Actually, it's not. The bulk of the so-called "medical bankruptcies" were due to job loss due to being sick or addicted, aka "if you can't work, you're not going to be paid". (And gambling is considered medical....) Yes, those folks have medical bills, but free medical care wouldn't have kept them employed.
FWIW, there is universal free medical care in the US. It isn't as good as paid and you get to wait in the medical equivalent of the social security office, but it exists.
There are free clinics in every reasonably-sized city and all but the most uninhabited counties have a county hospital which treats people for free. And then there's medicaid and the state analogs.
Thanks.
Also I said "squalor", not "poverty". By that I mean no clean water to drink, no sanitation, no access to physicians and stuff like that. Hint: the US is not the world (no offense).
Edit: I agree that we constantly solve problems, too (or the Scientists do). But we don't have an answer for everything.
Historically, wine and beer were drunk in Europe because you could not drink the water. It was not clean. The expectation that everyone "should" have clean water is a relatively new concept. Would I like everyone to have clean water? Sure. But I don't think the lack of clean water for many people somehow magically wipes out the value of other gains.
I know that the definition of poverty is subjective, hence my use of the term squalor. In my country (Germany) poverty is defined as having less than a percentage of the average income. So most people "below the poverty line" are actually rich - they have health insurance and everything. It is indeed rather meaningless to use the term "poverty" in that way.
I've been talking about Peak Oil for years. I think it is a serious issue. But I'm an optimist and I think we can adapt. It doesn't have to be some nightmare scenario. It will only turn into that if we engage in too much denial and foot dragging and resistance to change.
Can doesn't mean will. I imagine lots of Americans will drag their feet and only embrace change when a gun is to their head on this issue. But I will not and I hope others can be encouraged to be more proactive as well.
Thanks.
It's easier to give examples of that which people can readily see. For a "slower" problem, how about the general trend that people are living longer? IIRC, when social security was invented in the US (which you qualify for after age 65), the average life expectancy here was 67. It was intended to make life easier for folks in extreme old age. Now this country is in crisis trying to figure out how to deal with the fallout from supporting people for decades when it was only designed to do so for a couple of years.
Also, the last statistics I heard on bankruptcy in the US is that more than half of all bankruptcies here are due to high medical bills. Bankruptcy in the US is generally chalked up to "irresponsible behavior". In reality, it is more often due to devotedly doing whatever it takes to try to save the life of a loved one.
Then there is cystic fibrosis. The life expectancy in recent decades has gone from age 18 to age 37-ish.
As for people living in squalor: The US definition of poverty routinely places 12-14% of the US population under the poverty line. But one study I read indicated that less than 1/2% of Americans qualified as "poor" by the standards of India when measured not by income but by things like "number of meals eaten per day" and whether or not they had a roof over their head. Plus I currently live with zero furniture and no car and generally few possessions. I'm happy this way and healthier than when I had the stereotypical American lifestyle of affluenza. So I am not sure what you mean by "a huge percentage ...living in squalor". Perhaps you would like to clarify what standard you think "everyone" should live by? Given that giving up my possessions has been a keystone to getting healthier, I have my skepticism about (and objections to) ideas that material wealth is a terribly important measure of quality of life.
Thanks.