> You can socialise and centralise healthcare in countries on such a small scale, but it becomes exponentially more difficult to do in a country like the US (pop: 313 M).
First, as with the EU, the US is divided into fairly independent states who already manage most parts of their own healthcare/insurance systems.
Second, the idea that 30 million versus 300 million makes a huge difference in scaling healthcare is pretty silly. Sure, a healthcare system for 1,000 people would have different challenges than one for 1,000,000 people, but on nation-sized scales? You have regional divisions to keep it manageable.
What exactly makes Australia or the UK's system unscalable to the size of a US state?
> It's the reason why if you look at a list of the world's oldest nations the United States is right at the top, and is one of the largest.
Massive amounts of minimally populated land to expand into likely played a more significant role, as well as a lack of aristocracy - if you look at European upheaval it's usually an issue of one of the two.
First, as with the EU, the US is divided into fairly independent states who already manage most parts of their own healthcare/insurance systems.
Second, the idea that 30 million versus 300 million makes a huge difference in scaling healthcare is pretty silly. Sure, a healthcare system for 1,000 people would have different challenges than one for 1,000,000 people, but on nation-sized scales? You have regional divisions to keep it manageable.
What exactly makes Australia or the UK's system unscalable to the size of a US state?
> It's the reason why if you look at a list of the world's oldest nations the United States is right at the top, and is one of the largest.
Massive amounts of minimally populated land to expand into likely played a more significant role, as well as a lack of aristocracy - if you look at European upheaval it's usually an issue of one of the two.