You’re right, the fact that America’s government-run single-payer healthcare system is so expensive is proof that the US government can’t do things efficiently. If only we let efficient private companies handle health insurance instead.
Oh wait…
> The real problem here is the attempt to treat it like a single country, as if masses of people are going to want to take a train from Miami to San Francisco. It's too much distance, people who want to go there are going to fly.
No serious person things Miami-SF is a viable high speed rail route. But the thing is, cities in the US are not evenly distributed—they are regionally clustered. Thus there are substantial regional HSR networks that do pencil out, even if the fantasy coast-to-coast ones do not.[0] The math behind this is pretty straightforward and has a lot to do with network effects which many here should be familiar with.[1][2]
[0] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai...
[1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/02/13/metcalfes-law-...
[2] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2020/12/20/metcalfes-law-...
The claim was that the federal government does a competent job of regulating US healthcare. But US healthcare costs more than both public and private systems in any other country, so clearly they've messed it up pretty bad. And the high costs have quite a lot to do with the FDA, the tax code, the patent system, medical licensing boards and malpractice lawsuits, none of which is a private company.
> But the thing is, cities in the US are not evenly distributed—they are regionally clustered. Thus there are substantial regional HSR networks that do pencil out, even if the fantasy coast-to-coast ones do not.
Rail networks make sense in the North East Corridor or the coastal areas generally.
But meanwhile Amtrak is operating passenger rail through deserts and farmland, and overcharging passengers in other areas to do it.
It's not that they can't attempt to do it, it's that they can't do it efficiently. The US has some of the highest healthcare costs in the world.
> And then the whole point falls flat on it face, when you realize that both China and India are improving their rail sector very quickly.
India's population density is 1200% that of the US. To make a rail network unprofitable with that much population density would require actual malice. It's the same reason Amtrak turns a profit in the northeast.
> Even if you want more control by the states, do actually push railways forward, you need central government leadership to bring states together and start to change the approach. The states would be willing to do more if it was aligned with a federal program.
The real problem here is the attempt to treat it like a single country, as if masses of people are going to want to take a train from Miami to San Francisco. It's too much distance, people who want to go there are going to fly.
Where trains work are mostly in the places they already are. High density metro areas like New York and DC, which already have them.
There are some that don't. Houston could use a functioning subway system. But that doesn't require federal involvement. It's even more of a matter for the city than the state. The people there apparently don't want it -- oil country and they like their cars. But they're the ones who have to sit in traffic.