Socialism creates another bunch of perverse incentives. If you let a central system manage everyone's funds without competing against dozens of other parallel systems, the management's incentive would be to appropriate as much of the funds as possible as management expenses, as long as they won't be called out and fired/jailed.
In the current climate, they would create numerous equity and social justice committees, making sure that everyone gets a personalized pat on the back and 10% of the population will get a small bonus, while 50% of the funds will be spent on the friends of the management sitting in the committees. Anyone trying to call out the corruption will be immediately called racist/sexist by the media, and the economic state of an Average Joe will continue declining at even faster pace.
>In the current climate, they would create numerous equity and social justice committees, making sure that everyone gets a personalized pat on the back and 10% of the population will get a small bonus, while 50% of the funds will be spent on the friends of the management sitting in the committees.
Huh? We currently have a "single payer" health insurance system in the United States. It's called Medicare[0].
And the administrative costs of that system are ~17 times less (~2% for Medicare and ~34% for private insurers[2]) than that of the administrative costs of private insurers[1].
As such, I'm not really sure how you're assessing this. I'd add that administrative expenses for other national healthcare systems are also much lower (Canada ~17%[2]) than private insurers.
Please provide examples and data for your assertions. I'd certainly like to see such data and information, as it doesn't comport with the data and analyses I've seen.
> If you let a central system manage everyone's funds without competing against dozens of other parallel systems, the management's incentive would be to appropriate as much of the funds as possible as management expenses.
How is this different than the current US situation across multiple industries, especially in the medical field? Except that in the case of socialism you can actually vote the leadership out while under the current oligarchy your only recourse is to complain on Twitter.
>How is this different than the current US situation across multiple industries, especially in the medical field?
The current mess with the medical field happens because the hospitals can charge you whatever they think you can afford to pay. You can't compare quotes, pick a reasonable bidder and pay what you were quoted for. Sure, each case is unique and sometimes there are unforeseen circumstances, but currently the majority of out-of-the-network medical billing is just outright extortion. And, of course, it's done in the name of a great cause. "We are doing it out of necessity to pay for those poor folks that cannot afford healthcare". Except, most of this money is landing in the pockets of administrators [0].
>Except that in the case of socialism you can actually vote the leadership out while under the current oligarchy your only recourse is to complain on Twitter.
In the current situation you could vote for someone that would offer to bring more transparency and competition to medical billing. Except, you won't get a chance because people benefiting from the current system and people owning mainstream media play golf together and intend doing it for years to come.
>Socialism creates another bunch of perverse incentives
And capitalism creates other perverse incentives, such as middlemen all trying to get their cut of various fees, charging rents, building competitive moats, obfuscating the paperwork so you can't even figure out what basic services cost in advance... kind of like the health care system currently in the U.S.
Capitalism is good at innovation and at providing additional value but basic needs like food, shelter and healthcare are predictable enough that those needs can be met through the government providing a baseline of services.
