Quote:
Originally Posted by Daithi
I think this is analogous to Social Security.
Nobody in the United States wants to do away with Social Security. Political parties even try to avoid discussing making changes to the system, because the opposing party will use it as an excuse to demonize the other party. However, the system is going broke and is simply unsubstainable -- essentially it is a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security could have been set up as a private system where contributions where actually invested. We would still be better off even if contributions could only have been invested in government bonds. In fact, I'd already be a millionaire if my contributions to Social Security had been placed in a private retirement account.
Currently, I have decent healthcare. My fear is that a government run healthcare system will be analagous to our government run retirement fund. And, just like with Social Security, it will be impossible to make changes or improvements to a government run healthcare system. As soon as one party recommends some type of change the other party will accuse them of wanting to take away healthcare from the elderly or find a similar way to demonize their political foes.
Just because political parties and the public aren't demanding a private run health/retirement system, doesn't mean that a government run healthcare/retirement system is better than a market based system.
|
I was wondering... could it be that such a polarised two-party system as in USA (as it appears from over here), could actually hamper a goverment run system? It seems to me that the party not in power - *especially* the Republicans - appear more interested in obstructing and attacking the other part, than actually getting things done to the benefit of the people and nation. Seems a waste of money and energy.