By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - US Universal Healthcare: How are we going to pay for it?

NKAJ on 14 August 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
...

Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would

How about military budget = zero? I see no reason to have one. Britain too.

I disagree. I believe that while your nation has prosperity/stability, you should use the resources on spreading that stability around the world.

I don't believe in the lines of "it's not our war" - forget nations and states - these are just man-made phenomena, and think about humanity as a whole, and think about fighting to improve the lives of civilians around the world - even if they're not your citizens.


yes well america knows a lot about that doesnt it.i find it funny because suprisinglywhile there were plenty of  other places that were in worse situations than iraq,america choose to invade a place that happened to be very rich with oil...



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
NKAJ on 14 August 2009
HappySqurriel said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
...

Well, the Military Budget in the United States was a little over $500 Billion in 2006 and Healthcare costs were $2.2 Trillion in 2007 so I doubt that cutting the Military Budget would have the effect that some (uninformed) people believe it would

How about military budget = zero? I see no reason to have one. Britain too.

A large portion of the security of the world can be directly linked to the United States' Military being so dominant that it acts as a deterrent. Without the United States Military (and NATO's combined military) many nations around the world would be far more willing to engage in acts that lead to wide-spread genocide or war (potentially including chemical, biological and Nuclear weapons) and do damage to the security and stability of the world that would have a negative impact on everyone.

Basically, just because you're mislead to believe that there are no threats anymore does not make it so; and one of the key ways to make these threats a real problem would be to eliminate your military


nevr said there were no threats,but it doesnt mean america has to act like world police all the time.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Kasz216 on 14 August 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Nor reuw?

And I'm not talking about the little things, I'm talking about the bigger things... like the huge effects to the environment from smoking, etc - those are things that should be paid for, not a slightly slower response time from knowing too much.

It's funny how you completely changed the argument. Hell, you didn't even address the rest of my original post.

And what's not paying for these things? If these things go unaccounted for (I mean the big things, like environmental damage), and people suffer from it - EVERYONE, not just the people who used the good/service, isn't that infringing on rights more so? I don't really understand how paying the true cost of something is fascist in any way.

A) Says someone supporting nationilzed healthcare?

Nobody should pay these "true costs" except smokers?   A good way to make everyone pay the "True costs" is to get rid of all socialism.

B) People aren't taxed for roads based on how much they use them, people are charged on 99% of stuff.  Only cigarrettes... because it's easy.

C) If you do do it for everything you create a state based "way to live" and try to economically force people down that road, and poorer people will.  It's as close as you can get to militarily forcing people down that road and it could even lead to that in the future.



SamuelRSmith on 14 August 2009
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Nor reuw?

And I'm not talking about the little things, I'm talking about the bigger things... like the huge effects to the environment from smoking, etc - those are things that should be paid for, not a slightly slower response time from knowing too much.

It's funny how you completely changed the argument. Hell, you didn't even address the rest of my original post.

And what's not paying for these things? If these things go unaccounted for (I mean the big things, like environmental damage), and people suffer from it - EVERYONE, not just the people who used the good/service, isn't that infringing on rights more so? I don't really understand how paying the true cost of something is fascist in any way.

A) Says someone supporting nationilzed healthcare?

Nobody should pay these "true costs" except smokers?   A good way to make everyone pay the "True costs" is to get rid of all socialism.

B) People aren't taxed for roads based on how much they use them, people are charged on 99% of stuff.  Only cigarrettes... because it's easy.

I'm not debating socialism or anything, here, and neither did I say that only smokers should pay these true costs... everyone should on everything, and that is what's going to happen in the future, hell, it's happening now with things like pollution permits and stamp duty.

As for how this applies to health-care (seeing as that what was what the initial topic was about), health-care is slightly different because the net total costs (indirect + direct) is outweighed by the net benefits (indirect + direct) - I don't claim to have the answers, though.



Kasz216 on 14 August 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Nor reuw?

And I'm not talking about the little things, I'm talking about the bigger things... like the huge effects to the environment from smoking, etc - those are things that should be paid for, not a slightly slower response time from knowing too much.

It's funny how you completely changed the argument. Hell, you didn't even address the rest of my original post.

And what's not paying for these things? If these things go unaccounted for (I mean the big things, like environmental damage), and people suffer from it - EVERYONE, not just the people who used the good/service, isn't that infringing on rights more so? I don't really understand how paying the true cost of something is fascist in any way.

A) Says someone supporting nationilzed healthcare?

Nobody should pay these "true costs" except smokers?   A good way to make everyone pay the "True costs" is to get rid of all socialism.

B) People aren't taxed for roads based on how much they use them, people are charged on 99% of stuff.  Only cigarrettes... because it's easy.

I'm not debating socialism or anything, here, and neither did I say that only smokers should pay these true costs... everyone should on everything, and that is what's going to happen in the future, hell, it's happening now with things like pollution permits and stamp duty.

As for how this applies to health-care (seeing as that what was what the initial topic was about), health-care is slightly different because the net total costs (indirect + direct) is outweighed by the net benefits (indirect + direct) - I don't claim to have the answers, though.

You're not.  However your views are certaintly able to be thrown into the discussion when they conflict what you are currently argueing.

The best way to let people pay for the direct costs with healthcare is to... let them pay for their own healthcare. 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 14 August 2009

Oh... and good luck saying the US can pay for universal healthcare when the democrats are giving healthcare industry big deals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

They either don't WANT to control prices. They just want to force people to buy stuff.

 

Note by the way... the Huffington Post despite sounding all super rich snobby is one of the most liberal pieces of media in the US.



JustinUK on 14 August 2009

Just literally went from reading this forum to my usual news website. This was the top story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html



Kasz216 on 14 August 2009
JustinUK said:
Just literally went from reading this forum to my usual news website. This was the top story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

That's actually a bad arguement.

California has that problem because of how liberal their state is....

They've had to axe stuff because well... the government tried to pay for waaay more then it could afford and turned a blind eye to giving medicare treatment to people who didn't even qualify.  Like people who aren't even citizens.


They also hilariously cherry picked the stats... and for example ignored the money spent vs GDP ratio.

things that contribute to life expectancy like murder rates....

survival rates for diseases...

the surprising elderly mortality rate in the UK....



SciFiBoy on 14 August 2009
JustinUK said:
Just literally went from reading this forum to my usual news website. This was the top story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

good article, especially the statistics at the end.



Kasz216 on 14 August 2009
SciFiBoy said:
JustinUK said:
Just literally went from reading this forum to my usual news website. This was the top story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html

good article, especially the statistics at the end.

Not... really... for the reasons I just stated above.

I mean... the life expectancy rate is only 2% off despite the massive differnences in things unrealted to healthcare such as murder rates and prison populations.

States in the US that spend less on Medicare actually get better medicare results.

 

California is one of the bottom 3 when it comes to government run healthcare... because they're so wastefull with their money.  Which is really just a state problem in general.  California is a mess.

 

They raised their government spending to insane degress by raising taxes, and they drove away buisnesses, lost their tax revenue, and now dont' even have enough money to pay the people the government owes money too.

They're giving people IOU's... then expecting those same people to pay taxes... on the IOUS!.

"Here... I owe you $100.  No give me $35"

California is about the worst state you could give as an example because its the perfect example of what people against universal healthcare are afraid of.