We've actually had this welfare for 70 years, and the harm was supposed to come any minute now for all this time. Ultimately, its demise is likely going to come from the propaganda against it rather from it actually being a problem.

Who says you haven't seen harm? You're erecting a straw-man.

Also, you have to factor in that when the coffers are empty, France may be more willing to sell weapons abroad... So maybe it's not France that sees that harm.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150503-arms-sales-becoming-fran...

Ok, is there some French Defamation League, downvote-brigade choosing to censor realities it dislikes, rather than respond?

I note I have down-voted responses to replies that do not have further responses. Hence, from my point of view, it seems when the argument got difficult, down-voting was resorted to..

note: this comment was also down-voted within 5 minutes, again without comment. Those who never comment, never run the risk of malicious down-votes.

To clarify, as I just realised that the above is ambiguous:

> I note I have down-voted responses to replies that do not have further responses

by "have" I mean, I have received down-votes, not I have down-voted them.

Even if what you said was true, what would be the point of a strong economy if people cannot have healthcare? I'd rather have a less strong economy and better health for everyone.

Not surprisingly, it helps the economy: people dont lose their savings, jobs and houses when they get sick in Europe.

I didn't say "they can't have healthcare". I'm talking about employment.

> I'd rather have a less strong economy

There are plenty of countries/citizens that can't dictate what they want.

Do competing developing countries have this choice? Why not?