But that is true also for any private insurance-based system. Once the number of subscribers is too low, the price of the coverage will go up. The US have the same ageing problem, which will be worsened by limiting immigration.
Not having to pay for their defence since 1945? That is simply untrue. Quite a number of countries, like mine, Belgium, may not have paid up the full 2% of their GDP, as they should have done under the NATO agreement, but they nevertheless have paid for their Defence (at present, Belgium is at 1% of its GDP and is 25th of the 28 member countries of NATO). Do you think France would be able to intervene in quite a few hotspots in Africa and Afghanistan and Lybia (at the time) without having a strong army? Do you really believe the US are paying for France’s army?
I cannot but repeat that there are no “free” benefits in Europe. Every working person pays for them in the form of taxes. Our taxation system is heavy. When I worked as a self-employed person in a liberal profession, taxes and social security payments gobbled up 55% of my professional gains. In the US, for the same job as a consultant, I only paid about 35% (with the help of an excellent accountant)! So, yes, your personal input, your actual work, is far better remunerated in the US. But life is less harsh for many in Europe. Nobody has to chose between treating a cancer and paying the rent, as a NY freelance journalist I know has to! Because of her illness, she cannot work enough to get a good insurance. Because of the limited coverage, she has to pay certain treatments out of her own pocket. But then she also has to pay her rent and the rest. So she waits until the pain becomes near-unbearable before getting her treatment and confronting her landlord again for the umptieth time… Such a case would be simply unthinkable in Europe.
But our principal of solidarity with the weak (be it of Christian or Socialist origin or whatever) is being eroded by the economic reality of the last decade. More and more cuts are being made, although the system still holds.
Merkel’s Germany has sought to solve the problem of an ageing population by allowing in a massive immigration, despite the opposition of large parts of the German population. Belgium has had a less open arms policy, but we also remain open to immigrants. And the same is true for all European countries. Of course, these in majority islamic immigrants pose the problem of their integration and to a far lesser extent of islamist extremism and terror. Hence the opposition by large parts of the population. But immigration is the only way to preserve the system and is in fact only the continuation of a movement which has started in the early 60s, with the end of colonisation.
And there is the link with Globalisation, which is not limited to the economy, but comprises also these very large movements of population, migrating from Africa or the Near-East to Europe (or America…).