What's the relevance in comparing 2010 to 1776? The nation could operate warships much more inexpensively then too. Are you suggesting we mothball the sub fleets and re-commission four-deckers?
Who is comparing 1776 to 2010? I am simply saying that just because the rest of the Western world does something does not mean its right. There could be better alternatives (and I think there are.) Being a copy-cat doesn't produce better things- it never has and it never will. The European systems aren't perfect either.
I don't necessarily agree with mandating health care either, but other jurisdictions are finding it workable. Or are you suggesting that America is too wise and powerful to learn from others?
I am saying that perhaps America can find a better way, as it did with government. I believe we had that way and we have lost it. And as for being workable, why don't you take a look at their budgets and then tell me how workable it is over the next 100+ years.
Perhaps its a sign of how seriously US health care has deteriorated?
And as it has deteriorated, government has also meddled in it more. Coincidence? I think not. The majority of hospitals have major public funding today as opposed to not 20 years ago. What is in the market today is not something made in a free market.
At some point you have to trust that your leaders have done right even when you don't necessarily agree. No plan will receive the approval of 330,000,000 people.
I do not believe in the idea of acting "for the greater good." Historically it has only led to tyranny and chaos. As for 300,000,000 people (not sure where you got the extra 30 million)- of course they all won't, but the lack of government keeps things in the people's hands. Government just makes them do things. Besides, what happened to the Constitution?
Once again I repeat the point you ignore: perfection is the enemy of the possible. The plight of 20,000,000-40,000,000 Americans without health coverage has obviously reached a national point of criticality.
That does not mean the government has to provide health care. In fact, the sharp rise in that uninsured number happened during the same time as significant increases in government meddling in the market. The government made things as bad as they are and yet you want to trust them to now fix the same problem they helped create?
The private sector could have kept their mandate forever. Unfortunately their computers started telling them some years ago that statistically people would always trade money for life and health, especially for their families, so the money pit was potentially bottomless. The old guard who used to recognize ethical barriers to profit taking were eased out and the new, aggressive, computer oriented capitalist thinkers replaced them. The industry always knew that the curve had to have an end point somewhere, and they gambled that they could make enough to make it work. The most optimistic believed that they could find a level at which to plateau that would be long-term sustainable. Unfortunately the greedy profit takers out-voted the cautious plateau seekers and they lost - or have they? They are still here and still have a place. They are just no longer trusted with control. Too many Americans died and were bankrupted.
You realize that the majority on insurance companies make NO profit on premiums right? Furthermore, what do you think has given them so much market power? Ever think that government restrictions such as not being able to buy across state lines has severely limited choices for consumers to the point where some states only have 1 insurance company? Competition always brings prices down- why not pass reform that increases competition instead of just the consumer base?
Inhumane? Theft? Pure hyperbole. America has the biggest military and lowest gasoline prices in the western world. Suck it up and start paying as much for a gallon of gas as (ie) Canadians or Brits and many things will be affordable. Bring home the military and put half of the carrier battle groups into short term mothballs. There are more options than multi-generational debt. They just don't all permit current vested interests to keep their licenses to print money for corporate coffers.
Just because one thing is bad or evil, does not justify you to create another evil or bad thing. By that logic, if leader A killed 500 innocent people, it would then be ok for his predecessor leader B to kill 250. Not only that, but bringing in other expenses is nothing more than a red herring in terms of debate.
Nobody said America has to remain the worlds largest democracy, but as long as it is it needs a big government.
Who says that? We were fine for a couple hundred years and with improved communications today, it would be even easier to manage a larger country.
Those kinds of sob stories exist but they are internal to the argument. One of the big issues in the current debate is how health insurers act as profit takers and deny health coverage for purely profit reasons. A properly working state insurer may operate with internal inefficiencies, but it will not seek always to increase profits at the expense of coverage. Government will have to get awfully inefficient before inefficiency overcomes profits as a cost factor.
Again, most insurance companies make nothing from premiums- that money is set aside for potential periods of heightened sickness when they would have to pay out a lot of money. A Fed govt insurer has the inflation machine to cover excessive costs- in the end we still pay for that, as well as the extra bureaucracy cost, and any interest on debt incurred.
The biggest efficiency in the state system is that when health coverage becomes a problem voters can make it a direct issue with leaders. Not so with private corporations.
With private companies consumers can stop buying their product and they would go under. There are also things like consumer reports. With government, everyone isn't even elected- a lot of the people in charge of the health care plan, etc. will be appointed.
Why do you think America hears so many complaints about Canadian health care woes? When people have a problem it becomes news and an issue that can be resolved.
And you don't see private sector problems get complaints and be in the news too? Search for "Toyota" on any major news site and you'll find at least a handful of articles from over the last month.
Media bashes leaders, leaders demand answers and get them.
Hitting the pocketbook is more effective then threatening votes. Incompetent leaders have won elections in the past, I think we can both agree on that.
In America the same attempts at resolution has just been met with corporate arrogance and reference to insurer property rights. The problem is now solved for the insurance corporations - they were tried and found wanting and no longer have the same worries.
This legislation is actually extremely corporatist. The insurance companies and big pharma supported it for the most part- youtube and you'll even find some commercials from them for it. Why? Because the government just gave them 30 million new contracts with guaranteed payment and no cost cuts.
