The argument that wealth trickles down from the top -- the problem is that it trickles when what we need is a flow (especially with the current recession). As stated in the first video I posted, a multi-billionaire does NOT spend millions of times as much as the average person, therefore the money stagnates at the top and does not flow back down. In terms of circulation of money, 1000 millionaires would be more effective than 1 billionaire. If money was flowing down, there wouldn't be any billionaires because they would have spent the money. The argument wasn't that tax money be given to the middle classes, it was that the tax money was invested in schemes to help the middle classes to help themselves and earn more money, and to help lower classes pull themselves up to the middle classes where they would become good little consumers, help keep the money flowing and eventually reduce the income disparity which would reduce all the social problems noted in the second video I posted.
That's nonsense. 100% of income gets spent 100% of the time. Either through investments or purchases of goods and services. Even if you put it in a bankaccount it gets invested somewhere.
If you want money to flourish instead of trickle, lower the taxes. The link I posted clearly shows that lower income tax increases spending.
Yes, it does sound crazy -- especially when you have stated that roads are important enough to be run by the government, but apparently your view is that health isn't as important as roads?
As has already been pointed out, when you're having a heart attack, or a stroke, or have just been pulled out of a car crash, you don't shop around, you just want to go to the nearest hospital. Health care is not a business, it is a service.
You can't have competition in roads. You can't choose wich road to work you are taking today. As with all infrastructure, it should be under government control. Then private companies can bid on projects or use of the infrastructure. Like they do with mobile frequencies. I'm not against government as a whole, I'm against government limiting our choice, it should facilitate not dominate.
You are arguing to against a system because it does not fit all. No system fits all. But I am not willing to limit our choice, our freedom and our health just because you want to create a society that is based on exemption. Then everybody is an exemption and we get the steaming pile of mess we have now.
And if you are dieing, do you really care what hospital they take you to? Do you really care how much it is going to cost you? I don't think so.