Is universal healthcare a bad thing?

I think the proper question is, "Is anything run by the United States government, as opposed to the private sector, a good thing?"

From having more experience with healthcare than most, I can confidently say that I wouldn't be where I am today without our system.

Empiricism changes peoples minds quite swiftly (not referring to mine).

Private sector = corporate greed, not care.

Fixed .

The health care bill mandates that Americans who don't have insurance must buy it from private companies. The "government-run" public option never made it into the bill.

The U.S. is (thankfully) moving away from the notion that all peoples of the world are in need of democratic institutions and human rights, and it is the duty of the U.S. to lead the way.

Charter school/voucher programs are expanding

Union bargaining rights have been scaled back dramatically (think Wisconsin)

The 2001 tax cuts for high-income earners were extended, despite high unemployment and deficit figures

This is socialism?

I'm not against having a saftey net for people that can't or would have a very hard time providing for themselves. I have 3 nieces/nephews with Autism and I know their family would have a hard time without some assistance.

I just don't want or think we need to have the Government mandate so many things for all people. No system is without it's flaws but I personally feel Big Government/Socialism breeds laziness and stifles progress.

Also I always get a big kick out of the "corporate greed" label. Of coarse it exists! I don't know any company that is out to not make a profit. The free market (when it's actually a free market and not heavily regulated) corrects most of these issues and it's appropriate to have a limited Government presence to monitor the rest. The problem I have with Big Government is that it creates an atmosphere that leads to the worse kind of corp greed issues. The recent bailout is a great example. Talk about teaching bad behavior... the big banks now know that the gov won't allow them to fail. So what incentive do they have to do the right thing in the future?

Also our current healthcare system may not be completely controlled by the Government but it's NOT a free market. It's so heavily regulated and restricted that costs are high and the care is low. There is no doubt it needs to be fixed but turning it completely over to the Federal Government won't make it any better.

First of all, mandating anything is a characteristic of socialism, not capitalism. As I've stated above, the current system is not a free market and this mandate further establishes that fact. Second this lays the ground work for more policies that would lead to a takeover by the Federal Government of the healthcare system.



I think you're actually completely wrong here. This is one area Obama has not reversed Bush doctrine, but rather expanded on it. Escalations in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Libya, etc.



These changes would be coming from the state/local sector, not because of the Fed. I think this types of changes are badly needed too.



Again, state and local action here. Unions are bad enough but Government Unions are the worse. Even FDR spoke about how collective bargining should never be allowed to occur. I've read articles about how these changes in Wisconsin have already reversed school districts from running in the red to having a surplus at the same time enhancing the students experience by allowing smaller class room sizes.



Obama is completely flipping on this one. He's on a crusade for massive tax hikes now. Even thou history repeatedly shows that tax cuts usually create tax revenues and hikes do the reverse.



At the Fed level it sure is.

With regards to health care, there are a few points that need to be made here. The lesser point is that there is no evidence that the health care bill lays the groundwork for a "government takeover", whatever that means. Even in Canada, health care is not government-run. It's the financing of health care that's government-run; outside of hospitals, the delivery is predominantly private (doctors, physiotherapists, pharmacies, etc).

The more important point is that it's not regulations that keep health care from being free-market. It's the nature of health care, which does not in any way obey the rules of supply and demand. First, on a population basis, poor people have far more health problems than the affluent, which is a reversal of the usual pattern of demand in capitalism. Second, and along those lines, there is no way to predict based on someone's resources, what health problems they may develop and what kind of health care they need. Third, health care as practiced now enables suppliers to generate their own demand: the physician determines what tests you need, what treatment you need, and how much follow-up you need. Fourth, is there any good/service with a more inelastic demand than health?

With regards to the "massive tax increases", the Bush tax cuts were ushered in under the rationale that the surpluses at the end of the 90s represented money that needed to be given back to taxpayers. Setting aside any arguments about fairness or duty (because they tend to lead nowhere), the country has massive deficits due to the costs of wars, the economic downturn, and the automatic safety net i.e. unemployment benefits. By that reasoning, there are no surplus dollars to return to the taxpayer. As to Obama flip-flopping, he's a politician; liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian...they all lie for a living (something I'm confident we can all agree on).

Facts cannot be ignored. The US spends far more money as percentage of GDP on healthcare then any of the industrialized countries in the world. It is also the only one of these countries without some sort of universal system AND has the lowest lifespan and among the highest in infant mortality rates.

Looking at the obesity rates in the US compared to these other countries also clearly negates the notion that a universal system breeds laziness. Of course, the healthcare industry wouldn't want Americans to know the real facts. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying making sure of that.

You all paint such a dismal picture of the corporate world. And while I can't completely argue that point I would point out that the U.S. Federal Government is the worlds largest corporation. And don't try to tell me it's different because we can vote change. 99% of the time only the people willing to play the politics game get elected and they don't bring about any change worthwhile. Plus there are thousands of (worthless) bureaucrats in various Federal offices that remain thru all elections. That is what leads to the worse kind of inefficiency possible. It's why people like me are for letting nearly everything work itself out in the free market rather than have our hard earned money taxed away for things we rarely agree with or believe in.