“Somehow” they seem to find the money for enormous tax cuts to wealthy corporations, but “somehow” can’t find the money for a functional health care system.
Well, I think President Eisenhower did his best to warn us about this. And we didn’t listen.
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was “clearly” pro-military, and the Dems were “clearly” wanting to restrain its growth and tenor. During the USSR conflict, there were real, honest-to-God, elected “doves” — — and enough to make a real difference in voting — that believed that the way to world peace was for us to lay down our weapons first and the USSR would do the same, because deep down inside we were all the same. Today, there are no “doves” at all, and there are Democrats who are more hawkish than the Republicans.
That changed in the 90’s, it seems, when the Clintons moved to blur the lines between a Democrat party that was too populist to attract Wall Street and corporate money, and co-opted the “strong national defense” position of the GOP. Since then, both parties have basically adopted the positions of the neocons; the chances of shrinking the military today are probably the lowest since the fall of the USSR.
He goes to the doctor and it’s paid for.
Well, he pays for it, but the payment is vended in advance through the tax system. Or by tourism.
Also, although your POINT is valid, any tiny country with a thriving tourist industry is a bad example. When you have that sort of dynamic floating your economy, you can actually do a lot of things that a larger country can’t. It’s like Norway; when you have 4M people and you’re floating in oil, an expansive social infrastructure isn’t hard to fund.
DEfund, tax breaks for the corporations that poison us with junk food, junk medicines, and all the rest.
They did defund a lot of those tax breaks this year, actually. But, again, I don’t disagree with the direction you’re taking, here.
Universal care is well within the financial ability of the US to fund; we just have to change a few priorities around.