zlacker

>>surpri+(OP)
They're going to eat our lunch because we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric. We have to be better about identifying economic developments that are likely to be concerns for domestic stability and national security, and not let greed and fear in the corporate class stop us from making the necessary changes. Another arena where we've already lost, in a sense, and will need to play hardball catch-up is healthcare: other countries have a more stable and hour-for-hour productive workforce because their workers can get preventative care and treatment for illnesses quickly and without a fuss. If we have to trash the medical insurance industry to reach parity with our peers, so be it.

>>underl+Bv1
> we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric

Is that true? There was a policy push here to sell EVs, though there of course is continuing debate about what the magnitude of that push should be. The market so far in the US has spoken against greater adoption of EVs, for various reasons.

OP's article doesn't mention or discuss two very salient factors: one, that EV use in Shanghai is massively subsidized, both at the point of sale (EVs are free to register, whereas ICE vehicle registration starts at $15k) as well as to the producers; and two, whether such a subsidy is in fact for the long-term benefit of the public.

> other countries have a more stable and hour-for-hour productive workforce because their workers can get preventative care and treatment for illnesses quickly and without a fuss

No one would argue that healthcare in the US couldn't be improved, but I disagree that the payment model is the biggest issue. The way I see it, the biggest issue by far is that people are just very, very unhealthy! A full three quarters of adults are either overweight or obese. No country can have a cost-effective healthcare system with this kind of population.

And the distribution of healthcare spending is extremely lopsided, with the top 5% of spenders accounting for over half of all healthcare expenditure, and the bottom half of spenders comprising a mere 3% of spending[0]. (A few countries with socialized healthcare are starting to toy with the idea of just letting those high spenders die, with assisted suicide.) I don't know that a better system can be achieved without first promulgating a culture that values being healthy.

[0]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

>>gottor+jB1
In a system where healthcare is socialized, you also get strong incentives to introduce policies that can reduce that cost. Examples would include the UK's ban on cigarette branding, introducing a tax on sugar in soft drinks, and banning smoking in public spaces.

Where I live in Germany we have a system I would characterise as somewhere in-between a fully socialized single payer system and the American system (you have insurance companies you choose between, but you're required to have some kind of insurance, and there are a set of "public" insurances that must meet a certain standard at a certain price). But here I can't buy a sugar free Fritz Limo, nor go to a popular bar or club without inhaling smoke.

Obviously countries can enact such policies without socialized health care, and things are not all sunshine and rainbows in the NHS. But I reckon that waiting around until there's a healthy populace before bringing in a better health system might not necessarily be the best strategy.

>>socksy+xF1
> In a system where healthcare is socialized, you also get strong incentives to introduce policies that can reduce that cost. Examples would include the UK's ban on cigarette branding, introducing a tax on sugar in soft drinks, and banning smoking in public spaces.

Strictly speaking the incentives don't change much. People have a strong incentive to stay healthy no matter what system is in place, and the insurance companies have a strong incentive to make sure people know about the risks of sugar drinks etc.