Yes, and the nations traditionally had a very Puritan work ethic so people would not take advantage of public goods. How’s that working these days?
Have we seen that? East Asia was formerly pretty much capitalist and the standard of living soared lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. Since then, the nations have felt rich enough to start implementing socialist policies. This has had a very strong effect on growth rates and competitivity. So while in a perfect world, such policies might seem desirable, one has to wonder whether they are sustainable in the long run. It is all well and good to talk about taking care of people but if the end result is even more people who need care in say 20 or 30 years, is it worth it?
as opposed to the successes in Canada or the other nations? Which is why their doctors and nurses are voting with their feet and moving to America, why they have lengthy waits for even basic surgery, etc. etc.
Not necessarily a correlation to socialism and democracy.
Okay. I can accept that, but what is the degree of implementation and how much money is spent for how much benefit. I think it is fair to examine that with a realistic not “sensitive” eye.
I sense another debate ala the one on education. Perhaps, time to open up the health care sector to a rigorous examination? I truthfully have not spent much time or effort researching it but I would be curious as to the strengths and weaknesses of the socialist model. I am guessing that the strengths of the socialist model are overplayed while the weaknesses are as well.