Discuss.
2 years ago
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mottel
- Rabbi by education, Journalist by profession, Blogger by choice. Torah, Chassidus & the Social Web. Appreciator of: craft beer, fresh coffee, Scotch or Bourbon, brewed tea, photography, art and travel. Note: Views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employers
Picture of the Week
-- The home of Letters Of Thought --
Support Our Sponsors
The truth is the beginning, middle, and end of all
This work by Mottel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Legal Disclaimer
4 comments:
Was that an argument for or against? very ambiguous.
It was actually both. One guy made an argument for . . . and then someone else stuck in his arguments against. It seems rather schizophrenic, but if you watch it again with that in mind, you'll see what I mean.
I've got my 3 year old around, so I can't go into the details of it, but I found the argument for universal healthcare to be seriously lacking in basic logic, and the argument against universal health care to be too busy finding those flaws in logic, and not actually addressing real problems with the universal idea. There are problems with national healthcare (I live in Canada, so I know that), but I still think it is the better option. I would have liked to hear some really good questioning of our system, and ways to improve that, rather than someone arguing back at a pretty bad argument in the first place.
I've actually really liked the description I heard from Obama on a television spot during the summer. What he said all made a lot of sense, and the insurer's objections to his arguments really didn't seem well-founded at all.
As I understand it that some things are better ran by the government like FD, PD, or Army - it is not profitable, yet needed public service, and even though it might only be burdensome to our tax budget and even though that it might not work all the time, it is needed to be ran by taxpayers at any rate.
Then why not have government run our food, cloth etc.?
For the same reason that socialist governments don't prosper. Think for a moment, if we have four to five cost inefficient government programs in more capitalist societies, like army police etc., since everything else is being efficiently run like food, insurance etc. overall country budget will still be prosperous, but when the government is running even food and cloth and health, then everything else will be inefficient too up to the point that country will cripple under so many inefficient programs just like socialist bloc in Eastern Europe, that's why our founding fathers established limited not all-providing government, so as not to cripple taxpayers from daily expenses of inefficiently ran government programs, except for LIMITED programs that run mostly by state (local governments) anyways, we as a society can go with only few inefficient programs and prosper- we make up to 52% of world GDP. Wonder why? Because US "well" care or "well" fare is limited, so we have efficiently ran society with only few burdens to our economy due to the limits of government control and provision.
So the question here is for you to decide - since our government wants to add another, though essential, inefficient program, will that cripple our economy too and reduce us from the status of rich superpower to a rogue republic?
Post a Comment