Our current system is the most free-market in the developed world and near the bottom in most categories (most expensive with worst outcomes).
Citation needed.
The largest country in Europe (Germany) has a population that is less than 1/3 the that of the United States, and more homogeneous than every US state (let alone all of them combined) with the possible exception of Vermont.
And I bet even within Europe you would find the best and most efficient healthcare, education and other public services come from the smaller countries. Finland and Norway likely to better than Germany and France.
Given how many of us deal with challenges of "scaling up" tech, processes and organizations as part of our jobs, I'm surprised more people don't really seem to consider the practical limitations of scale for projects of government.
Not sure what you define as 'homogenous' but over 20% of Canada's population is foreign born, and less than 57% are english speaking by mother tongue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City%E2%80%93Windsor_Cor...
Are you working from a different definition of homogeneous?
Care to elaborate?
Also, we should strive to have the best system and I don't think that's possible with single payer (eg Canada/uk vs France/Switzerland/Singapore/japan).
* We have the highest first-day infant mortality in the industrial world: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-has-highest-first-day-infant-...
* The US has a very high poverty rate compared to other industrialized nations: http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/povertyintheus
* The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarcerati...
None of your points address that the US is indeed the worlds only superpower (as is commonly and widely understood).
And we're not a superpower when it comes to ensuring that our population doesn't die due to lack of health care while driving up the costs for everyone else.
Each one of the issues I bring up occur because of market forces. Prisons are a booming industry (see Arizona's state prisons). Poverty has many ties to health care being market-driven as well as education.
But you don't seem interested in refuting any of my points, so I guess we're done here.
The system in Canada and the system in France are close to each other and both are miles apart from the system in the US. I agree that we should not blindly copy other countries, but if there was a successful system it would look more like the systems in Canada and France, i.e. a system in which a body like the government has a baseline affordable health insurance that average citizens can avail of, and other private companies on top that offer more privileges to those who can afford it.
In the US, even if you have health insurance there's no guarantee that healthcare costs will not wipe you out.
Markets are great, but they're the wrong tool for this job. I don't know what the right tool is.
Disagree; the US was settled on freedom of religion, exploitation of natural resources, and as a dumping ground for undesirables, and revolted over lack of political representation more than anything else. What made it a superpower was largely having the sense/fortune/irresponsibility to stay out of the world wars until the end (and avoid being attacked at home), and what made it the only one isn't what the US did so much as what it didn't do (specifically, the Soviet Union's grossly excessive military spending).
> Also, we should strive to have the best system and I don't think that's possible with single payer (eg Canada/uk vs France/Switzerland/Singapore/japan).
My friend in Japan flies back to the UK whenever he needs to see a doctor. What measures make you think non-single-payer is superior?