Quote Originally Posted by peggy View Post
Equal opportunity without equal outcome. Kind of a nice way of saying, I got mine, to hell with you!
I was kind of hoping the tone would change a little on the move, but c'est la vie. Unequal outcomes are actually a good thing. If everyone was guaranteed the same outcome, why try? It becomes a race to the bottom. What’s your model for this? Soviet Russia? Communist farm communes? How'd those work out? Stick to the goal of providing equal opportunity and rounding off the harsh edges of competition and your position is much more reasonable.



I could REPEAT the fact that government sponsored health care isn't a case of sucking the government dry, but really the ideal situation of EVERYBODY pays into a system EVERYBODY will need eventually. See, everyone pays.
I'm in favor of a universal system but even I think this is a weak argument. We all need food. We all need shelter. We want everyone to have healthcare. Some people have trouble getting food, shelter or heathcare. But the solution isn't then to tax everyone and give them government provided food, shelter and healthcare. At least not here yet. We've taken the approach of helping people get housing or food through payments that allow them to access the larger system. When we have provided those benefits directly, the outcomes are questionable. Think public housing projects. As someone who wants to see everyone have access to care, even I think this is where the pro-universal coverage advocates have dropped the ball. It's not enough to say you think everyone should be covered. If you want to provide food and shelter, is it better to have the government give food stamps and section 8 vouchers, or is it better to build public housing projects and nationalize grocery stores? And what does that tell you about healthcare? If healthcare is different, you have to do a better job of explaining why if you want to garner support for universal coverage, which is what I think Obama failed to do in any compelling way.