It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I can't imagine not having a national health service funded by taxes.

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: narrator

It is a massive stretch to call healthcare "general welfare", particularly when we have a healthcare system which is primarily expending money of elective procedures and/or procedures brought about by the direct choices of the patient. General Welfare was not a catch-all for the feds to provide things. I could argue food, housing, entertainment, transportation, sex, etc are all "general welfare" issues... yet I can't even write off my rent or grocery bill on my taxes, hell, I can't write off my medical expenses, either, thus... not general welfare issues.


Then what is general welfare, if not healthcare? I agree with some of your list. Entertainment, sex, etc aren't requirements, so I would argue against those. I would also argue that, outside of food, healthcare is at the very top of that list. Housing already is subsidized (somewhat) by the government in the form of shelters, HUD, etc, so that at least has a start. Food: soup kitchens, etc.

We just a big difference in opinion.

To clarify, I think elective procedures should be paid by the individual. If it doesn't directly affect your health, and is purely elective (cosmetic surgery, etc), then the person should fund it themselves.
If something is truly negatively affecting someone's health, I'd be fine if my healthcare taxes went towards making that person well again.




posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Fascinating reading, thanks to all who have replied from nations which don't provide universal healthcare to their citizens.
It really is interesting reading why some folk don't wanna help fellow humans with healthcare.

edit on 9-11-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: clarity



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Just because I was in the military doesn't mean I disagree with you. The military takes up a significant portion of the federal budget, there's no doubt about it. They also do a lot of needless spending, no question.

However, I would argue that protecting the country and it's citizens from hostile foreign threats is the number one thing we should spend money on.

Do we spend too much on foreign aid and defense spending? Imo, Absolutely. But how much is necessary?

In 2008 I was deployed with the United States Marine Corps to Iraq with 1st Mardiv 1st Tank BN. After 7 months patrolling in country, our fuel expenditures totalled approximately 18million USD. Tanks are arguably one of the best deterrents in that northern region of Iraq. Weapons distribution out of and into Syria dropped by roughly 60% during our time patrolling the border. Total mission cost including provisions etc probably totalled 25-30 million. I say probably because I was only directly involved with the fuel report and not total mission directives.

I'm not an expert but any means, but my cost/benefit analysis kinda leans towards worth in that regard.

Granted, this TOTALLY ANECDOTAL evidence... but, it's not unreasonable to assume that this is the case service wide.

Is 30 million USD too much spent on running an entire company of tanks in a foreign country for 7 months? That's 16 tanks and approximately 350 marines along with numerous other fuel and transport vehicles....

All that aside, we cant just cut the military spending to pay for healthcare. It has to come from numerous cuts to numerous programs, and with the American self entitlement that runs rampant amongst every age group...I just dont see it happening... they tried to pay for the ACA with taxes and not cuts. We need to CUT..and MAYBE complement the cuts with a few tax hikes... not completely subsidize healthcare with taxes..

A2D
edit on 9-11-2018 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also Constitutionally mandated. You can't have any of those things if you don't have your health.

Nice sidestep though. You missed my point entirely, intentionally.


Working, exchanging your personal time, only to have your wages go into someone else's pocket to ease their budgeting concerns over health care fulfills the worker's goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how, exactly?


But, where do the taxes to fund the military come from?

If you didn't see my previous post, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm just not understanding your reasoning.


You are not understanding the scale.

Our military funding is close to 800 billion a year. Medicare spending is currently about 700 billion. Medicaid spending is another 560 billion.

It is estimated going full single payer is another 3 TRILLION per year.

All taxes currently collected are about 3.4 Trillion.

Single payor would at a minimum require a doubling of federal taxes. This would destroy the economy.

Combine this with the fact medical costs have risen 8% per year - Do your wages rise 8% a year? NO - not even close.

The problem is costs - feeding more cash or the same amount of cash at a broken system will not fix the system - it will encourage it to continue to grow in cost.


But most people don't bat an eye, and don't notice it in their paycheck, when the military budget goes up every single year.

I completely understand the scale. I know it'd be hard to implement. But, if we cut the military budget in half and reallocate it towards healthcare, we wouldn't have to come up with as much additional taxes.

I recognize it'd be a dramatic change. In this case, I feel change is good.


So cutting military spending in half - which by the way - will cause other costs to go up, such as oil prices and make many parts of the world unsafe would save 400 billion. I agree some cuts may be possible, but not much is wise.

400 billion is 13 percent of Three trillion. You are not understanding the scale.

So even if it was wise to cut that much you still need 2.6 Trillion. Where are you getting that from?

You raise corporate taxes significantly they move overseas. You raise it on the wealthy, they leave, hide it better, and stop spending.

Not to mention you know we are already running a trillion dollar a year deficit- so that 400 billion would not even cut that in half.

If you know you are paying double prices at a specific store - do you continue to go there, or do you find another store?

You can't do that with our medical system - you have no idea what price you are going to be charged till you get the bill. That is illegal - but it is not being enforced. That is our biggest problem.


This is a completely different issue, but I feel that military spending should have no effect on how much oil costs. For that matter, we should move away from fossil fuels completely, or almost completely. The world is fully capable of moving to renewable now, the only reason we haven't is due to greed. The loss of jobs could be offset by folks getting jobs in renewable fields instead. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have moved to automobiles because carriage manufacturers would lose jobs.

I do understand the scale, and I recognize that it would be difficult to implement. But not impossible. It's a big hurdle. But not impossible. Or, maybe implement it at the state level? I'm not an economist, but there are plenty of them who say it could, theoretically, be done, and I have no reason to not believe them.

Bottom line, everyone in the country deserves to have affordable healthcare. We don't currently get that, and because of greed, we would never get it with our current system. Something big has to change.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I have a disease called Meniere's, it is a condition with no cure which results in deafness and permanent lack of balance.


It sounds like you have your parents to thank for that.
Lol, I'll take responsibility for whatever genetic defect I inherited...


Really? But you won't pay for it. How exactly are you taking responsibility for it? By forcing other people to pay your bills? Wow! What a champ!

You know, this is just me but I am perfectly content to blame my parents for my existence and the cruddy genes I inherited from them as a consequence of their faulty thought processes.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
...and now I know 'general welfare' of citizens is actually in the US constitution I'm amazed anyone has some constitutional argument against it.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also Constitutionally mandated. You can't have any of those things if you don't have your health.

Nice sidestep though. You missed my point entirely, intentionally.


Working, exchanging your personal time, only to have your wages go into someone else's pocket to ease their budgeting concerns over health care fulfills the worker's goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how, exactly?


But, where do the taxes to fund the military come from?

If you didn't see my previous post, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm just not understanding your reasoning.


You are not understanding the scale.

Our military funding is close to 800 billion a year. Medicare spending is currently about 700 billion. Medicaid spending is another 560 billion.

It is estimated going full single payer is another 3 TRILLION per year.

All taxes currently collected are about 3.4 Trillion.

Single payor would at a minimum require a doubling of federal taxes. This would destroy the economy.

Combine this with the fact medical costs have risen 8% per year - Do your wages rise 8% a year? NO - not even close.

The problem is costs - feeding more cash or the same amount of cash at a broken system will not fix the system - it will encourage it to continue to grow in cost.


But most people don't bat an eye, and don't notice it in their paycheck, when the military budget goes up every single year.

I completely understand the scale. I know it'd be hard to implement. But, if we cut the military budget in half and reallocate it towards healthcare, we wouldn't have to come up with as much additional taxes.

I recognize it'd be a dramatic change. In this case, I feel change is good.


So cutting military spending in half - which by the way - will cause other costs to go up, such as oil prices and make many parts of the world unsafe would save 400 billion. I agree some cuts may be possible, but not much is wise.

400 billion is 13 percent of Three trillion. You are not understanding the scale.

So even if it was wise to cut that much you still need 2.6 Trillion. Where are you getting that from?

You raise corporate taxes significantly they move overseas. You raise it on the wealthy, they leave, hide it better, and stop spending.

Not to mention you know we are already running a trillion dollar a year deficit- so that 400 billion would not even cut that in half.

If you know you are paying double prices at a specific store - do you continue to go there, or do you find another store?

You can't do that with our medical system - you have no idea what price you are going to be charged till you get the bill. That is illegal - but it is not being enforced. That is our biggest problem.


This is a completely different issue, but I feel that military spending should have no effect on how much oil costs. For that matter, we should move away from fossil fuels completely, or almost completely. The world is fully capable of moving to renewable now, the only reason we haven't is due to greed. The loss of jobs could be offset by folks getting jobs in renewable fields instead. That's akin to saying we shouldn't have moved to automobiles because carriage manufacturers would lose jobs.

I do understand the scale, and I recognize that it would be difficult to implement. But not impossible. It's a big hurdle. But not impossible. Or, maybe implement it at the state level? I'm not an economist, but there are plenty of them who say it could, theoretically, be done, and I have no reason to not believe them.

Bottom line, everyone in the country deserves to have affordable healthcare. We don't currently get that, and because of greed, we would never get it with our current system. Something big has to change.


I will say it again because nobody seems to be getting it.

Every socialized medical system in the world has costs per person that are half or less of the US system.

Without that problem fixed nothing changes.

If anybody thinks our medical industry will just agree to a sudden drop in their income of 50% due to a government mandate you are not thinking.

There will be strikes. People can't go without medical care.

The cost has to be reduced gradually unfortunately. The best way to do that is free market competition. The price will drop more quickly and the medical system will go along with it - because they are doing it to themselves - not because big brother is trying to force them.

Honestly it is all a mute point though - because the public does not even understand this problem - and unless they demand it loudly there is not a chance in hell congress will willingly force cost decreases.
edit on 9-11-2018 by proximo because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2018 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders
I pay my taxes mate, many many tens of thousands over the years, I'm in credit with the UK government.
You seem to want people to die of cancer in the streets, you seem like a monster.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
...and now I know 'general welfare' of citizens is actually in the US constitution I'm amazed anyone has some constitutional argument against it.

Take heart...if the issue were important to Americans, they would make it happen. The status quo indicates that universal health care is no biggie. Their call.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
I'd be fine if my healthcare taxes went towards making that person well again.


We're at an impasse because I would not be fine in that scenario. We're going to have to agree to disagree.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Man thats an awful lot of issues in the words you just wrote

everyone of us is a miracle, its not just your parents meeting, its their parents meeting and so on that all led to you, you are a miracle warts and all

you cant really mean that can you



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
...and now I know 'general welfare' of citizens is actually in the US constitution I'm amazed anyone has some constitutional argument against it.


Well, it's difficult to define what general welfare actually entails. Will the US government buy me a house? Because I mean, shelter is kind of like a general welfare thing right? Clothes? Will they get me clothes? What about food?

A2D



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
...and now I know 'general welfare' of citizens is actually in the US constitution I'm amazed anyone has some constitutional argument against it.


It's General Welfare of the United States as a whole and as a national entity, not as citizens individualy. If it applied to individual citizens (i.e. universal healthcare) then it would have been in the enumerated Bill of Rights along with all the other individual rights.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
Healthcare seems like general welfare to me but again, I don't have a dog in this fight, this thread is all about celebrating the universal healthcare in the UK.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Sounds harsh and callous to me, but not my country so treat your people as # as you like.
I'm glad Britain and pretty much every other developed nation thinks different.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Sounds harsh and callous to me


Life is harsh and callous. Indentured servitude to the government, giving them most of your earnings in exchange for whatever they see fit to give you back while redistributing the rest to ensure support from the pleebs strikes me as being even more harsh and callous.
edit on 9-11-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
Healthcare seems like general welfare to me but again, I don't have a dog in this fight, this thread is all about celebrating the universal healthcare in the UK.


Right, but because "general welfare" isnt constitutionally defined, it's kind of left open to debate whether healthcare is or isnt a part of that clause...

A2D



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Sounds harsh and callous to me


Life is harsh and callous.
Well in the US it is, you let cancer victims lose their homes.
The rest of the world doesn't, even 3rd world nations treat their citizens better, and you are proud of that lol, glad I don't live in such a unique uncaring nation.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: narrator
I'd be fine if my healthcare taxes went towards making that person well again.


We're at an impasse because I would not be fine in that scenario. We're going to have to agree to disagree.


And that's A-ok. I've enjoyed the debate.



posted on Nov, 9 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
It could be constitutionally defined with a two 3rd majority in the house/senate. Anyone arguing otherwise is full of #, but not my country so I won't criticise, I'll just celebrate what I have here.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join