You might want to think again about "free" socialist medicine

Right now that Free Socialist-care is barely non-existent in terms of Federal expenditure.

You are demonstrating your ignorance of actual Discretionary Spending of the Federal Budget. (Meaning the "other-one" that is distinct-and-separate in the Dual Total-Budget and necessary to finance our everlasting Finance Deficit!)

So does the "free" DoD come at a choice? You betcha!

That choice being the usurpation of more than half the total Discretionary Spending of the Federal government! (See that fact amply evident in this pie-chart here!)

Some people on the RabidRight have their vision skewed - if they have any "vision" at all. Uncle Sam can do no wrong for as long as he keeps pumping money into the DoD!?!

Moreover, neither can the wholly incompetent occupant of the White House do anything right. He reduced upper income-taxation in order to finance his bad-joke of a presidential reelection. And the gift-money comes rolling in ... !

 

Average effective taxation is lower, government's share of the economy is lower. I am happy to concede around the margins as my point holds - the European way of doing things is not the only way and you can have a reasonable middle ground.

I'd also point out that while we are a small nation, 60% the population of California, if we were in NATO we'd be the third highest spender on our military as a share of the economy. We punch above our weight and Australian soldiers have a good reputation among our allies, the US included, even if the pencil pushers hold them back.

In many ways the US and Australia are more alike than your other allies.

Also, we you have a trade surplus with us.

 

the road maintenance helps me, although I don't really need government for that. Street lights... lol! I'm a hillbilly dude. My street light is the moon, and sometimes a flashlight.

The problem here is that you're just trying to say that all taxes help everybody, so why not more taxes?

Just no. Your argument sucks, and I still have no reason to go along with it.

 

Sorry, but I guess I'm biased. I think very very poorly of both Australia and New Zealand. I'm man enough to admit.

Still, I think I'd prefer to just pay my own way. I don't trust government, and already think it's far too large for its britches. Just keep the barbarians on the other side of the gates and that's all I need from a government. Honestly, I don't even think it's good for that, but since I am forced to pay tax, the only use I see for the federal government is to build that wall.

 

Statistically you are quite wrong.

Here is a graphic showing comparative longevity of the US versus most European Countries (that have a national healthcare):


So, given the above infographic why would anybody - in their right-mind - want to not pay for a national healthcare system when one of its key-elements is enhanced lifespan?

Otoh, if one thinks that Healthcare has nothing to do with life-expectancy, then the above infographic is meaningless to them ...

 

That's all nice and everything, but that's average life expectancy.

I don't care about other people. I care about me and those I love. That doesn't include a significant portion of those people in your graph.

 

What you are thinking incorrectly is this: If some government service sucks FOR ME, why should it not suck for the rest of the country? Which is kinda-sorta, selfish!

I'll grant you that your lifestyle is your own business. But, I live in a world that has had National Health care for more than half a century. And nobody - really nobody - would give it the boot.

Whyzat? Because lifespan is important to us. Very important! We really like to live longer!

Different strokes for different folks ...

 

The more people who can access health care when they need it without worrying about cost, the healthier your general population will be and the less likely you are of having infectious diseases spread among a poor under-class who cannot afford to prevent it.

 

Yeah, I'm really really selfish. I'm greedy, as well. So yeah, I think not.

Thanks for trying to explain your idea, though. It's basically a communist idea, and I'm just not too keen on communism.

 

Yeah, right. Or rather, wrong!

Because whereas you don't, I do care about people ...

 

That might be a problem for you slickers, what with living cheek to jowl, but I'm cool.

Good luck doing this on a municipal level, though.

 

I cannot understand why this simple logic is not understood by more people in the US.

But, then, I am a Yank who has lived most of his adult life over here in Europe. Believe me - the much-lower-cost National Healthcare and the nearly free Post-secondary Educations are both well-accepted by mostly all Europeans.

Which is why even the ex-Communist countries - when they got the chance to join - they jumped at it. And, their average lifespans have increased accordingly.

One has to be a damn-fool not to see the connection - or, for that matter, not to want it ...

 

Then what's stopping dark blue states like California from just doing that? They don't need the federal government to provide all this wonderful healthcare for their residents. Just... do it. If you're waiting for conservatives like me, all I can say is don't hold your breath.

Just remember, the longer you wait to do it at a local government level, the more lives lost! You do care about lives, don't you? Well then, stop waiting for me because it ain't happening.

 

Then you are, I'm sorry to say, missing the big picture.

 

healthcare should be a 'right' not a privilege nor luxury... that said, costs are well outta hand (especially the big pharma's) which needs to be addressed prior to offering up uhc here in the states...

 

I'm from France. You're right on a point : nothing is free.
"Free healthcare" mean "Free healthcare for the user".
I already discussed with some leftists who wanted "free public transportation", and I always insist to says "Free public transportation for the user". In case, of public transportation, it's better to be precise, because you still need to pay the gas, the driver, to buy the vehicles, none of this is free. I'm against the idea to pretend anything could be simply "free", without being opposed to make some things free for the user. Specify it's for the user is important.

I'm not neutral, because I have congenital health troubles, not the right of thing you can get ridd off. I'm quite happy to live in a country when I was and I'm healed without living in a cardboard under a bridge.

French health system is flawed, it's true, the organism that deal with that has huge deficits.

However, a family physician here cost only around 25 euros, around 27 dollars. A specialist will cost around 50 to 80 euros, which go around 55 dollars to 90 dollars. I heard some people who moved for some years in the US that there a family physician cost around 100 dollars. I already saw how expensive were the hospital bills, and they're clearly making ridiculous margins, charging hundred of dollars for some medicine that should cost around 1 or 2 dollars to buy.

The health system of my country is far to be effective, yes, but you can't pretend that the american one is extremly effective.

Considering taxes, most people there prefer to pay some taxes and be sure to be healed, or to be sure to heal their children at the end.

Where I'm more worried however, is that I consider that the more tasks an organism try to deal with, the more likely it get that they will fail on every of those taxes.

What I mean : A state that try to deal with : education, security, healthcare, justice may be extremly efficient in a prosper period, however, if for any reason they start to fail at dealing with any of those issues, they will start to fail at every of those tasks. Basically, a (financial) failure in education could contaminate to security and healthcare, and end with : poor education, poor healthcare, poor justice and security.

 

We just see things differently. Your big picture is communism, and sorry, but I've been to Cambodia and seen the killing fields.

You can take your big picture and shove it. I know you people for what you are, and want nothing to do with you.

 

Healthcare is a Right. Just like National Defense.

You seem to think that just because the US won WW2 that the DoD was destined to become the largest expenditure of the Federal government. Before WW2 its expenditure was piddling. Nobody saw the need of such a massive expense.

It has since become a Very Bad Habit that is perpetrated because it pleases SOME COMPANIES where their corporate heads make ONE HELLUVA LOTTA MUNEY. Which they then turnaround and give to candidates that promise them in return "healthy Defense expenditures"!

We are being "suckered". The money would be better spend saving/furthering lives than sending our kids of to die in some foreign land (who could not give a damn about the US) ... !

Haven't you-plural noticed the build-up in the Defense budget this past-year. Who has threatened the US with an attack that would require an increase in the budget? Who? WE ARE BEING SUCKERED!

 

What a load of hooey.

 

All I've heard is how giving power to the government so they can control my healthcare is good. That isn't socialism, which is the workers owning the means of production. Taken to its logical conclusion, what is being proposed is communism. Yesterday it was the road outside my house, today, it's my healthcare, and tomorrow, it's me.

Sorry, but it's just a gradual step towards communism, and I am not going to go there an inch at a time. You communists will just have to be communists by yourselves.

 

Funny, my country has had universal healthcare for decades and we are not communists of any kind.

 

You mention Cambodia where a million people died. Strange how you are willing to let your own countrymen die because of a lack of affordable healthcare.

Comparing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to a universal healthcare system is quite extraordinary.

 

Yeah well, good for you. You just gave up on your healthcare, but you'll give up more and more and more. Think about your logic.

Nationalized X is good, therefore X is good.

It's a very simple If then argument, and you will fall for it every time because you don't see the inevitable decline towards complete servitude.

 

Because I understand logic, so I know how these arguments work. Do you?

Oh, and they didn't die. They were killed in cold blood by people who think just like these "government is wonderful!" types. sometimes with shovels, sometimes with bullets. Some were tied to a tree and beaten to death with shovels that were used to dig the mass graves.

That's the inevitable future of what you want.

 

More hooey.