Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7828889" data-attributes="member: 177">That argument makes a lot of sense... if you live in a world of actual scarcity.&nbsp; If a society has problems meeting the day-to-day requirements of its members, you have to prioritize, and the things that you need are higher value than the nice-to-haves.But... there's a very big question as to whether that's the case any more.&nbsp; The US has a gross domestic product, per capita, of something like $80K per year.&nbsp; The economy, on the whole, has more than enough wealth to meet the basic needs of all the individuals within it.&nbsp; In terms of what we can and do produce, our economy is post-scarcity.&nbsp; Meeting the needs of the individuals should not be an issue.&nbsp; But, of course, as a practical matter, we obviously do have an issue meeting the needs of the individuals.&nbsp; We are, in fact, so broadly incapable at meeting the needs of all the members that the fault of this cannot reasonably be laid on those whose needs are not met.&nbsp;&nbsp; We are quibbling over whether the artist is to blame for their condition when they choose art - but the people buillding and maintaining homes, or providing food or basic resources, are not doing well either!That, in effect, is what single-payer health care is about - recognizing that the economy is more than capable of providing care for all the individuals, and making that happen.Yeah.&nbsp; A bit of web-searching finds that something over 10% of the US population lives below the poverty line.&nbsp; Something like half if the population is &quot;low income&quot;, without sufficient resources to build wealth, living basically paycheck-to-paycheck. And, those with middling income likely have student debt and high housing costs (in either rent or mortgage) to achieve or maintain that income.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7828889, member: 177"] That argument makes a lot of sense... if you live in a world of actual scarcity. If a society has problems meeting the day-to-day requirements of its members, you have to prioritize, and the things that you need are higher value than the nice-to-haves. But... there's a very big question as to whether that's the case any more. The US has a gross domestic product, per capita, of something like $80K per year. The economy, on the whole, has more than enough wealth to meet the basic needs of all the individuals within it. In terms of what we can and do produce, our economy is post-scarcity. Meeting the needs of the individuals should not be an issue. But, of course, as a practical matter, we obviously do have an issue meeting the needs of the individuals. We are, in fact, so broadly incapable at meeting the needs of all the members that the fault of this cannot reasonably be laid on those whose needs are not met. We are quibbling over whether the artist is to blame for their condition when they choose art - but the people buillding and maintaining homes, or providing food or basic resources, are not doing well either! That, in effect, is what single-payer health care is about - recognizing that the economy is more than capable of providing care for all the individuals, and making that happen. Yeah. A bit of web-searching finds that something over 10% of the US population lives below the poverty line. Something like half if the population is "low income", without sufficient resources to build wealth, living basically paycheck-to-paycheck. And, those with middling income likely have student debt and high housing costs (in either rent or mortgage) to achieve or maintain that income. [/QUOTE]

Verification