Now That The Dust Has Settled From The Healthcare Debate

[PanzerJaeger]

Not following you, are you saying that the US is poorer than all scandinavian countries? I mean the point with universial healthcare is that everyone, no matter how poor, is having access to decent healthcare.

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.

So, in conclusion, I don't mind paying via my taxes for everybody else to have the same "coverage" as me.

Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

[Ironside]

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.

That would be irrelevant according to the "everyone according to their abillity and everyone according to their needs"-principle. Since you have the "Since everyone can succeed if they work hard, doesn't those who fail deserve it"-principle, it becomes irrelevant since it will always be those who are a net income loss for the state and/or society. And a tax based system would ensure that almost everyone do contribute, even if some do less contribution.

Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

Debt levels has to do more with decent economical principles than tax levels. There's a reason your own debt is huge and growing, horribly noted during the election. Obama says: tax cuts for most, McCain says: Bigger tax cuts for all. Neither says, big spending reductions. The economy says, huge debt and a huge econimic crisis.

And at least China will suffer horribly from the same aging curse the western world suffers. And the linking with tax levels and economic drag is debatable. Sweden had it's best economic development during the tax increases and maintained it for more than a decade afterwards for example.

[Jolt]

Sweden had it's best economic development during the tax increases and maintained it for more than a decade afterwards for example.

PanzerJaeger's brain might collapse upon itself upon reading this. Heck, even Nazi Germany's economic rise was largely due to governmental control and direction (albeit in the wrong - rearmament - one), but I'm not too familiar with the subject. Likewise allowing free market to work on flawed areas only leads to further exploitation and inequality. Government and taxes are there to correct those inequalities. Or so also say my economic teachers.

I even had the pleasure of speaking to a Luso-American economy teacher (Who learned from the Chicago school, no less), and he says that it can be better for the USA Health-Care to have a governmental competitor. It can bring profit to the program and lower overall prices from private HC insurances.

[Centurion1]

every economy rebounds for war industry.

WW2 America
Reagan America
Civil War North.
WW1 America

etc. etc. etc.

Defense spending thrives in a capitalist system. the economy suffers as a result in other systems.

[KukriKhan]

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.




Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

Thanks for asking my opinion. The short answer is "No, I don't support such a system." The medium-length answer is: I disagree with the un-stated premise of your questions: I don't accept the inevitability of a slide into socialism just because I think that my rich country can afford the luxury of universal health care (note I say "health care", not health "insurance", which is what we have currently with the passed bill). I worry about the number of doc's, nurses and other medico's - I don't think we have enough yet to provide the scaled-up version of the system I was under in the Army.

A longer version answer will be forthcoming. You've given me much to think about, and I want to be clear in my answer.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for asking my opinion. The short answer is "No, I don't support such a system." The medium-length answer is: I disagree with the un-stated premise of your questions: I don't accept the inevitability of a slide into socialism just because I think that my rich country can afford the luxury of universal health care (note I say "health care", not health "insurance", which is what we have currently with the passed bill). I worry about the number of doc's, nurses and other medico's - I don't think we have enough yet to provide the scaled-up version of the system I was under in the Army.

A longer version answer will be forthcoming. You've given me much to think about, and I want to be clear in my answer.

Thanks. I look forward to reading it.