My response was too long for one post, so here's the rest. Maybe we need to stick to just one subject in the interest of brevity:
It wasn't the government that loaned money to people t hat they knew couldn't pay it back, then sold "toxic assets", meaning those unpayable mortgages, as valuable investments. That was done by the lenders, made possible by the lack of regulation.
Yes, it's me, in disguise.
The industrial revolution produced a huge amount of wealth, of course, that wound up in a few hands. Some people were raised out of poverty in a big way. It wasn't until the New Deal that much of that wealth actually percolated down to the average people.
Capitalism didn't produce t he great depression, far from it. Capitalism created more wealth than any other system ever devised by man. Just look at the Chinese, and how their economy has boomed since they discovered that capitalism is far more practical and useful than their old socialistic "great leaps forward" could ever have been. No, what created the great depression was the lack of a safety net for those boom and bust cycles you mentioned, along with a lack of oversight, i.e., regulation.
There you have a point. We would have been far better off to have allowed the failed industries to fail, instead of spending trillions of money that the government didn't have to bail them out. We would have been better off still had there been in place some oversight and regulation to make sure that the banks weren't gambling with other people's money. Maybe next time, we'll know, but I doubt it.
You mean fraud like selling houses to people who they knew couldn't afford them, selling mortgages that they knew would never be paid, then passing them off as good investments?
Or like paying huge bonuses for CEOs who make the bottom line appear to be positive by laying off necessary employees, who then default on loans and no longer have assets to spend and keep the economy going?
If so, then you have a good point.
Then, by all means, let's let the private insurers operate across state lines.
How about protection by police, fire, and military? Isn't that done collectively?
You say that, but every single nation that has tried the so called "public option", and it has been tried in a number of different ways, pays less and has better outcomes than we do.
Yes, socialism is a collectivist ideology, no doubt about it. It is not a practical economic system, as it has been shown not to work over and over again.
Which doesn't mean, of course, the any "collectivist", idea, meaning people working together for a common end, is always bad, unworkable, or impractical. See my example of fire, police, and military above. Do you think those should be privatized also?
It would give us the freedom to change jobs or strike out on our own without fear of losing everything due to illness or accident. It would free small businesses from spending a big chunk of any profits they might make on health insurance.
If the public option is really optional, then it doesn't make anyone a slave to anything. The current public options, Medicare and Medicaid, are optional. No one has to sign on the Medicare regardless of their age. I'm over 65, and not on Medicare.
Why would they have to bar private insurance from operating on that same principle? Being able to carry insurance from one job to the next wold be a good thing.
It would, of course, be practical.
Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised. I'm not sure what I've posted to make you think that I don't believe in capitalism. What causes massive economic problems is unregulated capitalism, the kind that allows fraud and questionable business practices to flourish.
OK, we are "shackled to one another" in the sense that no one seems to be willing to just let people die if they can't afford health care. One way or another, the cost for those who can't pay is passed on to the rest of us.
So, what is the most efficient and most practical way of seeing to it that there is a system in place that makes it possible for everyone to get needed care, that encourages people to shop around, that encourages preventative care and good health practices, and that brings down costs?
So, we should have a choice to just let people die, or pay for their care? Your point is inconsistent here.
And, the idea that charity is going to pay for those who find that the can't pay is simply not going to work. How is that going to bring down costs, encourage a healthy life style, and pay for preventative care? How could charity ever generate enough money to pay for health care?
Universal health care is not just for the indigent. It is for everyone, an option that anyone can buy into and be protected from catastrophic costs.
What I'd really like to see done is quite simple: Make two changes to Medicare:
1. Instead of paying 80% of all costs, it should pay 0% for the first few hundred dollars, then an increasing percentage as costs escalate. Once costs become too high for an individual, then Medicare would pay. That way, the individual would shop around, and would be responsible paying for ordinary care. That would bring down costs.
2. Open Medicare for anyone who is either a citizen or a legal resident, regardless of age.
There you go, a workable plan that doesn't force anyone to accept it, all in two paragraphs. Wouldn't it be great if the government could come up with such a simple and practical solution to the problem of health care?
