If you want to say this will send the country in the direction of less self-reliance, or weaker businesses, that’s dandy. We may agree, but we can see the connection. Totalitarianism? I think not.
“Y’all come on in! The rugs need vacuuming, we want the clothes and dishes washed and something tasty for supper. Just don’t expect any say in how the household is run.”
Sigh. I guess I’m still not welcome in the Republican Party. The Democrats have their problems, but I’m less unwelcome there.
Here’s the paradox. Was there ever a time in history when totalitarianism could be predicted by the masses? It doesn’t seem like something the citizenry can self-diagnose.
Therefore, it makes sense to say, “How does giving me bread lead to totalitarianism? I just don’t see it.” I agree with the face value of that statement-- what else do you expect the average citizen to say!!!
A lot of the debate is about whether universal healthcare is even a good thing, never mind how it is paid for. Much of the debate is whether it would lead our system to be as bad as Canada or France. (That was a joke.)
I’m lucky enough to be paying more in taxes than I get back. I also have excellent healthcare at the moment, and it wouldn’t improve with a universal system. I’d pay more taxes also. Yet I am for it, since with one my kids wouldn’t have to worry about health insurance, and the people I know who have been laid off wouldn’t have a big health insurance hit. The country in general would be so much better off that it is well worth me paying a bit more.
Yes, how terrible of them it is to want a better deal.
I don’t know - anyone in Germany who read Mein Kampf might have had a clue.
Universal health care is demonstrably consistent with democratic (small d) values around the world. It is not connected with a political world view even remotely connected to totalitarianism. Unless you are one of those who consider a 3% tax increase on the rich to be equivalent to socialism, why don’t you give us a roadmap from UHC to totalitarianism. I’d hope it will be slightly more plausible than the worst case scenarios they gave on Lewis Black’s show.
This is not an argument for these Republican policies. It’s an argument against them. Funding education leading to “a train wreck”? How bizarre.
I was talking about net difference in what we’re spending now and what we would spend for UHC. Right now, we only spend about $36 billion a year on the uninsured (the majority of spending in on Medicare and Medicaid as well as some other things like veterans’ benefits and military health care – programs that aren’t going anywhere, so aren’t relevant to UHC costs). That’s paltry.
Why wouldn’t it?
War causes money to exist?
Bomb Sweden!
I don’t see a problem with your scenario.
The strategy will work as follows.
- Welcome moderates.
- Burn moderates at the stake when they question the wisdom of El Rushbo
- Profit!
-Joe
Because with luck that money wouldn’t have been added to the deficit. Those fiscally responsible Republicans just borrowed it; perish the thought of asking the American public to pay for this war.
But the point is relevant, since the war shows that those who claim that we can’t afford UHC or other good stuff are hypocritical, since they have no problem with our being able to afford useless wars. It’s not that we can’t pay to improve the lot of the mass of Americans, it is just that they don’t want to.
Do we trust the people to make such judgements, or no? If no, then isn’t our commitment to democracy just so much gossamer? If the problem with our governance is that our people aren’t smart enough, then the answer is to make smarter people.
And Marat said “What good is a political party to a man who has no bread?” Point being, there is a level of sustenance necessary, beneath which political rights are useless.
Unless, of course, it isn’t bread itself you mean, but the myriad privileges, both major and minor, that a citizen might cherish. The privilege of education, for instance, and the leisure to explore it, the leisure to gain the intellectual insight that will make decision making better informed.
We already have democracy, in a rough form, so it isn’t needful to evolve towards a better form of government, now, we need to evolve the people best equipped to enjoy its rewards. I cannot imagine a more effective preventive for totalitarianism.
That comparison still doesn’t look quite right.
Even just looking at the uninsured… I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations using figures from National Coalition on Health Care – Health Insurance Costs
46 million uninsured Americans.
$12,700 is average annual premium charged by insurance companies to employers for a family of 4
I divide 46,000,000 by 4 to get a rough estimate of # of families. This turns out to be 11,500,000.
Multiply 11,500,000 by the 12,700 to get 146 billion per year.
Multiply $146 billion times 8 years (equivalent to # of years spent on Iraq since 2001) which equals $1.168 trillion dollars.
Even if we consider the net difference of $146 billion minus your figure of $36 billion, that’s still $110 billion a year for an 8-year total of $880 billion. (But to offset this, keep in mind that the 46 million uninsured will typically not be a demographic that maintains healthy lifestyles as the folks that already have insurance; they’d be charged more than $12,700)
This Iraq website says we’ve spent $666 billion in the last 8 years: http://costofwar.com/
My rough calcs say insuring the 46 million uninsured over the last 8 years would be almost double the cost of war in Iraq over the last 8 years.
I realize I used some imprecise assumptions in my calcs but I think the general approach is in the ballpark. If there is a fatal flaw in my method, please correct me.
The bottom line is that I always see people say that Iraq War costs more (WAY MORE) than Universal Health Care but I just don’t see how that’s true. Are people using rhetoric or math?
I do agree that Iraq is a stupid clusterfuck waste of money and human lives but that doesn’t change the fact that Universal Health Care costs more.
ETA: adding 46 million “customers” to the pool of people able to buy health care services also raises the prices of health care for everyone. So even 1.1 trillion probably is on the low side.
You aren’t factoring in that UHC is cheaper than what we pay now. There is the removal of profit, the removal of overhead and a gigantic risk pool.
Quoth Ruminator:
Until now, of course. Thankfully, we live in an age blessed by the saintly wisdom of Ruminator, who can accurately predict that universal health care will cause totalitarianism.
Seriously, if you can’t predict it, then how do you know that decreasing government services won’t cause totalitarianism?
Of course, it’s an article of faith for people like Ruminator that government is more expensive and less efficient at everything. It’s the “That’s a very impressive sounding fact, but it’ll never work in theory !” worldview.
In fact decreasing quality of life is pretty much the only common attribute in pre-totalitarian situations, ejs Weimar Republic, 1930 Argentina, pre-fascist Italy…
They say that UHC costs less than private health care. Ok, let’s assume that. How much less? Let’s make a wild ass attempt to quantify that. Since Canada is directly north of USA, I think it’s reasonable to use them as a comparison.
Here is spending of health care as % of GDP by country:
nationmaster.com – Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (most recent) by country
The inefficient USA spends 14.6% of GDP on health care.
Efficient Canada spends 9.6% of GDP.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say the “efficiencies” of UHC gives you a 5% discount on health care costs (14.6% minus 9.6%)
So, take a 5% discount off the figures I used to insure the 46 million uninsured. Take 5% off $1.1 trillion or $880 billion. It STILL costs more than the Iraq debacle.
Wanna try your hand and adding some math to this discussion instead of rhetoric?
And costing more than the Iraq debacle while less than the actual cost of health care and insuring more people is bad because…?