As long as you recognize these as trade-offs and are happy I suppose we are ultimately in agreement. I can totally accept that Europe has a lower GDP (whatever that means) and we work less, live longer and enjoy life. Actually, all I should really do is thank you because you pay for my defense and the R&D on the drugs that let me enjoy my life. Doesn't seem fair though does it?
I wonder if that has anything to do with Europe's lower violent crime rate.
No. Not really.
Exactly. I accept the trade-offs. I accept that in a free society, the repsonsibility is mine to look out for my own welfare; it is not that of other people. Now, if I choose to seek charity, or donate to a charity that I feel is worthy and will really help people, that should also be my choice. It should not be forced and facilitated by government.
Perhaps Germany has discovered the secret to running a government health system. Don't know, don't care. Over here, the government is fantastic and running absolutely nothing. Generally speaking, their costs far out weigh their output. For example, 70% of the tax money collected for our welfare systems goes to the operation of those systems. That's inefficiency... I don't care where you're from.
But what you said is exaclty the point - trade offs. That's what life is. In most cases, there are never concrete solutions. Perfection is rarely achievable. France is supposed to be a model of moral socialism, yet they just passed a law making it illegal to be homeless because their parks are filling up with tents and transients. Socialism and communism are, in theory, supposed to be the "solution" that provides for every single citizen. So how is it that they have a homeless problem at all?
Again, Germany could be a different situation, and if it is, then good for you. But here in America, the government has continuously made matters worse everytime it tries to impose a "solution" to a "crisis." Charles Murray wrote a wonderful book called "Losing Ground" that documented our social policy from 1950 - 1980. It was perceived that if the poor were just given more money and the laws were changed to give minorities more of an advantage in life, we could wipe out poverty in this country. Well, we all know that didn't happen. In fact, as Murray points out, things got worse for blacks in this country after the Great Society initiatives - even though statistically speaking, they were gaining social and economic ground every year since the mid 1940s.
In the end, what you're looking for are results. Socialism and capitalism have both proven the same results - inequity and poverty exist. After this is recognized, you have to look at which system makes the social situation worse. What system takes away more liberty, more choice?
Clearly, it's socialism.
Oh. Just one more point. I think the efficacy of a government program also has to do a lot with the culture of a society. I know that the socialist systems in the Scandanavian region seem to work relatively well as socialist systems go.
But I think that the reason they might work in certain European countries and wouldn't work here is because of the culture. The Scandanavians have always been passive people. You can tax 70% of their income and make them wait for medical procedures, but still they don't complain. Not because they're not upset, but they're just not complainers. I think there's a little of that in Germany. In a film history class I took, we studied German Neo-modernism (or some intellectual BS name like that) and the professor maintained that after WWII, there was a deep sense of guilt in Germany and it took decades before they were ready to present themselves as a significant nation once again - culturally, economically, technolocially, etc. I think a generation or two being raised under that type of mindset also nurtures a sense that no matter how crappy the service might be, you shouldn't complain. It's what you deserve.
Again, my theory. I don't claim to know the German system apart from what I read in economic articles.
The point is - Americans would not put up with that kind of system. When universal health care becomes law here, you will probably find that it just might not last. Try telling a New Yorker that they have to wait 6 months for an operation and you'll see Hell raised on Earth.