[Sangetsu]

I wouldn't mind a national health care system if it was properly and efficiently run. But this new law does not give us such a system. It gives a confusing mix of coverage utilizing a mix of government entitlements, private insurance, and tax credits. In short, it is stupid.

Here in Japan the system is quite simple. You go to the hospital, present your card, and receive treatment. You then pay for the treatment, and then submit the bill to the national health care agency, who will later reimburse the money to your bank account. It's a simple system with a minimum of red tape. But even it is not perfect. Those who don't have jobs and don't pay into the system aren't covered. And visitors from other countries are not covered either, and illegal aliens are also not covered.

But, even with the efficient administration and limiting coverage to those who pay into the system, it still manages to lose vast amounts of money each year. As I said in another post, Japan's national debt vs GDP is double that of America. Simply said, Japan has been borrowing vast amounts of money to pay for it's social programs, and a time may come when they can't borrow any more.

All of the industrialized countries which provide free health care to their citizens are carrying huge national debts.

England's debt vs GDP is 47.2%
America's debt vs GDP is 60.8%
Canada's debt vs GDP is 62%
France's debt vs GDP is 67%
Germany's debt vs GDP is 62.6%
Italy's debt vs GDP is 103%
Japan's debt vs GDP is 170%

The amounts of money are staggering, yet no one here and now seems to care about the costs to future generations. It seems we only care about ourselves here and now, and don't mind borrowing ourselves (and our children/grandchildren) into oblivion.

Of course MMM's answer might be that such debts wouldn't exist if rich companies were taxed higher to pay for them. But that's not the case. We all know (we should) that each and every time taxes have been raised over the last century, GDP and revenue have declined. Marxism/Socialism)Communism has been experimented with in many countries, without one example of success.

It is not the government's job to take care of the people. The government is supposed to provide an environment where people can take care of themselves. It should create an environment which encourages people to be successful, through education, positive support, and the encouragement of initiative. Instead, the government increasingly does the opposite, by removing the consequences people face for making poor choices in their lives, and in fact, even rewarding them. Rewarding poor behavior only encourages more bad behavior, and kills human initiative.

But, America, like all other industrialized countries is a democracy of sorts, and in order to be elected/reelected, politicians must pander. The poorer classes are the easiest to target, as they are the least educated. You can promise them a higher minimum wage, or housing, health care, whatever, they will vote for you. Unfortunately, the policies passed at improving life for the poor have generally had the opposite effect, and tend so far only to increase the numbers of the poor.

When I was in university I got an earful of socialist nonsense. University professors and lifelong academics are enamored of Marx, but they can afford to be because they live lives sheltered from the world's realities. They can rant and rage over the evils of capitalism from their lecterns, seemingly oblivious to the fact that capitalism paid for them. Modern political "science" is nothing of the sort.

This is not the beginning of hope and change, this is the beginning of the end. One day soon all of these expensive policies will have to be paid for, and it's going to hurt.