By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Biggerboat1 on 02 August 2018
Edit Thread
-CraZed- said:
Hiku said:

Directly through foreign aid? Let's keep the crackpot conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence to a minimum please.
The people in those countries decided that their tax money would go to these programs. Human rights are prioritized over anything else and would naturally be funded regardless of whether or not they received foreign aid.
That's about as clever of an argument as claiming that China is directly funding *insert US institution* because the majority of USA's national debt is with China...
USA currently owes China 1.18 trillion USD as of May 2018. 

Although to further illustrate how nonsensical the notion you brought up is, I looked into how much Sweden pays in foreign aid to other countries:



https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-does-swedish-foreign-aid-oda-go-to.html

Do you realize that you're talking about developed countries? They're among the list of highest foreign aid donors in the world. Not receivers.
Relative to our size and economy, we pay A LOT more than USA does.




And you expect me to believe that we pay all these billions in foreign aid to other countries, but can't afford healthcare on our own?
I think you're confusing the countries on that list with developing nations. Sweden actually has some of the highest income taxes in the world.
We can afford to pay for our shit. To say the least.

Before you start worrying about what USA is responsible for providing other countries with, start by worrying about what they do for their own people first.
Although on that note, we pay 1.36% of our GNI in foreign aid, and USA only pays 0.15% of theirs. Step up your game?

As for "we have to increase our drug prices to make up for lost revenue" again, where is the evidence of this claim? Pharmaceutical companies commonly top the annual highest grossing charts. I don't see what losses they have to make up for.

You'll notice I didn't limit my statement to USAID, I also addressed trade and security and the UN that by far the US pays the lion's share. And, yes I know Sweden isn't officially part of NATO. But Sweden has benefited from the relatively stable and secure Europe that NATO provides. As a US citizen I shouldn't worry about what or who my government chooses to support through my tax dollars? Of course I should. And also as an American citizen I like to to do for myself first so as to not burden others, then I look for worthy opportunities to be charitable and giving in my spare time with my spare resources. I don't rely on bureaucrats thousands of miles away from me to help those in need I involve myself directly. 

Even at 0.15%, it is still the single largest amount of foreign aid paid out through our tax dollars. But you want us to step up our game yeah? How about this or this? Would that work for ya? The US regularly leads the world in private sector and charitable giving. Or perhaps the CAF report might be of interest to you. The US over the last 5 years has been no. 2 just behind Myanmar as the most charitable country where as Sweden doesn't even rank. In fact last year Sweden was no. 34 and the US no. 5. Love you Sweden, with your neutrality and Ikea (I've had my original Hemnes bed frame for years) but the US really is one of, if not the most, generous nations on the planet, even ahead of our friends from Sverige.

So you honestly think that drug companies despite being "highest grossing," that they don't need to or would want to make up the difference anywhere they can? Why then, does the pharma industry often oppose legislation to allow US citizens to purchase medications from outside the country? Because it would hurt their bottom line. I get why they wouldn't want it to happen, it isn't cheap to develop a new drug so the downward pressure on pricing has to be made up elsewhere. That elsewhere is the US market. 

I think you're mixing up Sweden with Switzerland in regards to the your neutrality reference... 

 

Also, the idea that selling drugs to counties outside the US not being profitable doesn't make any sense, otherwise why would they be selling them there?