| Hiku said: "-CraZed- said: I noticed that there was no punctuation or effort to distinguish between the two claims, as if USA was responsible for both. It was one single sentence and statement. And I didn't say don't worry about where your tax money goes. I said start by focusing on what it does for you first. USA is the only industrialized country in the world where healthcare isn't a human right. And the only one where the government can't negotiate drug prices. It's not a coincidence your healthcare costs have skyrocketed. And while USA has contributed to NATO and the stability in the EU region, drawing a direct correlation between that and what we chose to spend our taxes on is something else... We are on the subject of government spending though. Philanthropy from the private sector is great, but that involves a lot of factors unrelated to government spending. There are a lot of generous wealthy people in the world. But there are also those who are very greedy. The former can offset some of the harm that the latter cause, but they shouldn't have to. You can also attribute USA's high ranking on the list of private donors to USA being a paradise for the rich, which is why many wealthy people move there. We were never on the subject of private donations, but government spending. Individuals can't and shouldn't be expected to match or make up for government spending. And on that note it's ironic how you boast about countries with UHC being reliant on foreign aid (along with military security), and mentioning one certain country being responsible for all of it in the same sentence. Though none of those countries are obviously top beneficiaries from USA, or likely anywhere else really. It's almost as if you think that in many of those countries everyone is still riding around on horses and they just invented the steam boat or something. If not, what made you come up with the idea of being reliant on foreign aid to pay for their healthcare? You're talking about some of the worlds most developed nations and strongest economic powers. What "difference"? You mean compared to the average prices of medicine around the world? The difference comes from them hiking up prices in the US. If these companies commonly top the lists of highest grossing companies each year, they don't have to make up for any losses because they by definition have none. As in they're always in the black in the books at the end of the fiscal year. Not in the red. And that's putting it mildly. P.S. |
I'm not great at the quoting system so I'll have to copy and paste...
"Hiku said:
I noticed that there was no punctuation or effort to distinguish between the two claims, as if USA was responsible for both. It was one single sentence and statement.
Either way, more importantly I noticed that you didn't give any specifics on that subject whatsoever. Who are we (all the countries on the list) receiving all this insane foreign aid from? And how much? And what evidence supports that any of the countries on this list funds their healthcare directly from this?
Why are you doubling down on this absurd notion that we are heavily reliant on foreign aid when we are among the top donors of foreign aid in the world? We would not be sending away billions to developing nations if we didn't have enough to cover ourselves, and then some.
We spend on human rights first. Everyone has a right to live. Everything else comes second."
Here is my original quote verbatim: "Every single country on that list is either subsidized directly through foreign aid or a beneficiary of the unbalanced NATO, NAFTA and UN protections provided by the one country that doesn't have a wholly socialized medical system." I've highlighted the operative words in that statement. I really detest arguing over semantics but in this case it seems necessary, There are multiple attributions in that statement and I am unsure how one would arrive at the conclusion that I said every single country on that list of check boxed countries receives US foreign aid specifically. Again the words either and or qualifies that statement which is why when you brought up Sweden, I mentioned that Sweden's security and well-being as a nation are largely the by-product of a relatively stable geo-politcal climate ensured by NATO and it's largest benefactor, the US and not that Sweden receives any federal foreign aid dollars from the US nor that we were directly funding your healthcare. That was simply not stated nor intended to be inferred.
My assertion is that if many of the countries on that list either (again I'm saying either) didn't receive direct foreign funding from the US, had to shoulder more of the burden of protecting themselves and actually participated in the free exchange of goods instead of hobbling US trade through tariffs and VATs then the socialist policies such as UHC would be untenable.
I'm also unsure how you missed all of the citations I hyperlinked in my posting. It's almost as if you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent my position. Also your graph shows the top 25 countries not all of them that the US gives aid to. And I gave 6 examples of nations on this list https://www.foreignassistance.gov/explore
Actually I supplied 5 and you supplied 1:
Lemme know when you spot it....
"Hiku said:
We are on the subject of government spending though. Philanthropy from the private sector is great, but that involves a lot of factors unrelated to government spending. There are a lot of generous wealthy people in the world. But there are also those who are very greedy. The former can offset some of the harm that the latter cause, but they shouldn't have to. You can also attribute USA's high ranking on the list of private donors to USA being a paradise for the rich, which is why many wealthy people move there.
We were never on the subject of private donations, but government spending. Individuals can't and shouldn't be expected to match or make up for government spending. And on that note it's ironic how you boast about countries with UHC being reliant on foreign aid (along with military security), and mentioning one certain country being responsible for all of it in the same sentence. Though none of those countries are obviously top beneficiaries from USA, or likely anywhere else really."
So is it your assertion that government charity is somehow better or more noble than private charity? How so? Never mind that private charity aid (especially in the US) dwarfs government aid in raw dollar amounts and I would argue in positive results as well. Private charities typically have lower overhead, are directly targeted towards certain goals and don't breed the types of corruption (Clinton Global Initiative notwithstanding) that we see when money is funneled to the host countries through their sometimes corrupt or tyrannical governments. Not to mention that private charities often involve more than just money but also time and personal interaction and volunteerism. I think private charitable giving is rather germane to the subject at hand. As for being offset by greed, is it also your assertion there is no greed in government? And that this greed only offsets private charity? Now that I'd like to see that quantified for sure.
"Hiku said:
What "difference"? You mean compared to the average prices of medicine around the world? The difference comes from them hiking up prices in the US. If these companies commonly top the lists of highest grossing companies each year, they don't have to make up for any losses because they by definition have none. As in they're always in the black in the books at the end of the fiscal year. Not in the red. And that's putting it mildly.
They oppose legislation like that because they can, and because it earns them more money. The pharmaceutical industry "donates" millions to politicians, who then "coincidentally" vote in their favor when these things come up. Take Democrat Cory Booker for example who sided with Republicans on this very issue.
https://theslot.jezebel.com/for-some-reason-cory-booker-and-12-other-dems-killed-a-1791116094
While Republicans are commonly the main offenders in taking corporate donations, plenty of Democrats do as well, and so you have situations like these.
I'm sure the $267.000 he received from the pharmaceutical industry played no part in his vote.
His reasoning was that Canada doesn't have the same regulations for drugs as USA, but that fell on deaf ears as Canada has more strict healthcare regulations than USA does. And he personally voted to weaken healthcare regulations in the US just a few months before that...."
No, the difference in their profit margins. And as I said yes that difference is made up by them hiking up prices in the US. That much we seem to agree on. And part of the reason they do it is because other countries have essential begun price fixing at the expense of the US market. And while I do think that we should be able to purchase pharmaceuticals from other countries I wonder how long said countries would allow that to happen when there is essentially a run the supply of medications in those countries? I'm suspicious that they'd shut it down sooner rather than later.
