@Randomizer
"Ha ha James Yanik, when I said I wasn't going into the economics of NHS in UK V similar scheme in USA I meant I wasn't going into % amounts of gdp, actual estimated costs etc"
oh, you mean the important stuff
:You cork brained clown, of course I can still make comments highlighting an economic benefit when discussing the history of the introduction of the NHS in the UK."
Yes, but if you don't take into ALL economics effects of national healthcare, you're being disingenuous. you're saying 'look at these social benefits' and when someone points to this giant tidal wave problem, you close the curtains and say it's nothing
"As to "sources" that support the view that the introduction of the NHS in the UK was a major step forward in improving the living standards of the general population, one that springs to mind is a recent documentary titled "The British, 2,000 years in the making"
I never doubted that it helped the social condition of the people at the time. Thanks for sourcing, but this isn't what I'm arguing.
"I like Orathaic's suggestion that there should be support for those in need, but reducing the numbers of people in need is the priority / important thing to do."
OK! But the problem with national healthcare is that it doesn't reduce the number of people in need. Our poverty rate is much lower than Britain, and while it's difficult to compare standards of living due to the way they're measured, we're beating out many other European socialist countries DESPITE much more diverse demographics, and a larger, disunited nation.
"So the best deliverable, cost effective free to use public education systems and public health care systems that are not free to all, but subsidised to be affordable to lower income earners and free to those in genuine need"
'cost effective' -NO. THIS is what I'm arguing. It is VERY expensive, and it hurts the economy as a whole, and increases the number who need support. It's cost-counter productive
"these imho are two essential things any wealthy nation can afford to INVEST in, and should for reasons of National interest implement."
We are wealthy in standard of living, but not as much as you'd think otherwise. Relative to other countries? our mass makes us strong. But 20 Trillion $ in debt and a dollar currency that is unstable at best makes our ability for massive change, like trying to disarm a nuke with a jackhammer
"You want to make America great again, make the American people the smartest, best educated, healthiest population on the planet & it'll happen."
no. I'm not some populist Trumpian. I support immigration, and most immigrants are the poor, the persecuted, those who need hope. but I HATE when liberals DEMAND immigration, and then say "WHY SO MANY POOR PEOPLE?? CAPITALISM MUST HAVE FAILED, SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM!!!"
"Shouting, dishonesty, divisiveness, increasing the inequities within the American population just won't get you there, imho"
and I haven't been. at the very most I misunderstood what you meant by commenting on economics, but even then you only addressed the economic side that YOU wanted to observe
)
Convoy confusion
)
)
)
)
)