We should and we do have constitutional limits on our government , that is defined by the courts not you or some redneck bubba from the hate party, by the way not me either.
The Constitution is already defined. That was the point behind writing it down. The Court merely applies that definition.
The reason I asked about Constitutional limits on government is because many liberals get defensive and angry at
any suggestion that government should be limited. They tend to think that democracy should always carry the day, despite the Constitution. Glad to hear you're not like that.
Obviously, you made that up. The US pays more per person for HC then anyother free nation in the world.
Yes I just said USA pays 4 times more than it should thanks to govt involvement. We need to shift to capitalism wherein there is competition to bring price down and quality up. Are you still confused???
This is the top of the stupid list for the day.
Yes yours was. Before Medicare and Medicaid, the elderly died horribly. So yes, if all you want to do is insure healthy people by private insurance, it’s cheaper to let 10s of thousands die. Obamacare and Medicare are both using private insurance which has to profitize. Plus, gov. Paid insurance is not allowed to negotiate. The gop has insured that their donors get their cuts. So it’s still expensive because even Medicare is not all public funded....only 80%. Other nations don’t have a Republican Party of the stupid.
You don't seem to understand the most basic thing. Socialism (monopoly& bureaucracy) impoverishes countries. This is why 60 million slowly starved to death in USSR and Red China. Ever heard of East /West Germany, Cuba/Florida? Socialism in cars and health would make them very expensive until nobody could afford them. This is what Biden/ AOC/ Sanders/ Warren want for all of America. Now do you understand? Notice the way a conservative is made to feel like a kindergarten teacher?
oh yah.
one in eight people in the US live in poverty. In more socialistic Sweden, it’s 1 in 20.
its the same with other democratic Socialist countries ...less poverty.
First... there is absolutely nothing socialist about Sweden. Sweden is a free-market capitalist economy.
Explore the Index of Economic Freedom to gauge global impacts of liberty and free markets. Discover the powerful link between economic freedom and progress. The 31st edition, once again, illustrates key factors shaping our world's landscape. From @Heritage
www.heritage.org
If you think Sweden is socialist, then you know something that just ain’t so.
www.aier.org
In 1975, Sweden’s state owned well over half of the productive resources in the country, and directed prices in much of the rest. It subsidized debt, in part paradoxically by having enormously high tax rates with generous deductions for borrowers. Its attempts at “Keynesian” policy interventions were clumsy, were mistimed, and created disastrous uncertainty in investment returns even in the portions of the economy that were still market-oriented.
Fortunately for its citizens, but unfortunately for those who think Sweden is still socialist, the Swedish government, more or less by universal consensus, turned sharply back toward capitalism beginning in about 1995. It deregulated domestic industry, privatized its education and pension systems, and opened the economy to international trade and competition. The reason it did this is precisely because capitalism, wherever it is practiced seriously in a system with rule of law and protection for property rights, always creates prosperity.
Sweden is not even remotely socialist. Further, the claim that Sweden has low poverty, is no longer true.
This article presents new research on income-based child indicators for immigrant children from 17 different national backgrounds and children of parents born in Sweden observed during the 3-year periods 1983–85, 1995–97 and 2008–10. This research examines mean household income, representation...
link.springer.com
According to Statistics Sweden, such often used relative poverty rates stood at 9.9 % in 1995 but had climbed to as high as 17.3 % in 2010. Such a development means that, in international comparisons, Sweden in 2012 no longer stands out as having uniquely low relative poverty rates, see OECD
As immigration to Sweden drastically increased, especially with the recent surge in people fleeing Syria, the poverty rate has drastically increased.
It's a known and obvious fact, that when you have large levels of immigration, poverty follows. This is normal and natural, because people who don't know the culture, don't know the language, and don't have recognized skills in the new country, tend to end up at the lowest end of the economic ladder.
So both of your claims are patently false. As is usual of all left-wing ideological claims proven wrong by concrete evidence and facts.
