Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible it running forwards.

So we need to set up a healthcare systems that helps me and my kids but is destined to collapse by the time my great grandkids are born? That seems a bit myopic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Let us take a moment of silence in remembrance for all those strawmen Prestor Jon just slaughtered.

Man, if only my to hit rolls were this good in games. To be fair straw men have terrible armor saves.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible it running forwards.

So we need to set up a healthcare systems that helps me and my kids but is destined to collapse by the time my great grandkids are born? That seems a bit myopic.

It will collapse anyway. Or it won't because the system keeps running forwards. So the option is not "If we don't do it, we will be fine", but "We are screwed, so lets just have it"

But to be honest "I won't see the consequences!" has been like the motto that has defined how most humans in the world's history have lived

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible it running forwards.

So we need to set up a healthcare systems that helps me and my kids but is destined to collapse by the time my great grandkids are born? That seems a bit myopic.

I agree it's myopic and disagree with the premise Galas is putting forward: Norway has had universal healthcare for a hundred years. It's not impossible to build a stable system.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible it running forwards.

So we need to set up a healthcare systems that helps me and my kids but is destined to collapse by the time my great grandkids are born? That seems a bit myopic.

I agree it's myopic and disagree with the premise Galas is putting forward: Norway has had universal healthcare for a hundred years. It's not impossible to build a stable system.

When I say the system will colapse I'm not talking about universal healthcare but the actual economical system based in debt and fictional money and value that was stablished after WWII.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.

Spoiler:

It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.

Wow. Even North Korea has free healthcare. And they have basically no economy at all. Dear USA, this is sad. You are having a serious mental issue. Please find a psychiatrist. Regards, the rest of the developed world.
In all seriousness, it is just mindblowing that someone could be against free healthcare. Free. Healthcare. That is like saying you'd be against free ice cream! Everybody wants free ice cream! It is the best thing there is.

Well, lets not call it "free healthcare". because that makes it easy dismiss as crazypants. It's not free, it's socialized.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Well, modern world works with debt. Theres no real reason to use "We can't pay for it" as an argument agaisnt something as universal and "free" (You still pay taxes) healthcare. Debt will never be payed. The system will collapse at some point, thats why most countries know this and they just try to evade it as long as possible it running forwards.

So we need to set up a healthcare systems that helps me and my kids but is destined to collapse by the time my great grandkids are born? That seems a bit myopic.

I agree it's myopic and disagree with the premise Galas is putting forward: Norway has had universal healthcare for a hundred years. It's not impossible to build a stable system.

True it’s certainly possible to set up a successful system in the US. Given the complexities of the issue and the caliber of politician we’ve been sending to Congress these last few decades I doubt our Federal government will be able to create and implement it. I mean how many elections do we need to go through and how much societal change do we need to undertake to get to a point where Congress could produce a national healthcare system that while not the ideal best system is at least a preactical and workable beginning?

When we demand better, I guess. Perhaps if the opioid epidemic kills off enough people, not to be flippant.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.

B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!?
Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!

Spending money we don’t have on aircraft carriers we don’t need is not a great idea. Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

We could slash the military's budget in half and probably provide healthcare to every man, women, and child in the US while having money left over, and a bloated military still. Hell, you could probably provide free college tuition too and still have money left over.

What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.

B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!?
Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!

Spending money we don’t have on aircraft carriers we don’t need is not a great idea. Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

We could slash the military's budget in half and probably provide healthcare to every man, women, and child in the US while having money left over, and a bloated military still. Hell, you could probably provide free college tuition too and still have money left over.

The majority of the $4.1 trillion federal budget is spent on mandatory spending with about 40% being discretionary spending and a little over half of discretionary spending is spent on the military. Social security spending is over $1 trillion. Medicare costs $625 billion and Medicaid spending is another $412 billion.

The entire military spending budget which includes the State Dept, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs totals $889 billion. The Department of Defense base budget is $597 billion with $89billion in additional spending for Overseas Contingency Operations (Wars).

If you eliminated the entire Defense base budget and all the spending on active operations it wouldnt even cover the current cost of Medicare and Medicaid. I fail to see how half of our defense budget that would t even be enough to cover current Medicare expenses would fund healthcare for the entire country with money leftover.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I am almost certain though that the dems are going to run Kanye.

Yeah, I can totally see the democratic base rallying around him.



/eyeroll

I don't think Kanye is an actual Trump supporter I think he's just trying to sell a new album, controversy makes him relevant.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I am almost certain though that the dems are going to run Kanye.

Yeah, I can totally see the democratic base rallying around him.



/eyeroll

I don't think Kanye is an actual Trump supporter I think he's just trying to sell a new album, controversy makes him relevant.

That is exactly what he was doing, he is actually pretty smart when it comes to that crap.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.

B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!?
Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!

Spending money we don’t have on aircraft carriers we don’t need is not a great idea. Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

We could slash the military's budget in half and probably provide healthcare to every man, women, and child in the US while having money left over, and a bloated military still. Hell, you could probably provide free college tuition too and still have money left over.

The majority of the $4.1 trillion federal budget is spent on mandatory spending with about 40% being discretionary spending and a little over half of discretionary spending is spent on the military. Social security spending is over $1 trillion. Medicare costs $625 billion and Medicaid spending is another $412 billion.

The entire military spending budget which includes the State Dept, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs totals $889 billion. The Department of Defense base budget is $597 billion with $89billion in additional spending for Overseas Contingency Operations (Wars).

If you eliminated the entire Defense base budget and all the spending on active operations it wouldnt even cover the current cost of Medicare and Medicaid. I fail to see how half of our defense budget that would t even be enough to cover current Medicare expenses would fund healthcare for the entire country with money leftover.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

And yet, every other first world country provides healthcare for less than the US spends per capita. Just because the US is currently overspends doesn't mean that's what it actually costs.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

And somehow, despite our braying about "American Exceptionalism", we're not able to pull of the logisitical feats Albania was able to handle.

Spoiler:

It is impossible to look at this map and say with any degree of honesty that universal healthcare is not possible economically.

There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k. If the government is going to foot the bill for that treatment we need a revenue stream to pay for it. And that’s just one example of one health condition. I’m not saying that having universal healthcare would be bad or that I don’t want the US to have it but I’ve yet to see a practical plan for paying for it.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/infographics/adv-staggering-cost-of-diabetes.html
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809547

And it would cost pennies in any other country. The word here is "price control".

 BaronIveagh wrote:
What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.

We have no Enemy. The Moon landing was an international dick measuring contest. If people could come up with a scenario where we can rub our success in someone's face, the US would have a great healthcare system.

Prestor Jon wrote:

There are 100 million Americans with diabetes or prediabetes. Average cost of treatment of diabetes over a persons lifetime is $85k.

In The USA. Just keep repeating that. In the USA.

It's interesting that this way of thinking is shown here while we also have the white privilege thread going. One of the points of recognising privilege is realising what you think is "normal". What we have here is an expression that the US way of dealing with something like lifetime care for diabetes is normal and it's the majority of the rest of the world that's weird. When in truth it's the opposite

The US way of dealing with this is not exceptional. It's an anomaly.

What gets me is how pessimistic and, frankly, unpatriotic American 'conservatives' have become.

While American liberals/progressives are the ones whose credo is "Yes we can!", who seem to really believe in their country's greatness, its ability to achieve anything they put their collective will towards, conservatives are cowering in a corner going: "No, no, we can't! It won't work here, even though literally every other non-third-world nation in the world has managed it, somehow here it will just all go wrong and turn us into a dystopian socialist hellhole."

It's pathetic, really. But maybe it's the real reason for all the chest-thumping ultra-nationalism on the American Right these days: to cover over the gaping hole left by the death of faith in their country.

Maybe nationalism is just the rotting corpse of a patriotism that has died of fear and despair.

The core psychology of conservatism is not to like rapid change and we live in an era of change which has only sped up over the past century.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Socialised healthcare and education would be a piece of cake for the world's richest country. The financial logistics would be a breeze. The political will is the roadblock.

B-but what would we do without the aircraft carrier we could build with that money? Don't you know we need that aircraft carrier to protect democracy!?
Why, without that new B-21 bomber we'll be totally defenseless!

Spending money we don’t have on aircraft carriers we don’t need is not a great idea. Spending money we don’t have on healthcare we do need is still running deficits spending money we don’t have which isn’t sustainable in the long run no matter how much good is done with the spending.

We could slash the military's budget in half and probably provide healthcare to every man, women, and child in the US while having money left over, and a bloated military still. Hell, you could probably provide free college tuition too and still have money left over.

The majority of the $4.1 trillion federal budget is spent on mandatory spending with about 40% being discretionary spending and a little over half of discretionary spending is spent on the military. Social security spending is over $1 trillion. Medicare costs $625 billion and Medicaid spending is another $412 billion.

The entire military spending budget which includes the State Dept, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs totals $889 billion. The Department of Defense base budget is $597 billion with $89billion in additional spending for Overseas Contingency Operations (Wars).

If you eliminated the entire Defense base budget and all the spending on active operations it wouldnt even cover the current cost of Medicare and Medicaid. I fail to see how half of our defense budget that would t even be enough to cover current Medicare expenses would fund healthcare for the entire country with money leftover.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

And yet, every other first world country provides healthcare for less than the US spends per capita. Just because the US is currently overspends doesn't mean that's what it actually costs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File%3AOECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg

It’s easy, you copy Norway’s organisation (no need to invent your own), everyone in the USA takes the money they would have given to an insurance company, give 2/3rds to the government and gets to put the remaining 1/3rd in their back pocket. But this is bad, because...communism? /sarcasm

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The core psychology of conservatism is not to like rapid change and we live in an era of change which has only sped up over the past century.

At one point in time I would've said that it is a good thing to have a few good, truly conservative voices in positions of power. . . The ability to move forward should, IMO, be tempered somewhat by someone playing the stick in the mud. . . a sort of nay-sayer/devils advocate kind of role, to ensure that progress isn't just some good idea fairy and this theoretical country turns out about like Greece (wherein they spent far too much in pensions/govt spending, compared to what was being brought in, with a slow/dying economy).


Now. . . I'm honestly not even sure what a "true" conservative would look like. When we use the term in reference to US politics, the term is just as loaded and poisoned as the term "liberal" even though as anyone with an education knows, the US was founded as the most liberal nation on earth. . . Educated people know that there are types and degrees of liberals, etc. etc. I'm not even sure that there are true conservatives in the US, that would legitimately claim, or have outsiders demonstrate that they follow traditional/foundational conservative thought (ie, Burke). But I do know that whatever passes as "conservative" in the US is not good for the country (or anyone else for that matter) and will sadly only be beaten by the one thing they fear the most: education.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, lets not call it "free healthcare". because that makes it easy dismiss as crazypants. It's not free, it's socialized.

You can't say "socialized" - that will make the crazies go; "Socialized = Social = Socialism = Communism = Terrorism".

Saying "Organised Government-founded Healthcare" might work, but then again; "Government = Tyranny = gon take ma guns away"....so......

.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, lets not call it "free healthcare". because that makes it easy dismiss as crazypants. It's not free, it's socialized.

You can't say "socialized" - that will make the crazies go; "Socialized = Social = Socialism = Communism = Terrorism".

Saying "Organised Government-founded Healthcare" might work, but then again; "Government = Tyranny = gon take ma guns away"....so......

.

Affordable Healthcare then!

Oh, wait.

 Duskweaver wrote:
What gets me is how pessimistic and, frankly, unpatriotic American 'conservatives' have become.

While American liberals/progressives are the ones whose credo is "Yes we can!", who seem to really believe in their country's greatness, its ability to achieve anything they put their collective will towards, conservatives are cowering in a corner going: "No, no, we can't! It won't work here, even though literally every other non-third-world nation in the world has managed it, somehow here it will just all go wrong and turn us into a dystopian socialist hellhole."

It's pathetic, really. But maybe it's the real reason for all the chest-thumping ultra-nationalism on the American Right these days: to cover over the gaping hole left by the death of faith in their country.

Maybe nationalism is just the rotting corpse of a patriotism that has died of fear and despair.

Well that's consertatism for you. Hint is in the name. They resist change in a world where change is only constant. And that is why conservatism is by definition doomed to fail and they are wrong.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.

The USA could create a viable healthcare system tomorrow, if it wanted one.

The problem is special interest groups, who make a gak ton of cash out of the status quo, and hence have no reason to change things and will actively resist any changes.

They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Now now, don't fall for the exceptionalism idea here, they kill plenty of the geese in the name of profit, the simple fact being they make more money by wringing every last cent out of the sick and dying. And then they'll let you donate the parts so they can re sell them!

A bit more cynical than I should be, but I've been getting to deal with medical billing these last few weeks. Everything about the billing end of US healthcare is perfectly welcome to go feth itself.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Now now, don't fall for the exceptionalism idea here, they kill plenty of the geese in the name of profit, the simple fact being they make more money by wringing every last cent out of the sick and dying. And then they'll let you donate the parts so they can re sell them!

A bit more cynical than I should be, but I've been getting to deal with medical billing these last few weeks. Everything about the billing end of US healthcare is perfectly welcome to go feth itself.

In the past on this thread, I've often made comparisons between the British Empire and the USA. So let me give American dakka members another comparison.

In the year 1900, during the Boer War, Britain needed to expand its army, so it went on a recruitment drive. And then the gak hit the fan. Why?

Because the health and well being of men turning up at the recruitment stations was appalling. Malnourishment, rickets, illiteracy, disease etc etc

The men were all keen to do their bit for Queen and Empire, but they were totally unsuited to the rigours of army life in their present condition.

Lloyd George famously said they were A3 recruits for an A1 Empire.

Steps were then taken to rectify some of these problems.

So fast forward to USA 2018. Is there nobody in Washington prepared to stand up and say, for the sake of the USA and its superpower status, we need a healthy and educated population, even if for no other reason than a stream of healthy recruits to join our military, fight our wars and defend our interests.

It's very short-sighted planning when you get down to the brass tacks of it.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, lets not call it "free healthcare". because that makes it easy dismiss as crazypants. It's not free, it's socialized.

The whole world knows that except for the right wing nutjobs. The free in free healthcare refers to free at point of use.

If someone tries to argue that it isn't free then ask them how much they pay at the end of their driveway to use the road in front of their house. That road is paid for by taxes (unless it is a private road) and so they don't need to spend any other money when it comes time fir them to drive their car onto it. The road is free at point of use.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The core psychology of conservatism is not to like rapid change and we live in an era of change which has only sped up over the past century.

I find this comment rather wise and insightful from several angles.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
What I find baffling is that the US can put a man on the moon, but not create a viable healthcare system.

We have no Enemy. The Moon landing was an international dick measuring contest. If people could come up with a scenario where we can rub our success in someone's face, the US would have a great healthcare system.

A dick measuring contest in which the US was the only participant, even. Nobody bothered to inform the Soviets that there was supposed to be a race to the Moon. The Soviets did not even have a seriously developed moon program. But if the US would build the world's best healthcare, they could rub it into everyone's face no problem. It would finally lend some credence to those constant claims that the US is "the greatest country in the world".