This debate is destined to go nowhere. The conservative argument is favored when it comes to a philosophical debate (though I, being unread in Hobbes or Locke would not give up on that just yet - I will get to read both as well as Marx in my final semester of school) and the liberal position is favored when it comes to economics here. When I take the policy/economic approach (i.e. not tobinov's argument) here, the debate on this board devolves to this:
1. "This is more economically efficient; health care is not a commodity"
2. "But this infringes on liberty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor"
3. "But it is necessary to lower health care costs to take the concept of profit out"
4. "But the problem with costs is regulation"
5. "But in nations with more regulations or with fully public health care costs are reduced"
6. Repeat from 2
We can say this over and over and nothing will change. So unless someone says something so mind-numbingly dumb or ignorant, MC > MB so I'm done here. I'm closer to talking about V or Salt N' Pepa or the Catalan Pitch and Putt National Team at this point.
But this thread title must be changed, for it is obviously false. This is giving money to corporations - the very opposite of socialism. Obama's legacy to the left will forever be, in the words of Bernie Sanders, "socialism for the rich and cold, hard capitalism for the poor."
).
