health care for all is for sure a serious need - i was looking forward to repeal and replace happening
There's no way to make it work. Even Obamacare is automatically less efficient than national health care, since in addition to paying providers, one also has to pay the insurance companies. Even if health care delivery was as efficient here as it is in other countries, we still have to pay the middleman.
the d-care plan didn't work for most americans
Most Americans already had plans through work or medicare. But a sizeable minority were left out. That's why, each change in Obamacare leads to more Americans without medical care. I've become convinced that a single-payer plan is what needs to happen.
the r-care plan does not exist - it needs to get done
That was the problem. There was no alternative other than, "we'll just have to let it get worse and worse."
- the worst parts of d-care are gone by eo
The penalty was something the insurance companies needed to have enough people in the pool to be able to offer coverage. That's why we see fewer companies offering it, and more and more people uninsured. Which saves no one money. They end up using ERs as primary care, and then everyone else pays for the charity.
GLOBALISM VS NATIONALISM
what in you opinion is the strength and weaknesses of each?
Globalism means we have a world economy. Which means, for a free-market person, that we will get optimum allocation of goods and services. China, which had lower wages, is able to sell products to other countries, because it can produce things more inexpensively. Then, (as is now happening) wages rise, and manufacturing in the U.S. sees an uptick. But not everything.
Japanese government puts tariffs on U.S. rice to protect Japanese rice farmers. But the Japanese public then thinks maybe U.S. rice must be better, and buys it anyway. Tariff goes down, and Japanese farmers sell more rice.
So that's great. Another issue is wealthy people being able to get multiple citizenships to various nations to avoid taxes, which isn't so great.
The notion that piracy and genocide are crimes against humanity that can be punished by international laws, is a good and just one. Sovereignty matters though. Self-determination of peoples is a key idea, and rules that violate that are harmful. What if "self-determination" means killing Muslims (or any other group of people) and enslaving their children?
Then we have international laws that apply, and should. Like the Constitution, there are all sorts of uncertain things at the border of rights vs. rights. No one said it would be easy.
Nationalism should mean that a people should be self-governing, but should not mean that one nation puts itself over another. We can be proud of our nation, since we started a movement toward democracy that has freed many people. We also have some things we shouldn't be so proud of. I was never a believer in American exceptionalism. We just happened to have a group of exceptionally wise and competent thinkers who founded our nation; we haven't always lived up to their ideals. And they were products of their time. Not all of them saw that slavery was a terrible evil; most of them saw no reason to give women the same rights as men.
Nationalism, like individualism, is good and produces good results, so long as it doesn't intrude on the rights of others. One of the things that ended malignant feudalism was nationalism.
On the other hand, one of the things that ended malignant nationalism in the 30s was globalism.
what do you see as the solution?
Pragmatism. Impose nothing for which there is not a demonstrated need. And every so often, trim the rules back, just on principle.
But rules are essential. One of the craziest things Trump wants to do, is end our membership in the international postal union. It's throwing a brick through a window, just to hear the glass break.
