[ceejayoz]

The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates. It shows we pay more in tax than the other OECD countries pay in total, including taxes for healthcare.

We've picked the least efficient worst-of-both-worlds scenario out of a fear of anything that sounds like socialism ("public option", "Medicare for All", etc.).

[willcipriano]

Its corruption. Explain it in the terms I have on the national debate stage, everyone is on board. NHS style healthcare AND lower taxes. You'd win every election, but you'll never see that stage.

[whoitwas]

No one would win anything. Money wins elections. If you had this platform and money, you find an early grave.

[antisthenes]

> The US can clearly afford both, as your chart demonstrates.

The chart doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort. By definition, sovereign governments can afford literally anything, since they can print the currency within the country. It will just cause inflation.

That statement is complete and utter reductionist nonsense.

[pessimizer]

The US government is currently paying as much per capita for healthcare as socialized systems, then individuals pay again. If we can afford what we're doing now, it's obvious that we could afford a socialized system. It costs less.

The reason we don't have one is because Democratic politicians, funded by healthcare and drugs, are so willing to lie about the math for money, and the media, funded by ads for healthcare and drugs, are so willing to help them.

[ceejayoz]

We are currently paying for both.

The fact that our current setup costs 2-3x any other OECD nation indicates reform to be more like their systems is likely to reduce costs, not increase them.