[QUOTE=joes33431;30394998]say that you and three friends order a box of pizza with eight pieces. now, you wouldn't be considered greedy for taking two pieces, since there's enough for everyone else. but if you were to take the whole box, fuck yeah you are a greedy asshole. the difference is that the literal definition of greed is drastically different from society's definition of greed. under the literal definition, taking an extra crumb from the cookie box is greed, but the idea is scrapped because it's absolutely absurd. nobody is being hurt when they take the extra crumb, so nobody really cares. and in reality, the societal definition is much more coherent and easy to live by.[/QUOTE]
You can't look at wealth as a piece of a pizza and it's the major flaw in how many people think. Economists constantly make this point, but economists only matter when they agree with you. The issue with that line of thinking is the assumption that there is some limited amount of wealth and that by someone taking some, you lose out, which isn't true. Bill Gates earning billions does not decrease anybody's wealth because he's not taking from a finite source, rather wealth is being created. It's an understandable issue with many people's thinking, but it just isn't true. People who are against immigration use the same fallacy, claiming that immigrants are taking their jobs. This argument assumes that there is a predefined number of jobs and they are taking up more of that amount. In reality, they usually take up new jobs and actually increase the number of jobs. Many of the jobs immigrants do wouldn't exist if they did not immigrate, a big factor in this being that most people are not willing to do the jobs immigrants typically do. I do have to admit though that immigrant labor does compete with high school drop outs.
What I just said is a bit of tangent to what you were saying, but I'm trying to point out a flaw in perspective. The major argument that economists make against social programs is that they don't create wealth, they rather consume it. That doesn't mean that social programs shouldn't exist, but it does mean that you have to evaluate what wealth you are taking out of the private market.
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30395054]In fact, I wouldn't support it at all really, in the US or here. I'd just like to see our single-payer system expanded to cover more things.[/QUOTE]
That isn't possible without major inflation or really high taxes. The biggest limitation to a single payer system is the balance that needs to be struck between coverage, availability, and cost. What the private system covers just isn't possible under a single payer system without running into major complications.
I haven't done too much research into it, but France's system is more of a hybrid between both, managing the cost of the system with slim coverage, but bypassing that issue by allowing private insurance to be supplemental. The last I looked, 93% of French people have supplemental insurance. I think this system makes a lot of sense because it is beneficial without being overly costly and allows people to get more coverage if they want.
Why can't the United State of America just hurry up and implement universal healthcare in the entire nation.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30399654]Why can't the United State of America just hurry up and implement universal healthcare in the entire nation.[/QUOTE]
we arent ready yet
uhc sorta goes against traditional american values of independence and do-it-yourself mentality
those values have to slowly change
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
