@9FYK8ST7mos7MO
Nationalisation creates bureaucracy and inefficiencies which could be better solved in a competitive health system
Sometimes allowing outside companies into a nationalised institution helps the funding and improves efficiency.
@9FHHNT37mos7MO
I'd research the cost of healthcare per capita across different counties and look into the level of debt people in the USA go into to fund basic care, even when they have 'sufficient' levels of insurance
@9FJ3WJZ7mos7MO
Raising taxes on higher wages, and creating more tax brackets for higher earners could bring in more money to the economy. Abolishing the monarchy could do the same, it is a misonception that their existence brings in more money than if they didn't exist
@9FFXC3D7mos7MO
The US has nearly 100% private healthcare, they allow for hospitals to charge rates that bankrupt people due to having hundreds of thousands of dollars of dept. When peoples first thought when ill is "can I afford this?" and not just "will I be okay?" it shows a system set up to use people, not help them.
@9FC87567mos7MO
If we look a countries like Norway, and their healthcare system compared to countries with private healcare systems like the USA, the citicens of Norway value the healthcare system, and are willing to pay the heigher tax. Prices the people will pay are also likeley to increase because of incurance companies, as this is what happened in the USA.
@9FB9GF97mos7MO
The UK has the most expensive, least reliable and most overcrowded rail network in Europe. Compared to Italy, France or Spain with nationalised, efficient, clean and quick services. Also, privatisation of the water industry has led to Thames Water going bankrupt despite being the only provider of water and everyone has to sign up.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...