Maybe you can explain why Greek retirees should stop Americans from adopting German health care?
(Btw some of them retired at 45.)
Ahhhhh Germany and sweden… that comparison has never been made before right? And yet Germany and Sweden both engaged in major tax welfare and labor reforms. Why? I mean if their systems were so fair just and successful, why the need for any much less a major overhaul? But wait! Maybe you were unaware of these reforms and hence your rote recitation of … but germany and Sweden… hmmm er fetch!
Oh no, they’ve had reforms! That means they’re failed states! 
Can you actually explain how their systems are worse than America’s, or are we supposed to accept it as a matter of doctrine?
IOh my god! You really had no idea did you? The reasons why they have engaged in massive reforms according to their leaders was due to economic distortion from high taxes and rigid labor markets. Um you do get that the reforms were a rejection of the previous socialist policies and an open admission that freer fairer more capitalist policies were needed to restore economic growth to create more and better jobs with higher wages! The fact that you so clearly do not know about reforms made only 12 to 15 years ago speaks volumes of the depths cough cough of your historical knowledge… fetch!
Another point that is implicit though of course not mentioned in your feeble rebuttal of oh yeah? Reform? So what? Is this: the reforms were not done to make the nation or economy MORE socialist. why not?
So, we’ve left the second and third worlds behind (for now). Here’s the new challenge:
- A rich country enacts a reform perceived as anti-socialist (e.g. raising the retirement age). Covfefists rejoice.
- A rich country enacts a reform perceived as pro-socialist (e.g. Obamacare). Covfefists weep (but years later still can’t figure out what to do about it).
Which one does a better job of proving the pre-reform system was imperfect is a good question. 
I really would love to know more about The Death of European Social Programs of which you speak, but first would you please stop deflecting and explain how US health care is superior to that of the other OECD nations, so we can all write to the statisticians who keep telling us the exact opposite and set them on the right path?
Take out the immigrant particularly the illegal immigrant population and USA health care numbers are not so far off their exalted European counterparts particularly since many European nations are seeing similar issues from said immigration. Obamacare? Look at the stated effects from business owners and then look at economic and investment growth or lack thereof. You seem to be the product of the everybody’s a winner educational system as you are conflating mostly capitalist nations and their sometimes socialist impulses while removing the economic equation and then engaging in hyperbolic hysteria when challenged.
You really think you’re the Pavlov and I’m the dog?
You set the bar for hyperbole and hysteria quite low. How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about US health care without mentioning Obamacare? How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about Obamacare without mentioning that it was perceived as socialist (never mind how the socialists perceived it) when it was introduced and that Republicans hate it but can’t find a solution? (Or are you saying they secretly like Romneycare 2.0?)
Anyway, your theory that US health care would be the greatest in the world (which means of course that Obamacare would be the greatest in the world 
) if all immigrants – legal and illegal – were removed is interesting. If you’re serious, you need to define immigrants, because the word means different things to different people. For example if you say anyone not born in the US is an immigrant, you lose Cruz (and possibly McCain) but keep all the anchor babies. 
Whatever definition you settle on, apply the same to all other health care systems in the OECD and see if America’s rank changes. Let me know when you get the results. 
And after that, please do tell me all about the exciting sequel I missed back in 2005, The Fall of the Iron Curtain Part II!
We are talking economics no? And the statistics are there for anyone. Do a google search. This is not new research or a new concept. Now go fetch!
What, you mean these statistics?
I’m sure someone’s done some hypothetical models to account for immigration and emigration, but I don’t get paid for this, and you’re the one claiming American supremacy, or at least supremacy-in-a-parallel-universe-with-zero-immigration-whatever-that-means. 
If you want people to buy it, show us some evidence. 
1 Like
Keep looking as won’t be hard to find even for someone with your educational er achievements. Fetch!
I’ll say it again: to unlock this feature, order YYY Pro! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
1 Like
Good job. But, you may as well be cutting ham with a wet noodle. You cannot win with libertarian capitalists wannabes. It is like arguing with religious people. You cannot win. They will find an out no matter what you put up. Like playing chess with a pigeon. All they will do is knock over the pieces then claim their victory.
Unfettered capitalism, does not work. Libertarianism, does not work. Socialism/communism, does not work. The human condition will not allow any of it to truly work. I did my best to get this in Jothy’s head, but he would not accept it. He stuck by his guns. Hey, you kind of have to admire that.
They will argue till their out of breath that reducing the top 10%'s tax rate to 0, while eliminating social programs, yet increasing military spending will create unlimited wealth for everyone. They argue that tax breaks create jobs, and tax increases kill jobs. Then how do tax increases on the bottom 40% of earners create jobs? They are hopelessly in love with the old plutocracies of the world. Maybe they are billionaires and are arguing for more money. Maybe they love giving their cash to billionaires. I dunno.
1 Like
Who says Fred’s a wannabe?
Either/or. Real or otherwise.
So what does work?
Sweden, apparently… Oh, and Yugoslavia under Tito.
Death. That is pretty much the only thing that has the surest outcome.
Stop being a Debbie Downer and take an upper, man. You’re gonna start bumming people out.
I’m a libertarian capitalist but believe that the ever elusive solution to chronic economic inequality and poverty could be achieved by one simple but profound socioeconomic reform. Mandate that natural resources are a birthright and that henceforth no one could own or control more natural resources than necessary to meet their personal needs. As a result, no more landlords. No more rampant property speculation. Everyone would own their own homes/living spaces and only owe for the construction costs of their dwellings. Every citizen would receive anual shares of coal, oil, farmland, mines, water resources etc. from birth.
This wouldn’t be modified communism because the state would own nothing. People would fully own the natural resources necessary for their living and the rest would be the assets of America Inc. with all citizens as equal shareholders. What there wouldn’t be would be billionaires who owned vast tracts of natural resources including living space, water and agricultural resources that they sold back to the less fortunate on the theory that natural resources existed primarily to make the few rich rather than to sustain all life.