Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US is so low compared to other wealthy nations.
Stoicism teaches us that all negative emotion is rooted in a lack of understanding. So when someone says they don't want to raise the minimum wage, or doesn't want universal healthcare, or whatever... it's helpful not to have that knee jerk reaction of "This person is bad and wants people to suffer." That's almost never the case.
Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc.
Third, even if we grant that there's an innovation advantage to for-profit medicine AND we grant that you can predict the future, that still doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm", precisely because "harm" is comparative. I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
Either you believe humans respond to incentives or you don't. It's that simple.
> Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc.
I'm not making a "butterfly effect" argument where there's no obvious direct line between choice A and impact B. The only axiom I need is that humans respond to incentives, and then what happens when you reduce or remove incentives is obvious. You tend to get less of that thing.
>I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
If you believe we're basically near the end of potential for human medicine, would you support cutting subsidies and funding for research in the healthcare field?
Fine. I don't, at least in the simple model you present. And I hae 40 years of behavioral economics to point to.
Being in favour of single-payer, I can still appreciate arguments against it I guess. But this particular one isn't very effective.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation
Regardless, even if you can find some legitimate counter-examples it doesn't negate my premise in the same way that anecdotes are not data.
It's sort of price controls, but not the usual sort. Trump decided to enforce most-favored-nation pricing. Any price can be charged, except that the USA always gets the cheapest price. The drug manufacturers are understandably livid, so they are now funding attack ads.