If you are arguing against tax-funded medical care, then I can agree with you. Let's get the government out of it.
While we are at it, let's get the government out of big, taxpayer-funded boondoggles such as high-speed passenger rail.
Build infrastructure instead.
"Infrastructure"? That is how Leftists describe taxpayer-funded boondoggles. Apparently you are not opposed to people sucking at the teat of the Nanny State, so long as the suckers are union members.
At least that way the workers EARN health care benefits instead of throwing billions into the pockets of greedy bleeding-heart welfare pimp doctors.
Poor Willie Green. You cannot make a cogent argument without resorting to name-calling, even if the names don't make sense.
You keep saying that doctors are overpaid and greedy. Please tell us how much doctors should earn, in your opinion. (Is it more or less than railroad employees?)
"Infrastructure"? That is how Leftists describe taxpayer-funded boondoggles. Apparently you are not opposed to people sucking at the teat of the Nanny State, so long as the suckers are union members.
I categorically reject that dumbed-down libertarian hogwash.
You keep saying that doctors are overpaid and greedy. Please tell us how much doctors should earn, in your opinion. (Is it more or less than railroad employees?)
It has nothing to do with the relative earnings of one profession vs. another.
It's all about fleeting and wasteful government spending vs. long term investment with long term economic benefits.
Medical services are expensive and fleeting, producing little long term benefit for our economy.
Brick and mortar infrastructure provides lasting economic benefits that span decades and even generations: bridges, tunnels, highways, hydroelectric dams, levees, and yes, railroads too.
There's a major difference between spending on wasteful services or investing in infrastructure.
Politicians who don't understand that distinction are unworthy of holding public office.