Paying the healthcare costs of obesity

WBB55 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

Also, it is not free. Someone, somehow is paying for it.

Would it be more accurate to say "free-at-the-time-of-services-via-collective-taxes"?

That would certainly be more accurate, if a bit unwieldy.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

moe0303 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.

Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.

It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)

Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.

Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.

Needs=/= human rights. The freedom to take action to fulfill those needs does (as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon as a consequence). When government controls healthcare and denies service based on whatever criteria, that freedom is impeded. The same can be said of the food supply, which has been used in the past by governments to kill millions.

moe0303 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

moe0303 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.

Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.

It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)

Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.

Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.

Needs=/= human rights. The freedom to take action to fulfill those needs does (as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon as a consequence). When government controls healthcare and denies service based on whatever criteria, that freedom is impeded. The same can be said of the food supply, which has been used in the past by governments to kill millions.

That's either a semantic argument (what is a right) or a policy one. Point is there are different ways to understand the term "right" and "something that all humans should be entitled to as a matter of basic human dignity" is one. And in that definition food and basic health care could be considered rights.

I haven't suggested that the gov't should control healthcare, either. Policy is a separate issue, although in my personal policy preference there would be a basic level of care guaranteed (and paid for by the taxpayer), and people can buy more or insurance covering more to their heart's content. My parents have Medicare and a supplemental policy -- it would be like that, perhaps.

But that's really beside the point. The discussion here is can it be appropriate to use the term "right" to refer to something other than a freedom from restriction? Of course it can.

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....

In most of those countries you have to wait one year plus for basic care, so not so sure that there "right" is being realized...

As someone who lived in one of those countries, I've never had to wait that long for care I needed...

When I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes (the most severe health issue I've had other than an emergent situation that occured when I was already in the hospital), I was at the diabetes educator and given a (free) glucometer plus a small starting supply of lancets and test strips within 1 business day.

I have a family doctor and while I can't always get in same day to see him, he works out of a shared practice clinic and I've always been seen by someone within 45 minutes. The few times I've been to emergency I've been seen within 2 hours. When I took my son to emergency because his testicle tripled in size and changed colour we were assessed within 30 minutes and he had an ultrasound to rule out torsion within an hour.

The only time I've had to wait to see a specialist was when my doctor referred my son to rule out any further issues. But it was listed as non urgent on the referral form, and had it been more urgent we would have been seen same day.

Also, none of the above cost me a dime directly. I have no issue with my tax rate--I feel it is fair given that I utilize what my taxes pay for.

In my country, the right to universal healthcare is enshrined in our charter of rights & freedoms, which is part of our constitution.

ndj1979 wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....

In most of those countries you have to wait one year plus for basic care, so not so sure that there "right" is being realized...

As someone who lived in one of those countries, I've never had to wait that long for care I needed...

When I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes (the most severe health issue I've had other than an emergent situation that occured when I was already in the hospital), I was at the diabetes educator and given a (free) glucometer plus a small starting supply of lancets and test strips within 1 business day.

I have a family doctor and while I can't always get in same day to see him, he works out of a shared practice clinic and I've always been seen by someone within 45 minutes. The few times I've been to emergency I've been seen within 2 hours. When I took my son to emergency because his testicle tripled in size and changed colour we were assessed within 30 minutes and he had an ultrasound to rule out torsion within an hour.

The only time I've had to wait to see a specialist was when my doctor referred my son to rule out any further issues. But it was listed as non urgent on the referral form, and had it been more urgent we would have been seen same day.

Also, none of the above cost me a dime directly. I have no issue with my tax rate--I feel it is fair given that I utilize what my taxes pay for.

In my country, the right to universal healthcare is enshrined in our charter of rights & freedoms, which is part of our constitution.

my cousin lives in Italy and he waited a year to have a basic hernia operation and still could not go in, and then had to go and pay a private doctor about 10K for the procedure....

If you don't believe what I am saying go read some of the horror stories coming out of the UK about wait times and hospital conditions...

There are outliers and horror stories from every system. I'm sure not all poor people are dropped off by taxi in front of a shelter instead of treated...but there have been a few.

ndj1979 wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....

In most of those countries you have to wait one year plus for basic care, so not so sure that there "right" is being realized...

As someone who lived in one of those countries, I've never had to wait that long for care I needed...

When I was diagnosed with gestational diabetes (the most severe health issue I've had other than an emergent situation that occured when I was already in the hospital), I was at the diabetes educator and given a (free) glucometer plus a small starting supply of lancets and test strips within 1 business day.

I have a family doctor and while I can't always get in same day to see him, he works out of a shared practice clinic and I've always been seen by someone within 45 minutes. The few times I've been to emergency I've been seen within 2 hours. When I took my son to emergency because his testicle tripled in size and changed colour we were assessed within 30 minutes and he had an ultrasound to rule out torsion within an hour.

The only time I've had to wait to see a specialist was when my doctor referred my son to rule out any further issues. But it was listed as non urgent on the referral form, and had it been more urgent we would have been seen same day.

Also, none of the above cost me a dime directly. I have no issue with my tax rate--I feel it is fair given that I utilize what my taxes pay for.

In my country, the right to universal healthcare is enshrined in our charter of rights & freedoms, which is part of our constitution.

my cousin lives in Italy and he waited a year to have a basic hernia operation and still could not go in, and then had to go and pay a private doctor about 10K for the procedure....

If you don't believe what I am saying go read some of the horror stories coming out of the UK about wait times and hospital conditions...

-Are you implying there are only 2 options? (1) Private health care where only the rich/lucky/disabled/old get care or (2) routinely waiting cruel lengths of time for care in a socialist nightmare?

-Are you using anecdotal instances as evidence to prove your point?

-Are you providing any sources/data for your stance?

WBB55 wrote: »

Goodness knows I'm not holding them up as truly perfect systems, but do you think Medicare and VHA work ok at the Federal level?

Not in the slightest. Have you actually talked to veterans who try to deal with VHA? I live two miles from McGuire Medical in Virginia, and come into contact with a lot of them. Medicare I have less experience with, because I genuinely can't stand interacting with the elderly in a direct manner.

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....

Am I being unclear? I'm sorry about that. Shall I rephrase my statement? Let me try, but please don't get mad or attempt to demean my opinion for reiterating something, ok?

The people, the human beings in these countries with as rich and varied of lives, thoughts, and feelings as you, along with millions of people in this country do in fact feel that medical care is a basic right. I will grant you that not all of the people I've just mentioned are Americans. But many millions of Americans do feel health care is an entitlement owed to citizens. In fact, in the US, for the past 50 years citizens over age 65 have an entitlement to health care. As do prisoners, prisoners of war, children, pregnant women, the disabled.

I suppose there's a semantic argument to be made between right/entitlement/obligation, etc.

Does that help?

what about the millions of people that don't feel that way? Why should they shoulder the burden to pay for this invented right? If all you millions of people want to send the government money to pay for your and others healthcare then go ahead and do it; however, don't expect the rest of us to have to support this utopian ideal with our tax dollars...

What about universal care feels "utopian" to you?

moe0303 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

moe0303 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

moe0303 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

Because these countries have this, it doesn't mean that it is a right. The "right" is the part that was dreamed up.

Many in the US think of rights as inherently "freedoms" (a right vs. the gov't). But there's also a long tradition of seeing them (human rights) as related to what humans need: stuff like the right to be free from hunger. We recognize this to some extent in refusing to permit hospitals to deny emergency care, and so that many people (and entities like the WHO) see basic health care as a right isn't new or outside this tradition.

It's also considered a human right by the Catholic Church: "The Catholic tradition affirms that health care is a basic right flowing from the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Thus, long history in providing health care.)

Not saying anyone needs to agree -- I'm even cool with people taking the position that the only proper way to use right is in the Constitutional "free from" sense (although I don't agree). But it's not just something dreamed up out of the blue for the purposes of this discussion.

Edit: newmeadow is correct that a "right" can be a legal entitlement based on a statute too. That's a common way to use the term (and is legally correct), even in the US.

Needs=/= human rights. The freedom to take action to fulfill those needs does (as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon as a consequence). When government controls healthcare and denies service based on whatever criteria, that freedom is impeded. The same can be said of the food supply, which has been used in the past by governments to kill millions.

That's either a semantic argument (what is a right) or a policy one. Point is there are different ways to understand the term "right" and "something that all humans should be entitled to as a matter of basic human dignity" is one. And in that definition food and basic health care could be considered rights.

I haven't suggested that the gov't should control healthcare, either. Policy is a separate issue, although in my personal policy preference there would be a basic level of care guaranteed (and paid for by the taxpayer), and people can buy more or insurance covering more to their heart's content. My parents have Medicare and a supplemental policy -- it would be like that, perhaps.

But that's really beside the point. The discussion here is can it be appropriate to use the term "right" to refer to something other than a freedom from restriction? Of course it can.

If a "right" requires use of force (or the threat of force) thrust upon another in order to fulfill that "right", I have a hard time agreeing with it regardless of the word chosen to describe that situation.

If you don't support it becoming law, I wouldn't expect YOU to call it a right. (Technically, something that you are statutorily entitled to IS legally a right, whether you support it or not, but I'm not really talking about that.) Point was that if I say I consider it such, that's not just me being whimsical or misusing words.

And, yes, yes, I know. Anything that requires tax dollars = use of force in a libertarian framework.

I don't agree that a basic gov't-supplied (tax dollars, yes) safety net is the use of force. The policy questions that interest me are what should be included and how should the tax burden be allocated.

moe0303 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

WBB55 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sunnybeaches105 wrote: »

The riparian rights discussion is fascinating

You just wanted to write riparian rights, didn't you?

I just wanted to point out that there is such a thing. Rather specialized area of practice even. With actual laws and stuff.

So for property discussions do you prefer the bundle of sticks or Swiss cheese analogy? I personally love Swiss cheese on hamburgers.

It would seem not everyone in this thread agrees there ::should:: be rights to something like that. it isn't 'Murican enough and infringes on their freedom. Or something.

there is a difference between the fundamental right to have ones property and some pie in the sky dreamed up right that everyone somehow has a natural human right to access free healthcare...

Obviously the people in these countries would disagree that it's something "dreamed up":
Norway
New Zealand
Japan
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
Kuwait
Sweden
Bahrain
Brunei
Canada
Netherlands
Austria
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Slovenia
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Portugal
Cyprus
Greece
Spain
South Korea
Iceland
Hong Kong
Singapore
Switzerland
Israel

not sure what any of those countries have to do with the US....

Am I being unclear? I'm sorry about that. Shall I rephrase my statement? Let me try, but please don't get mad or attempt to demean my opinion for reiterating something, ok?

The people, the human beings in these countries with as rich and varied of lives, thoughts, and feelings as you, along with millions of people in this country do in fact feel that medical care is a basic right. I will grant you that not all of the people I've just mentioned are Americans. But many millions of Americans do feel health care is an entitlement owed to citizens. In fact, in the US, for the past 50 years citizens over age 65 have an entitlement to health care. As do prisoners, prisoners of war, children, pregnant women, the disabled.

I suppose there's a semantic argument to be made between right/entitlement/obligation, etc.

Does that help?

what about the millions of people that don't feel that way? Why should they shoulder the burden to pay for this invented right? If all you millions of people want to send the government money to pay for your and others healthcare then go ahead and do it; however, don't expect the rest of us to have to support this utopian ideal with our tax dollars...

Countries with gov't-based healthcare tend to pay a lot less than the US, per capita. Our current system (and the one before ACA too) has the delightful side effect of being extra expensive.

I do see a single payer system as a potential fix for this, but feel that forced participation is immoral. If support is high enough, then it should be able to decrease the cost of healthcare to participants without forcing everybody to participate. If successful, participation will take care of itself without force. Of course, given the typical inefficiency of the government, I'd probably bet against it being successful.

My only problem with this is:

(1) Children. I am not comfortable with parents opting out their children from basic health care coverage; and

(2) What if someone who opts out and otherwise lacks coverage needs care of some sort, particularly emergency care? Our view is that we have to provide it; can't just let the person bleed out or otherwise die, that's immoral (much more so, IMO, than forcing someone to participate in a benefit, which is no different from the fact that a pacifist has to pay taxes for military spending). I think the vast majority of people will need and use care eventually, and I am opposed to allowing freeriding.

Mmm, I suppose I will add (3) why IS the opposition to having gov't supplied health care somehow different in kind than opposing other uses of gov't spending? I didn't support the Iraq War, but my tax dollars went to it, as well as many other things. I have some relatives who are Quaker, they likely would prefer not to support the military at all. Newmeadow talked about her view of various gov't programs, and yet she doesn't get to opt out of them. So on.

moe0303 wrote: »

I do see a single payer system as a potential fix for this, but feel that forced participation is immoral. If support is high enough, then it should be able to decrease the cost of healthcare to participants without forcing everybody to participate. If successful, participation will take care of itself without force. Of course, given the typical inefficiency of the government, I'd probably bet against it being successful.

So, all medical care either comes out of your private pocket OR you agree to pay the "universal care" tax, and then you get to use the single-payer system for free? All private insurance available is now supplemental/in addition to the universal health government plan? No penalty for not joining system.

Does that make everyone (except doctors, hospitals and insurance companies...) happy?

newmeadow wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.

What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?

What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?

These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.

And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.

Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.

Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.

You'd like to hear from active military on whether their jobs should exist? :bigsmile:

kgeyser wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

newmeadow wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

The US COULD have a more affordable health care system if 45% of taxes weren't spent on defense (more than practically all countries spend together on defense). Mind you I'm not saying reduce what we need to do to protect the country as a whole, but when we spend 3 trillion on planes (F35 series) that aren't even finished yet (ongoing delays and overbudget) and likely won't be needed on US soil unless a war comes over here, diverting some of that money instead to a more "user friendly" health care system would help. Hell, even kids would be able to get college education with that money. Of course with the money spent and profited on due to defense cost, that's likely not going to happen.

What about the tax dollars spent on foreign aid, to countries who despise the U.S. and express delight when anything bad happens to us?

What about the tax dollars spent subsidizing non-citizens, who haven't earned or contributed significantly, so they can disproportionately collect perks such as: WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, free doctors' appointments, free hospital services, subsidized childcare, subsidized state run postsecondary education tuition and subsidized utility payments?

These are two examples, and a there are few more I'd like to list, but they're too controversial to be discussed on this thread. I don't know what percentage of the tax pie these examples comprise, but I'd rather see cuts here than cuts to our defense.

And if I've gotten too political in this discussion and broke the rules, let me know and I'll stop gabbing and just lurk.

Almost half our tax dollars go to defense. The rest is doled out in (albeit disproportionally) to what the government see fit to spend on. My point was that we don't NEED to spend 45% on defense. The majority of money isn't even spent on soldiers or servicemen. It's spent on research and development along with over priced cost of attaining weaponry.

Honestly I don't know because I'm not in the military. I'd like to hear from active service men and women though, regarding the bolded quote above.

Based on the 2012 budget numbers, defense accounted for about 19% of the budget.

I'm not active duty, but my husband is, so here's one factor to consider: the military is part of the government, and like most government entities, the money is use it or lose it. If they don't spend all the money in a given fiscal year, the government figures they don't actually need, and gives a smaller budget next year. Once the money is reduced, it's really hard to get it back, because that means arguing with Congress. So even if your department doesn't need the whole budget for a given year, they still find a way to spend it, because if all hell breaks loose the following year, they want to have some money immediately available and not have to wait for congressional approval. Pretty much every government entity I've ever worked with does this.

The military also needs to stay on top on evolving technology, and that not only means weapons, but also engineering and medical advances. Many of the items developed for troops find their way into the civilian world in some format - clothing, outdoor gear, prosthetics, electronics, transportation, etc, so it's not like the spending on defense doesn't also find it's way back to benefiting the civilian population.

Here it is. It is a good post.