Woodsy said:
The problem is, at what point do social programs become "too rich" such that there isn't really any incentive for people to work out of them? If government is providing me a place to live, food, and "free" healthcare, that is incentive enough for a LOT of people to not bother looking for a job and just continue to live off the system.
I would imagine the point where social programs become rich enough to turn people away from working is somewhere between the most socialist countries of Europe and a fantasyland. Considering we live in a type of economy where unemployment is guaranteed to exist even in the best of times and where recessions are just part of the cycle, the only humane way to support such a system is by providing social safety nets.
There will always be free riders in any system - with or without universal health care. Since you want to use the slippery slope argument, why should we stop with not providing health care? Those free riders are obviously benefiting from our roads, our emergency rooms, our national defense, public schools, etc. I imagine that the marginal supply of labor would barely move at all in the advent of universal coverage. The only ones less likely to work will be those who are only working to pay for their insurance, and even then I would argue that this amount could be offset by the number of people better able to supply their labor because 1. They'll be healthier and 2. Every dollar earned above whatever taxes are used to support UHC can be used to purchase other things.
In any event, I know you'll never change your mind so long as your earning your living through the same industry that maximizes profit through denial or dropping of coverage. Setting that aside, would you admit that there's a real problem with Health Insurance premiums that can't solely be attributed to the rising cost of health care? If so, what would you propose to solve the problem?
