This is my dream for a strong social safety net,
maybe up to a UBI
Amen. Many, many artists in the UK have commented how they could not possibly have pursued a career in the arts without the safety net of the NHS (National Health Service)
Arguably at least 3/5 of the greatest rock and roll hands of all time were British (Pick any of: Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Queen, Pink Floyd, Tne Clash…)
A very large percentage of the musicians in those bands were graduates of the “Art Schools” of the time, which were like STEM schools, just, well, art.
I don't know how we'd quantify that in any objective way.
Subjectively, it has 1/5 the population of the US and its influence is rather large.
But really, what's the counterargument here? We're not sure if it's good for artists to have healthcare? I'm not sure the quality of the "arts scene" is the right question to ask.
The more important question is how many people are unable to survive as artists in the US, and how much work is compromised just to make ends meet. This is also something that afflicts journalism to a very high degree in the US. Hence why certain topics are untouchable for US corporate media.
Says you. We're talking about public money being spent. I certainly don't agree that maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists is a good public policy goal. And I interpret "compromised" here to be producing something people want. That's vital, it's not a downside.
These days that's changed somewhat in the US after the affordable care act. I just did the covered california calculator for my area, using an income estimate of $30k (less than what in n out starts at these days, honestly), medium use of doctor visits and prescriptions, and came up with bronze plans at $25 a month and silver plans at $75 a month.
It's changed a bit now, but back in the day in addition to free healthcare, you could get free higher education (actually the government would pay you), and free money for not having a job in the summer break.
