I just happened to watch CNBC for a couple of minutes today (which is about the most I watch that TV channel), and I heard a woman with what I think was a British accent (for those who may know who this person is) argue that the health care system that most of the rest of the world has is much worse than a system that she would like to see implemented in the USA. She also pointed to the supposed great economic growth during the Bush/Cheney years when another "guest" on the show mentioned that Republicans had many years to demonstrate that their "trickle down" approach (including huge tax cuts for the super-wealthy) was best.
After watching this on CNBC, it dawned on me that what such Greed-O-Cons really want is a return to the late nineteenth century, when "economic growth" was used to justify a system that only benefited a tiny percentage of the population. If this is what such people want, fine, just tell us. We can then decide if we want to get rid of social safety programs and let old people go begging in the streets. Instead, they attempt to convince us that a terrible system is a great one. And that brings me to her claim about health care. These nations that have the awful "public" system also have democratic governments. Not only is there no nation where the people have risen up to vote for officials who promise to change their health care system to a "private" one, but there is basically no thought about doing this, except perhaps in the minds of a few people who are simply ignored as "cranks." Moreover, it is precisely the problems brought about by the current US health care system that puts us at a competitive disadvantage with many of the other nations of the world. Thus, whether or not "economic growth" occurs is not the issue, but rather whether the US can remain a viable "modern" nation. The alternative is some sort of nineteenth century-retro-banana republic, and people like this woman, as smart as they think they are, can't seem to comprehend something so obvious.