Interesting take! I’d be curious to hear any thoughts on the Friedman doctrine as it relates to healthcare, and in broader terms of social services or just in general.
Well I’d have to read up on it. In all fairness it doesn’t ring a bell.
That’s why I like Australia’s system. Public safety net but private for those who want more. I think that’s the model America needs.
Well now just hold on a gosh darned minute there Mr. Flippy Mcflopper, “A plumber should not be paying for your gender studies degree” and yet you want me to pay for treatment of people who gave themselves diabetes by eating too much heavily subsidized sugar?
Anyway if you are slowly coming around to democratic socialism thinking that’s great and I won’t tell anyone, but you should realize education is as important as healthcare to a functioning society.
I’ve always supported at least some level of a tax paid system. It’s never been a change for me. For profit doesn’t always mean government owners. It can be non-profits or other solutions. I just don’t think profit should be the core of the medical system due to inelastic demand.
Swedish studies have as high of a debt load leaving college as Americans. So free isn’t free.
In Germany only 33% of the population has a degrees. America it’s 54%. Previously Germany was about 24%. So if you are willing to allow only 24% of people to have degrees then sure, I’d support free education. That would sharply limit the supply.
I just don’t think profit should be the core of the medical system due to inelastic demand.
I agree with you, comrade.
Germany was about 24%. So if you are willing to allow only 24% of people to have degrees then sure
Well I happen to believe that anything Germany can do, America can do better. We put man on the moon, did Germany do that? Why, I bet with a little American ingenuity and determination, we could get up to 60% of Americans to have degrees in gender studies.
Hospitals shouldn’t be for profit in most cases.
Interesting take! I’d be curious to hear any thoughts on the Friedman doctrine as it relates to healthcare, and in broader terms of social services or just in general.
Well I’d have to read up on it. In all fairness it doesn’t ring a bell. That’s why I like Australia’s system. Public safety net but private for those who want more. I think that’s the model America needs.
Well now just hold on a gosh darned minute there Mr. Flippy Mcflopper, “A plumber should not be paying for your gender studies degree” and yet you want me to pay for treatment of people who gave themselves diabetes by eating too much heavily subsidized sugar?
Anyway if you are slowly coming around to democratic socialism thinking that’s great and I won’t tell anyone, but you should realize education is as important as healthcare to a functioning society.
I’ve always supported at least some level of a tax paid system. It’s never been a change for me. For profit doesn’t always mean government owners. It can be non-profits or other solutions. I just don’t think profit should be the core of the medical system due to inelastic demand.
Swedish studies have as high of a debt load leaving college as Americans. So free isn’t free.
In Germany only 33% of the population has a degrees. America it’s 54%. Previously Germany was about 24%. So if you are willing to allow only 24% of people to have degrees then sure, I’d support free education. That would sharply limit the supply.
I agree with you, comrade.
Well I happen to believe that anything Germany can do, America can do better. We put man on the moon, did Germany do that? Why, I bet with a little American ingenuity and determination, we could get up to 60% of Americans to have degrees in gender studies.
The founding fathers supported government healthcare.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/phs_history/seamen.html#:~:text=John Adams%2C second President of,now the Public Health Service.
Not sure if that was meant as sarcasm but the Nazis did. It was German rocket engineers who got us to the moon.