The Name of This Blog is Slartibartpants.: “Unconstitutional”
Could you explain exactly why “socialism” (as it pertains to the healthcare reform discussion) is dumb and doesn’t work? It’s not enough to just say it’s socialist now. The cold war ended—and insinuating that your opponents have sympathies with the International Communist Menace doesn’t have the tractrion it used to.
So what’s wrong with a public option? Do you really think it would be less efficient than the HMOs? Why doesn’t socialism work? Don’t we have a ton of examples of countries offering universal care that’s quite comparable to our own? Do we examples of countries with successful systems that are less socialist than our own?
(via squashed)
I don’t say “socialist” to be a McCartyist. I say “socialism” because it’s the accurate term. Some people cringe at it but it’s a political science term and I’m using it. I use it more to tie the policies to those of European Socialism than Marxism. American usage of the term “liberal” is wholly inaccurate.
A public option will lead to: more government intrusion into our lives, higher taxes, a lesser level of care, lower efficiency and less innovation—this is true for 99% of government programs and subsidies and I’m a man of the odds. There are no examples for a developed country that is less socialist (I say less socialist because we are also subject to socialism. It’s not a dark thing.) than ours. The American economic experience is wholly different than those of other continents for a shitload of sociological reasons that are better for a book than a blog.
(via slartibartpants)
Also, Canada has universal care, and people actually go down to the States for treatment. Obviously proof that universalized government healthcare works, right?
