When I point out the inefficiencies of our current health system and advocate adopting a system similar to or a mixture of the more efficient ones that are already employed by other nations, I do so BECAUSE I see the benefit for EVERYONE, not just the "have-nots". When it comes to improved welfare systems, I see it as a loan that will be repaid when the people get back on their feet. It's not about charity, it's about strengthening our economy for the benefit of all, INCLUDING the "haves". The more people can be free from the crushing debt of illness imposed by insurance companies, and are gainfully employed, the more our nation prospers as a whole.
If all that was necessary to help our economy was to ease the wealthy's tax burdens, then why is it that after NAFTA was enacted, they shipped jobs overseas where their costs where next to nothing, compared to what they were here, yet the costs of their products only dipped slightly? Or, why is it that when the government bailed out financial institutions, they only used the money to pay off their debts and compensate their employees handsomely for a job poorly done? I'm not implying that you or anyone else on here were advocates for the bailouts, but they were a perfect example of how greed prevents the trickle down theory from being all that effective. The point is, we can have lower taxes for the businesses that will eventually employ our unemployed, but to have a system that is better equipped at helping people get the point where they are working, makes sound economic sense.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment