It's not nil; it's quite substantial. Unless you consider over $250 billion dollars (in a 2 trillion dollar budget) to be "nil." And that's just for federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid. That's almost a kilobuck per American, per year. Nil?
It is true that we don't have Canadian-style single-payer. It's true that we don't even have England-style National Health Service (where unlike Canada, private medical care is still more widely available). But saying that we therefore are not at all down the road to socialized medicine is like saying that because the highest marginal rates aren't over 90% any more, our taxes (at a "mere" 37-39%, federal, when including the loss of deductions for high earners) aren't too high.
There's no need to apologize, though - I am a hyper-optimistic libertarian, after all. You don't sound cranky to me. You sound like a concerned person looking to get help for people for whom you care deeply. I can understand that, and admire the sentiment. I just believe, firmly, that socialized medicine has failed, and always will fail - both in principle and in practice. And I will always oppose it, encourage others to do so, put my money where my mouth is, and vote that way.
There are plenty of places in the world with no government. You might consider moving to one. The Congo, Sierra Leone, parts of Columbia. What? You say you object to the violence and anarchy? A lack thereof is one of the glorious things our tax dollars buy us. Having seen countries and cultures that do not pay taxes to a government (because it is vestigial or does not exist) I have come to the conclusion that you either pay a government or a warlord.
"No government?" You certainly made quick work of that straw man. Glad it wasn't mine. :-) Yes, you pay a government or a tyrant. However, few tyrants in history (including King George III) took as much in taxes as our federal government does now from upper income taxpayers.
I'd never consider moving to a place with no government. My life, and those of my wife and children, are much too precious to me. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I want my taxes (and my government) greatly reduced, not eliminated entirely.
A fair question. I believe that the purpose of government is to prevent the use of force from entering into human affairs. In other words, it exists to protect us from others - not from ourselves, and not from naturally occurring adverse circumstances.
Thus, I would limit government functions to the police, the courts and the military. In addition, I would greatly proscribe the scope of both existing laws (no laws against drugs or prostitution, no blue laws, etc.) and existing military action (no military adventures like Iraq, no standing troops in Europe or Asia, etc.).
No public education? No public support of health care? No social services for the poor and elderly? What about infrastructure? Roads, airports, etc. What about foreign aid? (Food to the starving in Africa.) What about immigration services? While about the social services that protect children from abusive parents? What about the disabled?
Would you still have sent America to foreign soils for WWII? Would you still have NASA and defense research? Would you have the government play a role in certifying drug, consumer good and travel safety?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
no subject
Date: 2003-07-12 10:08 am (UTC)It is true that we don't have Canadian-style single-payer. It's true that we don't even have England-style National Health Service (where unlike Canada, private medical care is still more widely available). But saying that we therefore are not at all down the road to socialized medicine is like saying that because the highest marginal rates aren't over 90% any more, our taxes (at a "mere" 37-39%, federal, when including the loss of deductions for high earners) aren't too high.
There's no need to apologize, though - I am a hyper-optimistic libertarian, after all. You don't sound cranky to me. You sound like a concerned person looking to get help for people for whom you care deeply. I can understand that, and admire the sentiment. I just believe, firmly, that socialized medicine has failed, and always will fail - both in principle and in practice. And I will always oppose it, encourage others to do so, put my money where my mouth is, and vote that way.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-12 01:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-12 02:09 pm (UTC)I'd never consider moving to a place with no government. My life, and those of my wife and children, are much too precious to me. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I want my taxes (and my government) greatly reduced, not eliminated entirely.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-12 07:49 pm (UTC)What services the government currently provides are you hoping to relinquish?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-13 10:53 am (UTC)Thus, I would limit government functions to the police, the courts and the military. In addition, I would greatly proscribe the scope of both existing laws (no laws against drugs or prostitution, no blue laws, etc.) and existing military action (no military adventures like Iraq, no standing troops in Europe or Asia, etc.).
no subject
Date: 2003-07-13 11:06 am (UTC)Would you still have sent America to foreign soils for WWII? Would you still have NASA and defense research? Would you have the government play a role in certifying drug, consumer good and travel safety?
Re:
Date: 2003-07-13 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-13 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-13 11:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-13 11:48 am (UTC)