Winstonm, on 2012-July-13, 12:23, said:
This sounds like Mancur Olson - could it be?
Olson contended that size of group mattered, that in large groups there was no choice for group betterment unless it was accompanied by a personal benefit.
In the U.S., I think the reason is more simple: a tiny, tiny minority has the ability to block and halt any change to the status quo they deem harmful to their cause. Note, this is not a single group acting in concert, but splinter groups within a bigger group of super-wealthy who act in their own interests to keep the status quo. It may be A,B,C who oppose universal healthcare and act to keep it off the table, while it may be X,Y,Z who oppose changes to energy profits by opposing global warming.
Regardless, the U.S. is no longer a representative-Republic, and because of that I fully expect the U.S. to continue to follow the path of other lumbering giants who could not or would not evolve.
First off was your daughter on Jay Leno last night?
have no idea who that is, I am more a Milton Friedman. type guy
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand
agree tiny tiny minorities can block oil drilling and etc. As far as healthcare it seems more than half the people have real concerns over such a massive change as advocated here. I think it is up to the advocates to do a better job at explaining their side.
to get back to one of the two main concerns, innovation, the concern is a massive takeover of healthcare by the central govt. that will dampen innovation and thus quality of healthcare.
The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government
---
Perhaps all of this just boils down to what the posters are saying, America should be more like Europe.