Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Axioms like "open borders"?
But non-snarkily, the most compelling argument for Medicare for all is that most (all?) other wealthy countries have implemented a similar system, have better health outcomes and spend less on healthcare. That's a compelling argument! OK. But then apply that same logic to immigration. Do any comparable countries have open borders? Except within the EU, they don't -- and the EU only has open borders among member nations, all of which have similar welfare states and generally relatively similar per capita GDP levels.
The snark is fine there. I know I'm being axiomatic about open borders. I don't absolutely necessarily think borders have to be 100% open no matter what and unqualified citizenship is immediate, but I just want to make the point that I think border restrictions are immoral and it's not only a matter of finding the best policy. I think there should be a higher standard, a very compelling reason, to restrict movement like that. I know that's not a common position. Most people are wrong.
I'm willing to have a lower standard of free medical care to all if that's necessary, but I don't think it would be. I don't think immigration makes the country less able to provide medical care for all. I think it makes the country better able to do it. You can't figure that out by just subtracting welfare payments from taxes paid. Immigrants contribute to the economy primarily in other ways than their tax payments. I also don't think that free medical care in the USA would cause hordes of people to come here that we couldn't handle. If every single person from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (the places that are really the issue now) came here, that'd be good for us, not bad.
I also wouldn't try to do Universal Health Care all at once, so it would be something where you can see the results and adjust policy.