Discussion in 'Health Care' started by LafayetteBis, Oct 20, 2019.
Damn right it is. Glad to see some folks are still pro choice.
Anyone who objects to spending taxpayer money on healthcare is a selfish bastard who cares nothing about this country. For the simple reason that if you want a happy prosperous country, one of the basic requirements for that is that its citizens are as healthy as possible. Its just common sense.
How much taxpayer money should we spend on healthcare? Is there a limit? Is there a point at which we can say 'you have to start paying yourself'?
At what point can we stop covering this guy?
If theres no limit, we'll all eventually go bankrupt trying to keep morons alive. Then no one will be healthy. So where's the limit?
Yep there's a limit, that's one of the things that needs to be worked out.
US HAS LOWEST LIFE-EXPECTANCY
When the process is in place, from birth, the limit does not become a problem. That is, one's access immediately to medical-care allows one to live a fine lifestyle - unless there is accidental harm involved.
There is not such thing as an "ER" in Europe. Yes, there are wait-lines in some high-population cities, but one is attended to properly. Just two weeks ago, a friend had one of her eye's shut-down. She called an eye-doctor who said she needed immediate surgery. Which she obtained within a few days.
The eye is now repaired and she is well on her way to seeing through it again. All of which is "normal practice" here in France.
As I keep saying, the link between lifespan and national healthcare is real and definitive - which is why Europeans live on average four years more than Americans.
If you don't believe that then see graphic comparison Health Systems Tracker: The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth among comparable countries
Yes,the Democrats promise to provide free healthcare to everyone in the world. Anyone anywhere in the world can travel here, get all their medical care for free - heart transplant, open heart surgery, any medical care no matter how many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs - and then just go back home. They can not be stopped from coming nor made to leave. Every American then gets in line with and behind 7,400,000,000 other people waiting for their free medical care.
The Democratic Party does insist that the WalMart heirs at over $100 billion and Jeff Bezos at about $70 billion are WAY TOO POOR to provide medical care to their employees and instead demand the employees and other blue collar workers pay for everyone's medical insurance.
The Democratic Party's economic plan REALLY is WELFARE FOR THE RICH at the expense of working people and demand the government pay for their employees - meaning demanding YOU finance Jeff Bezos and WalMart employees.
Most Democrats sob at how poor Jeff Bezos, the WalMart heirs and other super rich are.
Bollocks! All of it.
You're feeding off the BS that infests your skulls since birth! Such as, "All is fine in America, we're the Greatest Country on Earth!"
Well, that GCoE has an average lifespan that is four years less than those poor-slobs over in the European Union (which all have a National Healthcare System).
As well, how about the country/countries that have statistically the Highest Poverty levels? See this graphic here. Which country is next-to-last with the highest percentage of people living below the Poverty Threshold? Uncle Sam's!
Eat your heart out! Literally ... !
Really stoopid response!
The NHS (National Healthcare System) hospitals in Europe allow only country nationals in!
You see, we have something called a National Identity Card that one carries for life. Without that card, you get no national-service attention whatsoever? Not even a permit-to-work ...
The graphic you chose is grossly misleading. The whole picture of health care spending can be found here:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...cal year 2015, the,child in the United States.
Why is the graphic misleading? Because it is only looking at discretionary spending and not total spending. Mandatory spending is more than two times greater than discretionary spending and the largest chunk of healthcare spending (Medicare and Medicaid) is in the mandatory spending category. The graphic is deceptive in that it leads to the mis-informed narrative that the military eats up more than half of all tax dollars when it only uses 15.88% of the total Federal budget.
One could honestly make a case that 15.88% of our federal budget is too much to spend to keep us safe in a world where the likes of North Korea and possibly Iran have nuclear weapons and Canada is looming over us like a snow lynx, ready to pounce the moment we let down our guard. but if that is one's attention, then let us talk about real numbers based upon actual real spending and not the mythical 52% based on cherry picking categories.
A FAR BETTER NATION
Deceptive, me arse:
And another thing:
As I never tire of saying: We'd be better off as a nation to reduce drastically DoD-spending and put the money into National Healthcare and Post-secondary education for our kids ... !
Defense spending is 1/6th of the total Federal Government spending budget according to the non-partisan CBO.
Defense spending is not 52% of the total Federal budget. To say that you are talking about 52% discretionary spending leads the gullible to the impression that the Federal Government is spending half of all tax dollars on the military which simply isn't true. Why don't you simply state that the military consumes 100% of the defense budget? It is about as informative as the 52% figure.
Separate names with a comma.