I saw just how easy it would be, were I less involved and less certain of our nation's founding and its history, to fall for the populist lines they were shouting from that stage.
I saw how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education.
Quote from SC_RNDude
We all want those things. Are differences lie in what we believe are the best ways to achieve those things.
I don't believe that you ALL want those things. Look at what the woman wrote in that article. She doesn't even seem to support the viewpoint that all children deserve
healthcare and education. She doesn't expand on how such a thing would be implemented in the real world, and why would she? Based on how I interpret her words, she's not on board with the idea that all kids deserve it, so no impetus exists to plan for it.
She doesn't have a rational argument to put forth as to why children don't deserve healthcare and education, so her options are reduced to attempting to paint healthcare as a right as something dark and scary
. Yet frighteningly alluring...
To me it seems like she considers healthcare and education for all kids and the ability to make a living of full-time work as a seductive but sinister concept that could sway people unless they, like her, "know better".
From what I gather from her words, someone who understands your nation's founding and its history, should realize that healthcare for all kids isn't something one should expect and perhaps not even strive for?
I'm sorry for swearing, but who the hell doesn't agree
that all children DESERVE healthcare? Due to practical reasons a very poor country might not have the means to make it reality, but a rich nation does. Any rich nation that doesn't supply it, has in my opinion made an ideological and (im)moral choice. They have also made a "macroeconomically" ill-advised choice, which in my opinion just adds another layer of stupid.
As far as being able to support yourself on a full-time job, why does that concept seem wrong to some people? I don't understand why anyone, who isn't in the top 1% and who might personally profit from keeping the "working stiff's" pay suppressed, would be against the chance of making a living wage.
I'm Swedish and the following thing about my country might surprise some of you. Sweden is often referred to by some American conservatives as socialist. It's not. We have a capitalist economy but as a matter of ideological choice we have implemented a strong social safety net. This is something all political parties agree on.
The only thing politicians squabble about is that the right wants an even larger share of healthcare to be provided by private hospitals/facilities and the left wants to limit the amount of profit that tax-funded private healthcare providers are allowed to make. But no one questions that healthcare should be universal, available to all.
Now to the surprising part. Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage. There is NO law in place that dictates how much, or how little, an employer has to pay en employee. The government doesn't decide how much people have to make at a minimum. This is entirely up to the parties of the workplace; employers and employees.
When companies, almost exclusively foreign companies, have tried to pay their employees less than what the "going rate" is, they get boycotted by employees and the general public/customers, and have been forced to adapt to the same level pay as their competitors.
The employer/employee playing field is much more level. The power balance isn't tilted in favor of the employer. It is recognized that while it's true that employees need an employer to make a living and provide for themselves and their families, employers in their turn have an equal need of employees
to make their business flourish.
It's a symbiotic
relationship and due to a deep-rooted sense of fair play and fairness that is instilled in Scandinavians from birth, employers aren't allowed to run roughshod over their employees. It doesn't take a law
to make employers act decently, it's culturally expected and enforced.
When I see posts here on AN about nurses being sent home due to low census and in some cases still have to be available to the employer to come back in on short notice, should the census pick up, my mind is literally blown. We would just laugh in the face of an employer who had the audacity to try to pull that stunt.
The risk is assumed by the employer. An employer doesn't get to **** employees around just because there happens to be fewer people hospitalized on a certain shift. If an employer hires someone to work a certain amount of hours, then they are obligated to provide those hours (and the employee is of course obligated to show up on the agreed upon/scheduled times unless thay have a valid excuse).
Given the culture in my country, I think that most of you will understand why I don't consider providing healhtcare and education for all children and a living wage for all who work full-time very radical ideas. I think they are common sense, humanist and
fiscally sound ideas. I can't understand why not all people, who would clearly benefit from such a system, don't support it.
Here's the thing, all people in a society benefit from it, even
the the most wealthy part of the population. Because uneducated people and people with poor health contribute less to society and we know from research that low socioeconomic status is connected to many health-related risks and an increased risk of a criminal lifestyle. All these things are costly both for the individuals and for society as a whole.