6 ms·
It is no free lunch, but I never claimed it was. It is an option on the table, not one without consequences. It’s never just healthcare, sure: move the goalpos
by omegaworks 8y ago
It is no free lunch, but I never claimed it was. It is an option on the table, not one without consequences.
It’s never just healthcare, sure: move the goalposts and set up your slippery slope.
But consider this: what if the tax produced value over the cost of its implementation? What if it prevented harder, more expensive downline complications or made the population more productive—more likely to gain, retain and apply their education?
What if we looked to it as an investment in our people?
Why is it then not justifiable?
- kbutler 8y agoProposing that it is a justifiable tax for investment is very different from saying "the concept of 'a nation can't afford' does not make sense [for] a nation-state with control of its own currency". It looks like you understand why even a nation that controls it's own currency may not be able to afford nationalized healthcare: 1) because creating and allocating currency inflates prices, it just hides the cost rather than eliminating it 2) because we cannot eliminate the cost by creating currency, cost and benefit of healthcare spending must still be evaluated in comparison to other spending priorities Good discussion.
- omegaworks 8y agoIf printing the money results in commensurate levels of increased productivity, then printing the money will not cause price inflation. That’s why most nations grow their money supply over time, after all :)