I know. But when the idea of universal public education was first being raised, the same arguments were made against it that are now used against universal health care. And there have been many other government programs that were decried as unnecessary at the time they were proposed but are now seen as beneficial. I’d be perfectly willing to try universal health care on a fifty year basis and then see if it’s working out, but I’m guessing most conservatives wouldn’t go along with that.
I agree. I don’t think the concept that any form of income redistribution is heading us toward complete socialism is correct. It’s about the proper balance and dealing with a multitude of issues that have an effect on us. Better education available to any who want it benefits everyone in a society, even those who don’t have kids. It does require an effort from the teachers, students and parents as well.
My argument to my friend is that as long as lobbyists are buying policy and economic laws that benefit them the principles of free enterprise can’t operate properly. We have to address that. He agrees. He also agrees that some regulation is called for. My experience with welfare has been that although it does provide a cushion for the less fortunate it also prevents some people from facing the consequences of their bad choices.
Other taxpayers pay for rent, food, heat, medical, so that they can have a cell phone, cable, a play station, and an Ipod. People do need to face the consequences of their choices to modify their behavior.
Support systems like that will not be perfect because we are not perfect. They need to be reexamined and tweaked to try and encourage personal responsibility. I favor work fare in which people who are facing hard times put some hours in doing something positive for their community in order to receive aide.
Even though I’m for personal responsibility I think the scenario of those that have plenty having to share some with those that have little is not a horrible scenario compared to millions unable to afford health insurance. I prefer a solution of regulation than our government becoming an insurance company. Controlled health care costs and a single payer system available to everyone that travels with them sounds okay to me.
What universal public education? I mean, it’s true that practically every county has a school board. But by that measure, we already have universal health care since practically every county has a hospital.
ETA:
By the way, Obama’s leading economic advisor is a free-marketer.
really? Who would that be?
I think Obama is the kind of person who will try to find the best solution and proper balance. I think he recognizes the importance of personal responsibility and wants to help those who are willing and able to help themselves.
I’m just exploring the parameters of socialism. I do feel that people will grow more and more to depend on their government to provide for them if we are not attentive. We don’t want to be pushed toward socialism unknowingly with our leaders simply reacting to public opinion. That’s not leading. That’s not informing and educating.
Austan Goolsbee. Also, keep in mind that Obama himself is a free-marketer:
I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery… We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
If you’re exploring socialism, be sure to check out works by economist FA Hayek, whose Nobel Prize was won for proving deductively that socialism cannot work for the purpose of setting prices, a key need for any economic system. (The gist of it is that central committees create artificial and arbitrary demands because they are too far removed from ascertaining localized economic facts.)
See, for example, his prize lecture. Also his books, like The Road to Serfdom, etc.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Obama’s ‘leading’ economic advisor is a free marketer. Obama has several economic advisors, and they span the gamut from right to left. A cynic might say that this was done to allow him to claim that he supports pretty much any position he needs to.
And Austan Goolsbee was the one who had to quietly tell Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean it when he said he’d renegotiate NAFTA.
I think it’s a real stretch to say Obama is a ‘free marketer’. He’s given speeches to that effect, but his voting record suggests otherwise.
Mind you, the others are really free marketers either. However, John McCain is still the only one specifically calling himself a free trader. He’s clearly the closest to being a free marketer of the three of them.
I see you’ve dropped the “friend” fiction.
I do. The Chicagoans are closer to the Austrians than any other school. See this analysis, which opposes your opinion.
God only knows what a cynic might claim. But Obama surrounds himself not only with left and right, but also libertarian advisors — which a reasonable person might say allows him to examine a number of different points of view.
Incidentally, I don’t know why you use the quote marks. Many sources identify Goolsbee as “Obama’s chief economic advisor”, including this one, in which Goolsbee says:
[O]pen markets are good. But I don’t think it helps when you open up trade agreements and see that they’re 2,000 pages long, and they look just like the tax code – that the first three pages are about opening markets, and then the next 1,997 pages are loopholes, giveaways, special protections for individual industries. I mean, that’s getting us pretty far from the case for open markets.
How so? He has voted to limit farm subsidies, to put a moratorium on earmarks, to limit Defense Department “emergency” appropriations, and against CAFTA.
Because he says so? But you just finished decrying Obama for saying so about himself. Why do you allow McCain to say so, but not Obama?
Hmmm if that’s a subtle way of calling me pretentious or worse it’s not appreciated. There was no fiction involved and your assumption is dead wrong. Too bad you didn’t have the courtesy to ask a question rather than assume I was being dishonest.
:rolleyes: A program socialists would enthusiastically support is not necessarily a “socialist program.”
Don’t worry. Any danger of that nature tends in the opposite direction. Socialism has to be fought for and fought hard; it’s capitalism that’s the sort of thing that “just happens.”
Could you elaborate?
I certainly agree that millions spent by lobbyists to buy policy is a far worse problem at this point.
Fundamental capitalism is also a redistribution of wealth that ultimately gives rise to a plutocracy.
I agree that collectivism kills incentive, industriousness and ingenuity. Any economic ideology (e.g., communism, capitalism, socialism) taken to the extreme has major shortcomings.
Why not have a predominately free market economy with regulations and boundaries to protect the public while incorporating socialist ideas for specific crucial needs like health care. The private sector has failed to meet the health care needs of most Americans. As a society, we have to decide what is beneficial to our long term social and economic health. Most people want a quality publicly funded education for their children, responsive services to protect public safety, access to medical care, and, I hope, a safety net for the poor, the elderly, and children.
Since the United States is a democracy, and most people are now in favor of UHC, the government is obligated to respond. When a democratic government ignores the needs of the majority of people, it is no longer a meaningful democracy.
The flat tax and consumption tax are regressive. It puts a greater tax burden on those least able to pay. It is inherently unfair to expect the poor to pay the same tax rate as the wealthy. The impact of less money because of taxes is much greater on those with limited means. It could be a choice between heat or medical expenses.
Practically every industrialized democracy except this one has national health care but that does not make them socialist countries. No more than the U.S. became a socialist country when we adopted the New Deal legislation.
I’m just trying to drag the goalposts back to where they properly belong – by world, not U.S., standards.
I think that when people refer to redistribution of wealth, they do not mean voluntary redistribution.
Of course it does. Every time the government gives someone food stamps, it stops them from starving. And UHC would stop people from suffering who otherwise are avoiding medical care because they can’t afford it. And it would stop them from facing ruinous health care bills, which is a form of suffering.
Every time? Apparently, you hadn’t heard of the thriving food stamp black market.
“The coupons are a second currency,” says Brian Heintzelman, chief inspector for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in San Francisco. “Anything you can buy with money, from electronics to houses to sex, you can buy with food stamps.” Says his colleague, Jeffrey Rush, in the department’s Chicago office: “We used to think food-stamp abuse was just done in small amounts by little old ladies, but now we’ve grown up.”
OK, so not “every time”, jeez (although I think more recipients these days are getting debit cards rather than easily-transferable coupons).
The point is that you can’t expect the social safety net to eliminate poverty once and for all, and thus the need for it’s own existence. People experience poverty as individuals and additional people who are poverty-striken for whatever reason will turn up even after their predecessors have gotten back on their feet.
Now then, cosmosdan, you’ve used the phrase “personal responsibility” umpteen times in this thread, but how does that apply in real-world terms to the issue of UHC? Do you expect patients to perform surgery on themselves?
I don’t think that adopting UHC will cause people to throw caution to the wind, secure in the knowledge that once they end up in the hospital, someone else will pay their bills. Being sick or injured is unpleasant enough as it is.
Also, it’s been a while, but I used to hear it said that, “the money currently spent on health care in the US would be enough to give all Americans decent health care”. Is that no longer the case?
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood you, but are you saying that we need it because it doesn’t work?
How much do you think the government should give this guy? Incidentally, if you have that much faith in government social nets, the Department of the Treasury does accept voluntary donations.