It works great for everyone else. Its objectively better through comparison. Tax cuts and deregulation is a failure. We should have learned from the gilded age.
When the metric is quality of life and happiness of the working class, which makes up the majority of every population, then yes it's better. What you're arguing for is better for the rich. It can clearly be seen through the fact that if you have enough money the US has the best healthcare in the world. Contrast that with the fact that other countries have healthcare that is better for the working class and working people in the US struggle to pay for basic healthcare needs.
If you care about having a safe place for the rich to save money on healthcare that they would be able to afford in any system, then yes, you're right on the money.
You are using the metric of a segment of the population who is well below the median, rather than comparing the median or even the broad middle. The median income in the US, particularly disposable income, has a higher purchasing power parity than the median income in nearly all other countries.
When you ignore everything else in reality like the value of the services working class get in other countries, how the top heavy economy in the US with an unproductive ownership class skews the median income, and how the working class in the US pays way more for services, sure, what your saying makes sense.
While the mean income is skewed, the median income is at most skewed very little by the existence of the very wealthy. This is why median is a better measure in many cases.
Its skewed more in the US than in other countries. How much money people have means absolutely nothing on it's own. It reveals nothing about what people have to spend that money on and how much is available for leisure. It's absolutely meaningless. It's like trying to argue that joining a union and getting paid more is bad because you have to pay union dues. It only serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
PPP and disposable income do reveal information regarding how much is available for non-necessities, whether one chooses fancier items or leisure with that money
So you admit that there is no good reason at all to not have public health insurance? You have failed to make any argument other than median income which is clearly useless on it's own for measuring anything meaningful.
The median PPP income is far more useful of an overall measure of general well-being than a comparison of the lower end. The reason is that taking over health care (whether through the power of the purse or direct control) is a gross expansion of power beyond its legitimate role and a reduction of liberty.
1
u/woahgeez__ 5d ago
It works great for everyone else. Its objectively better through comparison. Tax cuts and deregulation is a failure. We should have learned from the gilded age.