In response to:

7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism

Peter906 Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 11:08 AM
I am not sure how you define socialism. My friends approve of the Affordable Care Act because it provides a safety net for those whose life is ravaged by health problems. Sometimes, as you suggest, people may cause their own health problems by being lazy or irresponsible, abusing drugs or food; most times, though, health problems strike with much randomness. So I agree with them that universal health care is a good idea. Almost no one I know fits Hayek's straw man, of claiming that we should have an equality of material position. Progressive income taxes, yes -- but that still allows for (I'd say encourages) entrepreneurship, innovation, change, etc -- look at US history since the end of WW2.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 4:36 PM
Socialism is the exercise of the powers of ownership over the means of production, usually by the state. This is why universal health care falls under that definition ... and why it has been a universal failure invariably resulting in poorer care and rationing that is more lethal than any lack of insurance.

As for US history since WWII, it demonstrates the disaster of socialist spending and taxes. The slashing of both created the post-war boom, the raising of both resulted in problems addressed by Kennedy's tax cuts, the not-so-Great Society was a disaster (particularly to those intended to be helped. Reagan's tax cuts were hugely successful; Clinton's tax hike slowed the economy to its weakest post-recession growth in history...
John in Gwinnett,Ga Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 3:36 PM
Ah, there it is! Look to the history to make a point on progressive taxes being "good". You include culture in your argument for "universal health care", but you totally ignore culture change since WW2. I could explain this very easily to you, but you would not pay any attention to the facts. You posted an argument that looks intelligent as written, but it is simply ignorant when it comes to clarity of thought. The sacrifice comment has me laughing.
LeishaC Wrote: Dec 04, 2012 3:09 PM
Except that's not what Obamacare does. It's not a "safety net for those whose [lives are] ravaged by health problems." It is a blatant power grab of 1/6 of the US economy and the a large step toward total government control of all healthcare in the nation. We already have a safety net through Medicare and Medicaid. Don't kid yourself -- this is about federal government power, not about truly helping anyone.

I can fix healthcare the capitalist way -- remove healthcare from employment, allow people to buy their own health insurance across state lines, and eliminate co-pay type HMOs that prevent people from knowing the actual cost of care

Given any choice between "universal" anything and "individual" anything, always go with the individual.
Given what we know in 2012, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. Yet, a recent Gallup poll shows that more liberals have a positive view of socialism than capitalism. This is only possible because there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while...