And yet ... the problem is not all that complicated either.
The key to the problem is WHO runs the government!
These (offered) simplistic solutions ASSUME that government is "of the people, by the people and for the people". If that were true ... this guy might be right.
But if government is being controlled by outside forces which have no interest in serving the people or the peoples' needs ... the guy's answer is simplistic, naive and even dead wrong.
Bigger government doesn't solve any problems; it merely mires economic drive in bureaucratic red tape regulations.
DECENTRALIZATION is actually a far better idea. You want more government but you want government split into MANY small, localized, more autonomous governments that can look after the needs of smaller groups of people.
Money is never actually "the" problem in economic deterioration. Money is only the symbol of the assets and creative activity of a group, community, municipality, state or nation. As long as there are natural resources, good weather, healthy people and willingness to produce ... money is simply a reflection of how that is being utilized ... UNLESS .... money is being produced externally and being manipulated/controlled by outside forces!
So .... should there be more health care? No. We shouldn't need nearly as MUCH health care as we have today. It's a bloody INDUSTRY now ... making huge profits from the misfortune of sick people. It's cranking people through in endless cycles of checkups and prescriptions and operative procedures which aren't necessary and make people sicker ... just to keep bringing in the profit.
A good healthcare system would be modest and address ONLY the needs of the people as they arise ... and encourage people to look after their own health by giving sound information on what they can do to improve their own health.
There is this mis-perception amongst many people, I think ... that a healthcare system is the only thing which prevents them from dying! If all doctors and health workers were to go on strike, for example ... that half the people in N. America would be dead within a year.~ That's total nonsense, of course. Humans actually RARELY need intervention to keep them alive ... and the healthcare system CERTAINLY doesn't make them any healthier than they could nicely be on their own.
The healthcare system in fact, RARELY prevents anyone from deteriorating. It WANTS people to go in for regular checkups and WARNS everyone in no uncertain terms that they're ENDANGERING themselves by not having regular checkups but ... the fact is ... the industry can only -generally- monitor what is going on with "sick" people at best ... and then prescribe endless costly prescription drugs to keep revenue flowing in ... while the sick people deteriorate and die anyway, as they would do otherwise.
Should healthcare be abolished altogether because it's virtually useless anyway? No. It should be better controlled so that it isn't abused but it should be "free" for those who need that.
It's an industry.
Now, when you think of the military industry -dedicated to the DESTRUCTION of things- being an economic generator ... why is healthcare any less of an economic generator? Healthcare is an essential part of society but it SHOULD be a very small part of society if all things are properly balanced. It's like a repair segment that goes along with manufacturing. When it's used only for essential repairing ... it stays very small in the overall scheme of things.
But what about building roads, water, sewer infrastructures, transit systems, bridges and all that? Are THESE things a major expense that can't be afforded in an economic downturn? That's what politicians continually imply. It's just too "costly" and such costs can be postponed to the future when the economy picks up again. Is that actually sensible?
No, that's not sensible at all because ... these projects are actually CREATING something useful for the general population! These are essentials which people use and enjoy. They aren't any different really ... from building plants to build cars and consumer goods.
But then it comes right down to the money supply. If money is created on the basis of creative activity, human and natural resources and willingness to participate in work -in a given society- then money merely REPRESENTS that industriousness! Every municipality could -in theory- print its own issuance of money and everyone in the municipality would do very well.
It's BECAUSE the money supply is issued by an outside force and loaned into existence ... that there can be a "shortage" of that commodity ... because then money no longer represents the assets that exist but rather, a fake asset that people believe in and rely upon and can't operate without.
When you think about money as merely representing the hard assets of available resources in a community or nation state ... how do the arguments/statements that the fellow presented ... add up?