6 ms·
Strawman much? I'm pretty sure you're responding to someone who was thinking more of Denmark, Sweden or Canada. None of which are dystopian totalitarian societi
by olefoo 17y ago
Strawman much? I'm pretty sure you're responding to someone who was thinking more of Denmark, Sweden or Canada. None of which are dystopian totalitarian societies that can't afford the political freedoms necessary to running a modern society.
If that's the level of discourse you are sinking to, you are a sad example of what is happening to this country and this site. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Right at the moment, the cost of health care and health care administration is crippling the American economy, it prevents many people from taking entrepreneurial risks because they can't afford to jeopardise their health coverage. The cost of health coverage and care and the financialization of the housing market are two of the factors most responsible for the disappearance of the middle class in this country. And if you're worried about the United States falling prey to disastrous political ideology the lack of a stable middle class is a far greater risk factor than socialized medicine.
- kiba 17y agoThe tensions are between centralized authorities(command economies) and individuals(free market) making decisions. The crux of the debate is whether the system should be centralized more or move toward individual human actors, whether these system could do better than the other, or whether it is something in between.(Ethical and political views are another story) I believe the pundit was arguing that the most extreme example clearly demonstrate the fallacy of using central planning to do resource allocation. Swedens, Denmark, and Canada are mixed economies which make it difficult to discern the effect of free market economies versus socialist system.