SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " More than two-thirds " 5 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Could AI spell doom for humans? Poll finds Minnesotans are worried
MINNEAPOLIS — More than two-thirds of Minnesota voters worry that artificial intelligence could someday destroy humanity, according to a new Star Tribune/KARE 11 Minnesota Poll, an extraordinary fear that joins
Multinationals eye higher risk spending to combat multiple threats
More than two-thirds of multinational companies worldwide expect to increase risk management spending over the next 12 months, yet many doubt their ability to manage increasingly interconnected risks…
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
How AI Is Reshaping Entrepreneurship for Gen Z and Small Business Owners
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming entrepreneurship by lowering barriers like cost, connections, and expertise. As a result, 77% of founders say it’s now accessible to start and grow a business regardless of background. Gen Z is driving this shift, with 73% managing multiple income streams and using AI to start and grow businesses. The result is a rise in flexible “portfolio careers,” where networks, personal branding, and digital tools are key to success. Key findings from LinkedIn’s research: 77% of founders say entrepreneurship is accessible regardless of background 73% of Gen Z entrepreneurs have multiple income streams 69% of founders say entrepreneurship is more achievable than ever 75% of entrepreneurs say networks are critical to success 68% of Gen Z entrepreneurs say AI is important to their business How are Gen Z entrepreneurs reshaping business? New research from LinkedIn shows how the use of AI, shifting career priorities, and evolving definitions of success are reshaping how businesses are started and grown. Gen Z is leading a shift toward more flexible ways of working, with nearly three-quarters (73%) of Gen Z entrepreneurs reporting multiple income streams, compared to 56% of Gen X. This highlights growth in “portfolio careers” designed to build resilience and create greater control over work and income. How is AI making entrepreneurship more accessible? AI and digital tools are making entrepreneurship more accessible, lowering traditional barriers such as cost, connections, and expertise. More than three-quarters (77%) of founders say entrepreneurship is accessible regardless of background, while 69% say it is more achievable today than ever before. Younger entrepreneurs are driving this change, with more than two-thirds (68%) of Gen Z entrepreneurs reporting that AI and digital tools are important to their business, more than twice the rate of Baby Boomers (27%). Nearly one in five (18%) Gen Z entrepreneurs say AI made starting their business feel possible. AI is also helping small business owners compete for talent: 57% of US entrepreneurs say that AI can help them compete with larger companies to find and attract better candidates. Related: The AI Edge for Entrepreneurs
Western Pacific Region achieves milestone: 19 countries complete comprehensive health information system assessments
The Health Information and Digital Health (HID) unit in the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific has successfully supported 19 countries, covering 99% of the Region’s population, to conduct comprehensive health information system (HIS) assessments, surpassing the regional target of 15 set for 2025 and advancing efforts toward universal health coverage. Using SCORE, a technical package of essential interventions, recommended actions, tool and resources developed by WHO and partners to address challenges in meeting HIS needs, these assessments systematically assess health data availability and quality, enabling countries to monitor trends, identify and respond to emerging health challenges, and improve policies and programmes for healthier families, communities and societies. The first round of SCORE assessments were conducted between 2019-2021 in 14 countries in the Region and over 130 countries globally. The second round of SCORE assessments were conducted between 2024-2025.SCORE assessments are a key priority identified by Member States and WHO at all levels, including within WHO-Country/Multi-Country Cooperation Strategies, the Regional Vision Weaving Health for Families, Communities and Societies in the Western Pacific Region (2025–2029), and the WHO Fourteenth General Programme of Work (GPW 14, 2025–2028). Within the Regional Vision, implementing SCORE assessments is a key action for technology and innovation to advance health equity (strand 5).The SCORE for Health Data technical package is based on five key interventions, represented by the acronym SCORE. Interventions S, C and O focus on strengthening core data sources. Survey (S) covers population-based health surveys, surveillance systems and censuses, including their capacity to monitor health-related SDGs. Count (C) focuses on birth, death and cause of death registration as parts of a functional CRVS system. Optimize (O) addresses routine health service data and key health service inputs such as health financing and health workforce.Interventions R and E focus on data use for action. Review (R) examines regular analytical reviews of health sector progress and performance, together with national analytical capacity. Enable (E) looks at the policy, governance, and digital foundations needed to support effective data use.The Western Pacific Region shows relatively strong performance in the Review (R) and Count (C) interventions. Most countries in the Region demonstrate good analytical reporting and institutional capacity for analysis and learning. More than two-thirds of countries show more mature CRVS systems, driven by improvements in birth and death registration. However, medical certification of cause-of-death remains a key gap, with limited or low coverage in over half of countries in the Region.Performance under the Survey (S) intervention is mixed. While surveillance systems are generally strong, several countries in the Region continue to face challenges in implementing their surveys and censuses. Monitoring health-related SDGs is still a challenge for more than a third of countries in the Region.The greatest challenges are observed in the Optimize (O) and Enable (E) interventions. More than half of countries have lower maturity levels in routine health service and resource systems. Two-thirds of countries also face challenges with effective use of data and evidence for policy and action, largely due to gaps in digital infrastructure, governance and legislation for health data systems, and especially in data and sharing.  As part of the SCORE methodology, multi-stakeholder consultations and validation workshops were conducted in many countries to review findings and plan strategies for HIS strengthening. The HID unit continues to provide targeted support to facilitate dialogue and assist countries in developing HIS improvement plans. These plans guide governments and partners to align investments and coordinate efforts for maximum impact.WHO also assists countries with tailored technical support to address key gaps as requested by countries/national health authorities. SCORE assessments should be conducted periodically to monitor progress in HIS strengthening, although progress across addressing gaps identified in SCORE should be continually tracked as countries implement improvements.Additional countries will be supported to implement SCORE in 2026. The Regional Vision delivery-for-impact target, endorsed by Member States, is for all countries and areas to have implemented SCORE assessments and have an increased SCORE index by 2029 while WHO is aiming for 80% of Member States in the Region to conduct round two assessments. Countries yet to complete assessments are therefore encouraged to contact the HID unit at the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific for tailored support.The implementation of SCORE HIS assessments in the Western Pacific Region was supported by The Gates Family Foundation.