Harris wants the end of private health insurance in favor of govt. run plan...

[TruthNotBS]

You put far more trust in government than I do. Than our Founders did. The Founders had witnessed far too much of what harm and misery a bad government can inflict upon the people. That is why they wanted a government that is required to promote the COMMON good, meaning everybody's good, and all laws and policy will be toward that end, but the people would be at liberty to provide for themselves and create whatever societies they want to have.

All who aspire to power are not good. And the more totalitarian the government, the less good those who control it are likely to be.

Foxfyre, your argument that the government shouldn't provide free healthcare because the Founders were wary of government power is historically inaccurate and ideologically misguided. The Founding Fathers were not opposed to government intervention in the economy or public welfare. In fact, they recognized the necessity of a government that could build infrastructure, regulate commerce, and provide for the common good. Early examples, like the establishment of the Marine Hospital Service in 1798 to provide healthcare for sailors, show that the government was involved in public welfare from the beginning.

The idea that the government should promote the "common good," as written in the Constitution, aligns perfectly with the provision of essential services like healthcare.

Your assertion that promoting the common good means minimal government involvement is a gross misunderstanding of the concept. Promoting the common good means ensuring that all citizens have access to basic needs, including healthcare. This isn’t about “letting people fend for themselves,” but about recognizing that not everyone has equal opportunities or resources. The government’s role is to provide a foundation—such as healthcare, education, and housing—that allows everyone to build a good life. This is not just a socialist idea; it’s a principle rooted in the very idea of a functioning society.

The notion that government-provided healthcare is a form of tyranny, while the market is a bastion of freedom, is a fantasy. In reality, being held hostage by market forces and profit-driven capitalists is a far greater tyranny. Without government intervention, only those with substantial wealth would have access to quality healthcare, leaving millions vulnerable. We already see the failures of an unregulated market in healthcare, where the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country but still leaves millions uninsured. Government-provided healthcare, like Medicare for All, ensures that everyone, regardless of income, has access to the care they need.

As for the role of government in public assistance, the idea that the Founders would have opposed programs like Medicare is speculative and not supported by history. Throughout American history, the government has provided public goods and services that are essential for the nation’s development, from infrastructure to social safety nets. The Founders established a flexible government structure capable of evolving to meet the needs of the people, which today includes healthcare.

Finally, it’s essential to understand that a healthy population is a productive one. Public health measures, including universal healthcare, are investments in the nation’s future. Countries with universal healthcare systems often have better health outcomes at lower costs compared to the U.S. This is not about imposing tyranny; it’s about ensuring that everyone has the foundation to live a healthy, productive life. Universal healthcare aligns with the American ideals of equality and justice for all, making healthcare a right, not a privilege.

As a socialist, I am for markets provided they are well-regulated and serving the nation, not the other way around. We don’t need to be slaves to market forces or capitalists; instead, we should have a government that serves the needs of its people, ensuring that public goods like healthcare are available to all.

 

[Foxfyre]

The countries with the highest standard of living include123:

• Switzerland
• Norway
• Iceland
• Hong Kong
• Australia
• Denmark
• Sweden
• Ireland
• Germany
• Netherlands

I'll leave it to you to deal with the other question, before proving you wrong on that too.

Yes I've seen those lists along with the criteria used to determine the rank of the countries that more often than not is based on socialism as good.

But FYI until the neoMarxist leftist took over the government in the USA, we had the highest standard living in the world. Here is another site that places us 8th in the world now but agrees it was much higher when the leftists weren't in total charge.

Standard of living in the United States - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia

The standard of living in the United States is high by the standards that most economists use, and for many decades throughout the 20th century, the United States was recognized as having the highest standard of living in the world. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in

alchetron.com

 

[TruthNotBS]

China floundered though until they adopted a more market driven economy and allowed more laizzez-faire capitalism to flourish there. But without being able to access and manipulate U.S. money, they would have far less economic success. And if you admire their totalitarian methods, you don't belong in the USA. But even China allows private health insurance.

And Germany's economy is currently flat and/or in recession with no certain remedy in the near future. Again Germany's land area is smaller than the state of Montana and their population far less than a third of ours while being far more homogenous with pretty much a single culture to consider.

The naive think Muleshoe Tx and New York City can be effectively run with identical laws, systems, policies. The wise take into consideration the difference that vast distances and huge populations made in what a nation's practical laws, policy, effectiveness will be. And the wise will not only look at what works in the short term--a few decades--versus the long term cause and effect, consequences, outcomes.

Finally the wise know that a constitutional republic of, for, and by the people will in the long run be far superior to any authoritarian bad government and there is always the possibility of those in government not knowing how or being unwilling to be public servants for the good of the people.

Foxfyre, your claim that capitalism is responsible for China's success is a gross oversimplification and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of China's economic system. China's rise is not a triumph of laissez-faire capitalism; rather, it is the result of a highly regulated, state-led market economy. The Chinese government played a central role in orchestrating this economic transformation, retaining control over key sectors of the economy, such as land ownership and major industries, while gradually introducing market mechanisms in non-essential areas.

Contrary to your assertion, China did not adopt Milton Friedman's laissez-faire approach. In fact, when Friedman advised China to free prices and wages in one bold stroke—similar to the disastrous shock therapy applied in Russia—China’s leaders wisely ignored him. They understood that sudden and total deregulation would destabilize the country, much like it did in Russia. Instead, China pursued a gradual and experimental approach, maintaining strong state oversight and intervention to ensure stability and growth. This strategy led to the most significant and rapid improvement in living standards in modern history, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and transforming China into an economic powerhouse.

Now, let's talk about Russia. The shock therapy imposed on Russia in the 1990s, which was a direct application of laissez-faire principles, was an economic disaster. The sudden removal of price controls and the rapid privatization of state-owned assets led to hyperinflation, a massive drop in GDP, and a collapse in living standards. The Russian economy was gutted, and the country fell into the hands of oligarchs. It wasn’t until Putin applied more state control and introduced elements of socialism into the economy that Russia began to recover.

Your comparison of China’s success to Germany’s current economic challenges is also misleading. Germany’s economy is the largest in Europe, and while it faces challenges—like all advanced economies—its social market economy model, which combines a strong welfare state with a capitalist economy, has delivered one of the highest standards of living in the world. Germany's economic performance cannot be dismissed by simply comparing its size to U.S. states or by pointing to short-term economic fluctuations.

The idea that the U.S. cannot adopt universal policies because of its size and diversity is another fallacy. Successful universal healthcare systems exist in countries with diverse populations, and many of these nations are not small or homogeneous. Universal policies can be adapted to different regions within a country, ensuring that everyone has access to the same basic rights, including healthcare. This isn’t about applying a one-size-fits-all solution; it’s about ensuring a baseline of rights and services that everyone can rely on, regardless of where they live.

Finally, your romanticized view of a constitutional republic somehow being inherently superior to any form of government intervention ignores the fact that capitalism frequently requires bailouts and interventions from the very governments it claims to oppose. Time and again, we’ve seen that unregulated markets lead to crises—whether it’s the Great Depression, the 2008 financial crisis, or the ongoing issues of wealth inequality and environmental degradation. Socialism, in various forms, has often been the system that steps in to save capitalism from itself, providing the necessary regulation and public services to keep society functioning.

Your argument fails to recognize the complexity of economic systems and the crucial role that government plays in creating and maintaining the conditions for a prosperous society. China’s success story is not a tale of capitalism triumphing over socialism; it’s a testament to the power of a well-regulated, state-led approach to economic development.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yes I've seen those lists along with the criteria used to determine the rank of the countries that more often than not is based on socialism as good.

But FYI until the neoMarxist leftist took over the government in the USA, we had the highest standard living in the world. Here is another site that places us 8th in the world now but agrees it was much higher when the leftists weren't in total charge.

Standard of living in the United States - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia

The standard of living in the United States is high by the standards that most economists use, and for many decades throughout the 20th century, the United States was recognized as having the highest standard of living in the world. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in

alchetron.com

There are no neo-Marxist anything in the US government today. You clearly don't know what Marxism is or who Marxists are. You don't know what socialism is, other than the false propaganda you've been fed from right-wing sources like PragerU and Ben Shapiro.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are no neo-Marxist anything in the US government today. You clearly don't know what Marxism is or who Marxists are. You don't know what socialism is, other than the false propaganda you've been fed from right-wing sources like PragerU and Ben Shapiro.

No, the education I got on Marxism was from some major U.S. universities and other credible sources, and that I teach is based on solid history. That is why I know what it is when I see it implemented. And once you go ad hominem in your debate, you have signaled that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, the education I got on Marxism was from some major U.S. universities and other credible sources, and that I teach is based on solid history. That is why I know what it is when I see it implemented. And once you go ad hominem in your debate, you have signaled that you don't know what you are talking about.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, so you should get a tuition-refund.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, the education I got on Marxism was from some major U.S. universities and other credible sources,

An obvious lie.

 

[Independent thinker]

People's surplus...hahahahahahahahahahaha
Is this guy from earth?

No. But only a true blue leftist can say that a 35 trillion dollar national debt is actually a surplus.