You saw that my ok for subsidised PRIMARY healthcare is seriously qualified.
So no rejoicing on that.
Moreover I don't think this should be a contest of counting. I would rather see it as enlightenment of one another as I do see my participation on this forum and other similar Nigeria-focused forums.
Peace!

anonimi:

Yes to PRIMARY healthcare with strict qualifying income & family size criteria depending on what stage the particular society is in.

The issue with subsidies is to avoid abuse and create economic inefficiencies even in so-called developed societies and the difficulty of scrapping them or making them more strict after the difficult phase they were supposed to address has passed.

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."" - Harry Browne,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_Browne

VolvoS60:
You have conceded that primary healthcare is worthy of subsidies. At first it seemed that only education passed the qualifying test. Don't you think there are still other goods worthy of subsidies? We are now two up and still counting. . .

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."" - Harry Browne,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_Browne

anonimi: You saw that my ok for subsidised PRIMARY healthcare is seriously qualified.
So no rejoicing on that.
Moreover I don't think this should be a contest of counting. I would rather see it as enlightenment of one another as I do see my participation on this forum and other similar Nigeria-focused forums.
Peace!

^^^^
I mean you no harm. I don't always agree with all your views but I have noted the challenge you constantly throw to Nigerians to get involved in how their country is run. Anyone with this kind of view has my full support.

Having said that, I want you to understand that there is another way: a third way, so to speak. We have had mostly useless governments in this country for almost half a century and that is why so many of us are (justifiably) sceptical about the ability of any government to tie its own shoelaces (not to talk of running the lives of 160 million people).

However, you must understand that there are places in this world where governments are transparently run and subsidies are transparently administered. You only need to look at the social democracies in Northern Europe (their current problems notwithstanding) to see how government can actively be a force for the public good (as it should be).

You would do well to consider the view that perhaps your focus should be better government and not necessarily less government. There is no rule which states that reducing the size of government automatically improves the quality of government services.

gbrookes02:

"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."" - Harry Browne,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_Browne

^^^^

Funny quote.

I am always amused at how those people (usually 1st world citizens who actively support wars purportedly fought on their behalf by the same hated governments) who oppose government fail to acknowledge that their governments (through the protection of private property rights) have made it possible for society (and free enterprise) to function. You think the very idea of government is useless and that government adds no value? All right, lets try the alternative. We can ask the Somalis for tips.