4 ms·

Governments around the world are able to provide more services to all of their citizens, being less rich than us. I think the “government is always the problem”

Governments around the world are able to provide more services to all of their citizens, being less rich than us. I think the “government is always the problem” mindset ignores the downsides of the alternative that we’re living through now, with the only proscribed thing to do being a zero example “doubling down” on less government. If you want your country to have healthcare, at the very minimum you do the Swiss system.

hunterb123 5y ago
My point was OUR government can't be trusted with the money. You think the same people playing games with lives over seas just to funnel money to defense contractors is going to truly implement the system promised? That being said, no I don't believe in socialist programs, Sweden was a pretty good example they aren't feasible, it crushed their economy and they are slowly reversing course. I think there should be safety nets, but the government should not be in charge of your life. There's a reason America is the economic powerhouse it is today, limited programs, less taxes. Our private healthcare system is expensive but leads the world in innovation (cancer treatments, experimental drugs, vaccines, etc.) The American people pay for that R&D while the world gets it basically for free. I don't have an issue with universal healthcare, but we should lower costs first, not throw more tax payer money to hospitals and pharma.
- taurath 5y ago
  I don’t think American government is special compared to a lot of other places that provide more services. Often we have less corruption. What we do have is a lot of corporate de facto control of government IE the pharmaceutical industry - this comes out of a desire to have minimal government. The American healthcare system is not better because we spend more money, it’s better because we have good universities and lots of immigrants. Agree we should lower costs - deregulation does not lower costs in this case.

hunterb123 5y ago

My point was OUR government can't be trusted with the money. You think the same people playing games with lives over seas just to funnel money to defense contractors is going to truly implement the system promised? That being said, no I don't believe in socialist programs, Sweden was a pretty good example they aren't feasible, it crushed their economy and they are slowly reversing course. I think there should be safety nets, but the government should not be in charge of your life. There's a reason America is the economic powerhouse it is today, limited programs, less taxes. Our private healthcare system is expensive but leads the world in innovation (cancer treatments, experimental drugs, vaccines, etc.) The American people pay for that R&D while the world gets it basically for free. I don't have an issue with universal healthcare, but we should lower costs first, not throw more tax payer money to hospitals and pharma.

taurath 5y ago
I don’t think American government is special compared to a lot of other places that provide more services. Often we have less corruption. What we do have is a lot of corporate de facto control of government IE the pharmaceutical industry - this comes out of a desire to have minimal government. The American healthcare system is not better because we spend more money, it’s better because we have good universities and lots of immigrants. Agree we should lower costs - deregulation does not lower costs in this case.