2008 = $725 billion in military spending

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by John Scott

He doesn't have a right to anything. He has the ability to pay for better health care, but not a right to it. If he had a right to it, he wouldn't have to pay.

OK, so conversely, Mr. Y doesn't have the right to the same standard of health care. Which means fundamentally that you live and die - literally - by the amount of money that you earn.

[John Scott]

Which means fundamentally that you live and die - literally - by the amount of money that you earn.

You earn and spent, literally, according to the amount you earn and spend.

And poor folk, whether they are poor because they are lazy, or because they are addicted to coke, or some other reason, will always be receiving charity from those who earn their way.

But instead of making it government administered charity, it ought to be privately administered.

[South]

It's the job of the government to handle the military, not personal health care, not retirement plans. That's the system. Why is that so hard to understand? Many of the problems we have are from government involvement in things they have no business or authority to meddle in.

[Brian]

Ah yes... the lovely military...

[kristeejo]

I say we just spend that money on hooker statues

[Dustin07]

forget the statues, lets just spend it on hookers!

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by South

It's the job of the government to handle the military, not personal health care, not retirement plans. That's the system. Why is that so hard to understand?

Its not hard to understand that that's your opinion. But the US government obviously feels that Medicare and whatever else is a requirement of its duty. So obviously that's NOT the system.

Personally I think that the very first duty of a government is the health and welfare of its citizens, security being a part of this. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if total spending on Medical Care is still greater that that of Military spending in the US.

However, the reason I started this thread was to debate about the priorities, given that the US government feels that Medical Care and Military spending are both part of the "system". Is it right to be vastly increasing military spending (up over 60% I believe since Bush II come into office) while reducing health care.

I think its wrong; others clearly believe that its not, I am surprised however to hear that some people think that the government has no duty what-so-ever to supply health care, even to the most needy.

Interesting, but certainly not hard to understand.

[kristeejo]

I actually see where you are coming from jg_v7n. HOWEVER, we have no choice NOW but to spend money on our defense. We are in a pickle.

I love the idea of government healthcare. Take insurance companies and high priced doctors out of the mix and it'll be better for all.

[StupidScript]

With regard to why any government needs to consider a national healthcare system ... it's about the money. Please consider this:

1) Mister X pays taxes, because he earns money and the government wants some, and he has health insurance because anyone who might possibly fall victim to the current healthcare policies of the for-profit hospital industry will literally be financially wiped out if they have only their own money to rely on ... unless you happen to be Bill Gates.

2) Mister Y pays taxes, because even though his income is a tiny fraction of Mister X's the government still wants some, and has no health insurance simply because no health insurance company will grant him a policy ... because when he was 9 years old, he was diagnosed (at a free clinic) with a congenital (inherited from his parents' genes) spinal issue that may or may not affect his life in any meaningful way.

3) Mister Y gets hit by a bus when a skateboarder bumps him into traffic at just the right moment, before skating away ...

Who pays for Mister Y's hospital treatment? Why, Mister X does, and all the rest of us who pay taxes.

What if I don't want my tax money going to the "stupid fat asses" who can't get insurance on their own and get into a true accident that requires immediate, substantial healthcare? Well that's just too bad, because hospitals don't work for free, and someone needs to pay for some of the treatment, so the government allocates money just for these circumstances.

It's either that or let Mister Y die in the street.

Scenario 2: Mister Y (still with no insurance) is unfortunate enough to contract a communicable disease while riding the bus to his job.

Shall we, as a society, allow his disease to progress and propagate because we are unwilling to provide him with treatment? Why, yes we shall. That happens every single day.

So Mister Y doesn't go to a hospital to get early treatment, because while he earns enough to stay off the streets, he still has no health insurance (due to his previously-mentioned not-his-control circumstance), and he waits ... and he waits .... and he gets sicker, and sicker, until finally he collapses unconscious at that same bus stop where he narrowly avoided getting hit by a bus.

Rather than allow traffic to drive over his comatose body, a passerby hoists him onto the sidewalk unti the paramedica can pick him up. (Fortunately, paramedics don't ask for proof of insurance ... they are paid by our taxes to provide this free acute service.) Now we've got a critically contagious individual being handled by people who wil be passing on the disease, and he is being brought into the emergency room for some extremely expensive, relatively long-term care. Of course, the emergency room personnel are now also exposed, because nobody knows this guy has the communicable disease.

Who pays for that emergency room treatment? Us taxpayers, because the economic costs (not to mention the impact on society of having a disease bearer wandering around in public for far too long) of NOT paying for his treatment are far too extensive.

We may now have many dozens of additional individuals who will need treatment simply because Mister Y could not afford to see a doctor who would have contained him at an earlier stage in his disease.

I could go on, but preventive medicine has the highest benefit both to the individual and to society when compared to waiting until emergency treatment is needed.

The government should fund a national healthcare program for everyone, using everyone's taxes and placing rigid controls on pricing, because when a society has expended all of their money dealing with emergencies that could have been prevented, everyone in that society suffers, monetarily, health-wise or both.

It's a no-brainer. And jg is right: Your odds of being involved in a terrorist attack are too small to consider when compared to your odds of suffering a major health emergency during your lifetime ... and if you think an unthinkably large defense budget has any positive impact on that fact whatsoever, you've been smoking too much Bush.

The reaons why any government cuts support for healthcare and education in favor of "defense"? A stupid, unhealthy constituency is too worried about their own situation and too ignorant of the larger picture to pose any challenge to that government. Sick, poor and dumb. That's the way a totalitarian government likes its citizens.

[jg_v7n]

My experience of Private Health care (in Brazil) is this; People pay a monthly fee (those that can afford it that it), and they want value for money, so they go to the doctor. A lot.

Any ailment, misgiving, doubt, scratch, bump or headache is reason for a visit to the doctor, who of course bills the insurance company who puts up the premium. And so who wins? The doctor and the insurance company. They have lots of business and lots of money. The service I admit is first rate - but my premium here is 1/5th of the national monthly salary!! 1/5th!! And I pay for the basic service (as I have no plans to die soon). Imagine paying 1/5th of everything you earn to cover medical insurance.

So because I can afford it I get first rate treatment, and half of the country gets a terrible service, literally queuing down the street. While I have no doubt that the figures are different in the US, the same generalisations must apply.

The whole system is simply focused towards making money. Health care should surely be about providing for the needs of those who need it - not those that can afford it. Those that can afford it have an overabundance of care when and how they want it, while those less fortunate suffer.

Personally I think that its unjust. But then I guess that there are an awful lot of people that think that the 100 million people or so who live in abject poverty here "deserve it" for being lazy and not working hard enough. Tough luck for them hey.

[StupidScript]

While I have no doubt that its different in the US

It's not really any different, here, jg.

Over the past several months I have discovered: My Tier 3 (of 5) health plan (the cost for which I split with my employer) does not cover an annual preventive care examination (i.e. blood pressure, blood work, very basic testing, etc.), and when I dislocated my shoulder skiing, I had to wait in the emergency room for over 5 hours before getting treatment while literally dozens of people without health insurance waited much, much longer ... some had been there since early morning, and I arrived near 5PM. And then I got the bill ... out of $7,000 (!) that the emergency room billed the insurance company, and the $4,000 (!) the doctor who took 8 minutes to re-locate my shoulder billed the insurance company, I was responsible for over $6,000 dollars ... and my policy clearly states that I would be responsible for a maximum of $2,500 dollars per year, but the insurance company decreed that a skiing accident was no accident, I CHOSE to get injured by engaging in risky activities (also classified as "risky", by the way: riding the bus instead of driving), so they were only required to pay the most basic charges.

The insurance company suggested that a dislocated shoulder in the late afternoon on a Sunday should have been admitted in the "regular" hospital, not the emergency room ... even though there wasn't an open "regular" hospital within a 4 hour drive of where my injury occurred. The hospital I was taken to (by paramedics, no charge) was the only one around, and its "regular" doors closed at 3PM on weekends.

I know, I know ... I should have simply hired a helicopter to take me to my private physician and done a few days in his premium care.

It's truly a shame. Without a standardized health care system, it's all about how much money can be taken, and that means that even people with insurance are stratified beyond belief.

<edit>
Before anyone get on me about how I should have gotten better insurance, my provider is Blue Cross and I am in no way near the bottom of their policy offerings. Blue Cross is one of the largest and most well-established insurance companies in the world.
</edit>

[Dustin07]

I love the idea of government healthcare. Take insurance companies and high priced doctors out of the mix and it'll be better for all.

I don't think it would work that well. I'm reminded of the old legend of the $4000 screwdriver sold to NASA.

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by Dustin07

I don't think it would work that well. I'm reminded of the old legend of the $4000 screwdriver sold to NASA.

Why? It works in other countries, and given that the US has the largest economy in the world, it makes them well placed for such a system given that there are so many people to pay into the pot.

And before you dispute that they also therefore have more people to care for it is a well known economic fact that all things being equal a larger economy is better than a smaller one. Simply having a large economy makes such a system more effective.

Given also the strength of the US economy, it seems strange that health care has to suffer.

[micksss]

Originally Posted by jg_v7n

The chance of you being killed or injured due to terrorism is next to zero. The chance of you getting some form of cancer in your life, is closer to 1 in 10. Where should the money be spent?

You have a better chance of getting struck by lighting.

[zcoder]

But if the goverment is paying the bill to the doctor, will he do his
best? after all, he will get paid no matter what. and if he does something
stupid and mess's you up, can you sue him?, which would cost the tax
payer?

Alot of crap would have to be solved in alot of areas to insure that you get
the best, with no decline in services.

Zcoder....

[jg_v7n]

Originally Posted by zcoder

But if the goverment is paying the bill to the doctor, will he do his
best? after all, he will get paid no matter what. and if he does something
stupid and mess's you up, can you sue him?, which would cost the tax
payer?

Alot of crap would have to be solved in alot of areas to insure that you get
the best, with no decline in services.

Zcoder....

You still have competition. People can choose which doctor they see or which hospital they use. The doctor or hospital needs to be performing well in order that patients use the service and therefore the service gets paid.

[South]

I can't speak for other countries, but I've observed this one enough to understand this. Anything the government funds it feels the need to regulate. Anything the government regulates it turns into an unmanageable cluster fu*k. Take a glance at any government managed entity. It will be almost without exception extremely misfunded and completely underacheiving.

Public education - Gazzillions of dollars going into a program that manages to use every dime, yet can't seem to produce a decent wage for teachers, and is mandated by the government to set rules by the lowest denominator of the student population which forces every student to be guided by rules and policy that make it nearly impossible to perform the single duty the school is meant to perform.

Taxation - Set up intentionally to be confusing enough to ward off any mass critisism and is headed by a govt group that conducts themselves like common schoolyard bullies with the people who pay the taxes to support it.

Welfare - Set up as a temporary system of help and has spun so far out of control that instead of giving citizens a leg up, it has managed to produce generations of professional welfare recipients, taking away all human dignity of those who depend on it without needing it, and caused generations of children birthed for profit without the benefit of a loving family. Nearly 70% of black children in America are born without the benefit of a live-in father, and sadly in many cases without a devoted mother. So increases crime, and we have a nation with prisons literally bursting at the seams with black males who were raised without any daily example of manhood to latch to in the home. A recent study showed that when interviewed, less than 1% of imprisoned males held any fond thoughts of thier fathers, if they had knowledge of thier father at all. The welfare system is 100% to blame for this.

I could go on and on, but the point is simple. Do I want national healthcare regulated by this organization? I'm gonna go with no on that.

The government has a job. When it sticks to that it does OK. Every time it tries to handle things it wasn't designed to handle it becomes a harmful, bureaucratic nightmare, and nothing good can come from it.