> Yet changing this at a fundamental level is somehow considered radical, nothing we can do etc., except what
every other western country has already done.
Except in the US wants to do what "every other western country has already done," which is to use payroll taxes on the middle class to subsidize mandatory health insurance or pay for a state-run system. Nobody in the US is actually serious about universal healthcare, except the folks who want to fix the ACA. Even Sanders promises not to raise taxes on people making below $250,000. If that's the promise, then all the other stuff is just talk, because the revenue can't be there to pay for any of it.
Warren actually got close to a plan for accomplishing universal healthcare without raising middle class taxes, and it only proves what a complete farce that is. It features:
- A wealth tax that goes up to 6%, four times higher than the 1.5% wealth taxes that Sweden and France abandoned (and most OECD countries never had)
- Corporate taxes around 35-39%, higher than Sweden, France, Germany, Denmark, etc.
- Capital gains taxed at the income rate, with a 70% top rate
Each of those policies individually would be outside the mainstream of the OECD. But under Warren's plan, you'd need all of these in combination just to raise half the money needed for Medicare for All.
So Sweden has corporate taxes around 22%, capital gains taxed at a flat 30%, and a top income tax rate of about 52% depending on municipality. It abandoned its wealth tax recently. Under Warren, the United States would have corporate taxes at 35% + the state rate (total 44% in California), a wealth tax going up to 6%, and a top marginal tax rate on capital gains of 70%.
Obviously we'd never do that, which shows you how it was never a serious proposal.