I am not saying it is a bad thing. What I am saying is that when we are talking about trillions we are talking big changes, and big change doesn't come without suffering, and people don't like suffering.

Usually big change doesn't happen without a catastrophic event, like a war, a coup, or an economic crisis, or maybe more optimistically, a technical or scientific breakthrough. So when an article mentions trillions without hinting at such an event, to me, it is incomplete, or wrong.

The French revolution would be an extreme example. It is a win for freedom and democracy, but the period following it is called "the reign of terror", for good reasons.

Americans are already suffering under the broken healthcare system. Overall suffering would decrease as a result.

I see. But I think that's kind of the same diffuse vs. visible problem that underlies a lot of impedents to progress. The jobs thing is one example. We focus on one set of workers because we can picture being in their position. We can't internalize and "feel" the diffuse but greater benefit of a more efficient healthcare system, which I'm 100% would be a net positive, just spread out over the whole population.

I don't know the solution, but do you agree that the problem is basically one of individuals not being able to accurately model the tradeoffs in their head?