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.

 

If Universal Health Care is soooo bad, then why are we paying for such in Afghanistan and Iraq???

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
While we are all so passionately debating Health Care Reform here at home, here's a little something for you to think about:

Countries in blue have some type of universal health care. Countries in green are currently attempting to implement some type of universal health care. Orange countries have universal health coverage provided by United States war funding.


The CIA World Factbook says how appalling the quality of U.S. healthcare is. Our infant mortality rate is around 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the U.K. has a number of around 4.9 deaths per 1000 live births. Regarding life expectancy, Japan, Canada, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany, the U.K., Puerto Rico, and Denmark have a higher life expectancy than the U.S., with all of those countries having a universal healthcare system. In addition, according to the same World Factbook, Iraq has a better death rate for 2009, with a rate of 5.03 compared to 8.38 from the U.S. In other words, the country at “war” with us is quite literally living better. The reason is because the universal health coverage is provided by United States war funding. In laymen’s terms, we’ve provided universal healthcare… but just not for us.
Source.

So if it's such a 'boogeyman', why are we providing Iraqi's and Afghani's with healthcare coverage with U.S. tax dollars and denying it to our own citizens?

From 2004:


Fresh from a two-day weekend visit to Iraq, the Bush administration's top health-care official defended the $950 million that will be spent to help Iraq establish universal health care.

Congressional Democrats have criticized the administration for helping Iraq to establish universal health care without doing the same for U.S. citizens.
Source.

Thoughts?




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


It's a lot easier to give universal health care to a country that just had its previous government taken down. The populations there don't really have much choice. (Talking about Iraq and Afghanistan) I'm sure you see what I mean.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


When a change from a dictatorship to a democracy/republic whatever you want to call it, happens, there is a transition period.

What is their pay structure?
Do they have insurance companies established?
How are medical people paid?
How are hospitals run?
Do the people in these war-torn countries, HAVE money?

Healthcare isn't just plug-n-play. You have to look at how the economic structure is situated. You have to look at their social demographics. Do they have people in place to run a capitalistic healthcare system?

Your post brings up some interesting questions, but life ain't never that easy.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Thank you so much for doing this thread. I honestly had never heard of this but am shocked. We spent $1 trillion dollars to fund another country's health care system. Not to mention several trillion more for the war over all.

It really makes me sick. Additionally, it makes me angry. We invade a country, tear it down, then spend trillions building it up, even providing it with services we do not provide our own citizens. It's just appalling. Not only is America the world police, we're the world's caretaker as well.

We wonder why we're so much in debt and why we can't afford to offer all citizens what we can afford for others.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Because they don't have a health care system to overhaul and completely restructure.

Besides that, up until a few months ago, our Army hospitals were the ones taking care of the Iraqi wounded and a lot of the sick.

If only those who had money got to see the doctor then there would only be a handful of people alive in Iraq.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trams
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


It's a lot easier to give universal health care to a country that just had its previous government taken down. The populations there don't really have much choice. (Talking about Iraq and Afghanistan) I'm sure you see what I mean.


And it's so very generous of the American taxpayer to cough up the dough.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Let me say as a retired person Medicare and my VA bennies are as close as we have to Universal Health Care...

So on this program if I need a new pair of glasses I have to make an appointment at the VA hospital... maybe if I'm lucky they can have me see an eye doc sometime next year... maybe...

Of course right now I don't have to put up with that I can see any doctor I want when I want I just have to pay out of pocket... you know attended to my medical needs when I need them not not whenever the next opening might bee



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Trams
 


You missed the point, we are not providing Universal health care, we are helping to establish Universal health care for those countries! Setting up a system of Universal health care, and this was initiated by the right. You know, the people all up in arms about even the possibility of doing so here at home... Just more proof that the new boss is exactly like the old boss...



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Exactly! We spent just as much money on this as we did on the stimulus package. Where is all of the outrage over this??? At least the stimulus will be spent here at home!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



That's because Iraqis, Afghanis and US prisoners all need healthcare and they are not lazy?

They are all already socialists so its ok!

They are not real Americans and deserve to be punished!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I'll type this louder this time, maybe because the don't have insurance companies.
Maybe because they don't have a stable currency.
Maybe they don't have a stable infrastructure yet?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


OK, I will concede that such a situation calls for providing healthcare until they get on their feet, but establishing the institution of Universal Health Care is something different altogether! Do you see the difference?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Until they get on their feet, how would you provide care to an entire country that has been ravaged by war?
What other type of healthcare could you provide?

Common sense dictates that it would have to be universal. And even then it's a misnomer. Because they aren't paying taxes on it. Probably because they have no money.

It's a third world country right now. It's not like we're fighting a war in Rhode Island.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Not that I'm heartless or anything, but I think it's BS that our tax dollars are going to pay for socialized health (education, power, etc) when a) I never thought we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and b) supposedly they hate us and want us to die, and c) there are places in America like Appalachia or Flint that have third world poverty and those Americans don't have it.

I think that the Carlyle Group and other war profiteer friends of Bush and Cheney should be paying for all these things since they were the ones that wanted the war in the first place and sold it to America as "easy peasy". Mission accomplished!

But...as I pointed out before I don't get to choose where my tax dollars go or they wouldn't have gone to pay for abortions, war, the death penalty, the Department of Homeland Security, and bailing out corporations.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


You're missing my point. We are not trying to establish a privately owned capitalist based system of health care there, but a state run public system, like those here fear so much. That is the difference I am trying to point out here.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Agreed. But we're there now.

And because we are there, and we want to make nice, we do these things. Same thing happened in Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.

And we are still there.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Lets be honest then.

They are not americans.

They don't get to have the superior healthcare system we have.

They are different. Therefore they don't get to have what we get.

I'm not saying I agree with what I just wrote. I'm just trying to rationalize the "why" of it.

To be honest, I really don't know. I'm just guessing here.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
I'll type this louder this time, maybe because the don't have insurance companies.
Maybe because they don't have a stable currency.
Maybe they don't have a stable infrastructure yet?


OK so what is the justification - why do WE HAVE to pay?

Who is forcing us?



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


The "why"?

Dunno.

The rationale? We did it in Japan, Germany.

We break things, then we build them when we win.

Maybe, just maybe our system of healthcare has to germinate in a different environment. The reason we have a different system is because our country developed differently from all others. We had a different infrastructure. A different economic base.

Maybe our type of healthcare system is unique. And maybe that's why everyone comes here for care.

Just a thought. . .



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Is this 1 billion or so we are spending going to repair what we broke in I raq or is it going to fund an entirely new system. Compared to the billions given away to other things 1 billion spent to get the Iraqi healthcare system back on its feet doesnt seem like that much to a Government that wasted 1 trillion on the war and 2 trillion or more on banker bailouts.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join