You keep harping on Walmart as if that was relevant to anything in our conversation. Whatever the number of people shopping at walmart is, they do so because at the moment they decide to shop there they think it is a good idea to do so. The decision is largely economic (even convince can be phrased in economic terms, and in an case the decision is often about price), and individual. Walmart wasn't always the biggest retail establishment, it became big by giving people what they want (at least more than they want what other companies are offering). If they stopped doing that, they would decline, and would become the next "formerly biggest retail company".
Decisions about massive government health care programs are political, not individual economic decisions. And once they are made, you can't just decide you don't like it and so not pay for it.
After I pointed out the elimination of personal debt interest as a deduction and welfare to work .
The first is a change in the tax code not an elimination of a benefit, there is a difference between tax laws and government spending. The 2nd was a benefit that didn't go to the middle class, and which, to a great extent, the middle class was led to believe (rightly or wrongly), went to people who didn't deserve it. If everyone is getting the benefit they will be unlikely to think the recipients don't deserve it.
Also once you put government insurance in place, the private insurance alternative declines, few people want to pay for something they are getting "for free". And people who are currently covered but chronically ill, would drop their existing coverage for the "free" (or at least "cheap") government program. If you than drop the government program they would be unable to get reasonably priced private insurance, even if they already had it before the government program came in to effect.
If the system were single payer and also ineffective, inefficient, about to become 20% of GDP and morally bankrupt, there would be a discussion about moving to another system including a more private one.
If the system were similar in its difficulties and inefficiencies to what we have today, the amount of discussion among people who where not opposed from the beginning would probably be minimal. If it was worse than you would probably have discussion but no action. It would have to be massively worse to work up the political will to kill the program, and try to go back to what we have today. |
