhaddad
Politics is necessarily a big part of life for many in DC. This is living with, not just meeting. Doesn't seem crazy to want to avoid a roommate situation which would involve friction on a daily basis.
Americans prefer to reduce the deficit by cutting spending (47%) than by raising taxes (8%), if forced to choose.
Even true of most Democrats (25% v 14%).
The evidence suggests working class voters across races are going R because they liked the Trump economy and dislike the Biden one; not due to cultural issues.
@jbpoersch
@simon_bazelon
@davidshor
@mattyglesias
The debate over how Dems can/should improve their appeal to working class voters is a complete mess.
The "Dems must run from wokeness" argument is weak and undertheorized. And the working class isn't monolithic.
I talked to
@gabrielwinant
about this:
The limited number of GOP pickups in the House is partly explained by Rs starting from a relatively high base.
Midterm election pickups where opposition party started off with >210 House seats:
2022: +8(?)
2014: +13
1998: -4
1990: +7
1986: +5
@pegobry
2017 life expectancy was 2 years higher than in 2000, 5 years higher than in 1980, and 9 years higher than 1960. Admittedly 0.3 years less than 2014, but modernity largely existed then too.
The “American health care system” is not one thing. Rather, it is five very different things. And these five health-care systems each have more in common with health-care systems in other countries than they do with one another.
A curious feature of American politics is that while Republicans often talk about cutting Medicare, only Ds have unilaterally done so (in 2010 and 2022), while unilateral GOP legislation has only ever expanded the program (2003).
Impressed by the effort everyone is making to fit the GameStop short squeeze into their culture war ideologies. It was a tough challenge, but you gave it a great shot!
Hohe
#Sozialausgaben
sind verbunden mit starker Umverteilung zu reichen Pensionisten, nicht mir besserer Unterstützung der einkommensschwachen Bevölkerung.
Genau das zeigen wir auch in diesem (Working-) Paper:
@RocCityBuilt
@RussoEcon
Subsequent generation of workers.
If there's enough of them producing enough, the program has enough money to pay benefits promised. If it doesn't, then it will fall short.
Whatever its faults, U.S. healthcare payment is structured very progressively. Expenditure varies little by income quintile; but the rich bear more of the cost out-of-pocket and through insurance.
No federal law stops states from unilaterally fixing hospital rates and establishing a public option or single-payer plan—but not even the bluest of blue states have done so.
You can still want to abolish private insurance to get rid of administrative costs, etc. But the biggest savings in single payer come from setting prices, and it's providers who are going to be the main opposition.
Rereading Irving Kristol, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that if he were alive today he might be politically aligned with Donald Trump rather than with his own son.
Government bloat was mostly state/local from 1952 to 2019.
Direct federal spending fell from 18.5% to 18.2% of GDP.
State+local spending rose from 7.1% to 14.1% of GDP.
Why does the United States spend so much on healthcare?
1. It uses more high-end technology and specialists
2. There is less rationing of costly procedures
3. Equipment is used more wastefully
4. Americans are more obese and have more chronic conditions
Social conservatives thinking their agenda would make more progress if bureaucrats and regulators gained power at the expense of private consumers and market mechanisms, is one of the more puzzling aspects of today's politics.
Maintaining existing Medicare benefits is not a problem. The retirement of boomers and aging of retirees isn't a problem. To restrain Medicare cost, you only need to slow the *addition* of new services and volumes (esp Part B):
I never feel more like a millennial than in failing to completely understand how Ds in 1988 won an 85-seat House majority downballot from HW Bush's 40-state landslide.
Keynes was clearly wrong, and contributed to the German sense of righteous indignation at the Versailles Treaty and encouraged Britain to be soft on Germany into 1930s.
WW1 reparations were based on the amount Germany imposed on France in 1871, which it quickly paid off.
Outside rising interest payments, three-quarters of CBO’s projected deficit increase is due to Medicare alone. The program’s projected growth as a share of GDP is driven entirely by the addition of new procedures and services to the program.
Medicare For All advocates imagine they're advancing egalitarianism, but in practice they likely would be establishing a two-tier system where the rich get good care and the middle class miss out.
"Why doesn't America have a European-style welfare state?"
Government spending per capita (2017):
France $20,960
Germany $19,550
Spain $10,865
UK $17,202
USA $20,674
It isn't lack of spending.
People made a lot of fuss about the FDA being a week behind the UK on the Pfizer vaccine, but the delay until April on AstraZeneca approval (USA has ordered 300m doses) matters much more:
American exceptionalism is in many ways overrated, but the implications of the fact that US politics was not transformed by having 2 world wars on its soil (as almost all European countries did) is likely underrated. So much of the “European social model” is a legacy of war.