By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said: 

1 - So you have digged on the cost of the healthcare, law and tax structure, wages and all between the countries to come to the conclusion that X+Y is less than X?

I have nothing against government providing basic healthcare, as long as it is voluntary and not through taxation. The same argument you are making on scale can be made through association or massive health plans. Like instead of the federal government taxing corporations, people, etc and destinating a ever floating amount to healthcare you have a very specific and independent accountability for the healthcare... so if 200M people in USA doesn't want to either use the private sector through individual consult or plan they can sign up to a collective safety net.

The biggest problem with taxes and government budgeting is that they create taxes saying how they'll use the money but it usually is diverted to other places... and sure economy of scale can be beneficial on making cost lesser, but when you have the government holding that power and corrupt politician that means inflated costs all around.

As I said, I'm against government involvement as much as possible and prefer the options of private education and health, but those are two areas were I concede that due to people being bad at planning it is acceptable that the government make the safety net.

2 - Nymeria, unfortunatelly on the case of gun control USA would be closer to Brazil than to Australia and UK... both countries are island and in the case of UK very small in size and Australia low on people, so it's easier to control the access to weapon.

If USA can't control access to drugs in any efficient scale why do you think they would be successful on doing it for guns?

1. Yes. The data is freely available. We spend double per person compared to nations of comparable care. Even projections made by both sides have stated medicare for all would be less of a burden on the economy than the current system.  We would save an estimated 100-300 billion a year depending on study you consult.

If people want private healthcare I am open to a compromise of a mixed system where medicare exists for majority, not just the elderly.  

This argument is based on a poor government which is an issue that infects every aspect of public life.  We see corruption in defense spending on a massive scale.  Do we privatize defense? No. Our focus should be on improving and holding people accountable rather than shifting the trust to private sector which has as bad or worse track record with corruption.

I think we are reaching a middle ground and understand how personal views can shape broader topics.

2. I'll compare the US to the EU then in terms of size and population if a singular country doesn't suffice.  I think we can learn from them in terms of what they do better or worse than us.  The US is a great place to live, I think it could be better and has become better over the past 200 years for more and more of its people.  the second amendment was around when most people couldn't vote, when many were in chains or segregated or discriminated against.   Our positive changes have come from protests and changing hearts and minds, not from forcing a government out an installing a new one.

The drug issue is a separate one, but in my community it came from corrupt companies preying on people and over prescribing opioids which is destroying thousands of lives every year.  We could pass legislation making them harder to prescribe and could open clinics to rehabilitate people rather than punish them.  We could also allow cannabis to be legal moving resources away from a mild drug to allow focus on harder ones. Our current failings do not determine our future, we can do better as the policies of the past thirty years have clearly been a failure.