All but 8 Senators vote for 700 billion dollar military spending increase

SpamYouToDeath

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.
15 Year Member
I dont need free shit. I take pride in providing for my family. Some people really do need government assistance and they should be helped.

The problem is, with insurance, this concentrates the risk pool that the government takes on. Health care is only affordable, on average, because most people are healthy. When you try to allocate government aid to just those "in need", you're implicitly taking on the worst cases and allowing the insurance companies to get away with dumping those people.

Also, government services aren't free, they're tax-funded. TANSTAAFL.
 

Lukejaywalker23

Playa' From, Around The Way.,
The problem is, with insurance, this concentrates the risk pool that the government takes on. Health care is only affordable, on average, because most people are healthy. When you try to allocate government aid to just those "in need", you're implicitly taking on the worst cases and allowing the insurance companies to get away with dumping those people.

Also, government services aren't free, they're tax-funded. TANSTAAFL.

The whole medical industry is out of wack. Its gotten to unaffordable for the middle class person to afford health care. Not sure how to make everyone happy but from my perspective the premiums are almost impossible to pay.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
The whole medical industry is out of wack. Its gotten to unaffordable for the middle class person to afford health care. Not sure how to make everyone happy but from my perspective the premiums are almost impossible to pay.

For the average person insurance can be suffocating. The model for insurance revolves around a pool of members, and when some of those members are really sick, everyone has to pick up the slack.

This is essentially socialism, but like, having the government involved is somehow worse for the redstate voters, because like, prolife and abstinence. I don’t know a better system for health insurance than single payer. And the reason people areagainst it is almost as old as the reason why one guy visits the presbyterian church on sundays and his neighbor the evangelical one. It’s just tradition and indoctrination.

Which is why I have a sex cult, where I can indoctrinate people into big orgies while practicing pro-life contraceptive sex, aka anal. It’s not much different than regular church, and as a religious group the property tax is 0.
 

Heinz

Parteizeit
15 Year Member
A universal healthcare system.... I don't understand why the 'leader of the free world' can't get that sorted out.
 

madman

Blame madman, You Know You Want To.,
I had about eight thousand sarcastic replies ready. The truth is, the poorest Americans don't believe that they're poor; they therefore continually vote for policies that harm themselves.
They know they're poor but they're sure they'd be millionaires if it wasn't for blax/Mexicans/muslims/democrats/the govt/taxes or whatever else the Republicans tell them are keeping them down.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
A universal healthcare system.... I don't understand why the 'leader of the free world' can't get that sorted out.

Realistically, we can't afford that or all this retarded military spending. Let alone both.

Just what we spend on social security, medicaid, medicare, and federal pensions alone is more than we could ever possibly afford.
 

StevenK

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023
10 Year Member
Realistically, we can't afford that or all this retarded military spending. Let alone both.

Just what we spend on social security, medicaid, medicare, and federal pensions alone is more than we could ever possibly afford.

Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around £110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.
 

wyo

King of Spammers
10 Year Member
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around £110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

Not a bad deal really, especially when you consider Americans currently spend $3.4 trillion on medical care per year.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around £110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people,

Still worth it.

I don’t want to live next to sick people.
 

K_K

Honourary Irishman.,
20 Year Member
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around £110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

That's what they get for putting so many bases down south in the heat!

The other side to universal health care that I've always wondered is what the variances would be from state to state. I feel like in Texas you'd get a revolver, a bullet, and a bottle of whisky for any long term ailments. While Minnesota would bend over backwards, because they're just too nice.

Though really the fact that each state is like a mini country is a mess anyway. How can a leader lead when their legislation can be made redundant in some state senate somewhere?
 

Lukejaywalker23

Playa' From, Around The Way.,
That's what they get for putting so many bases down south in the heat!

The other side to universal health care that I've always wondered is what the variances would be from state to state. I feel like in Texas you'd get a revolver, a bullet, and a bottle of whisky for any long term ailments. While Minnesota would bend over backwards, because they're just too nice.

Though really the fact that each state is like a mini country is a mess anyway. How can a leader lead when their legislation can be made redundant in some state senate somewhere?
We collect revolvers but we use modern handguns for day to day use.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Our (UK) free to all healthcare system costs around £110bn a year for 60 million people to have full access to. You (USA) have around 5 times as many people, so real guesstimate stuff, a universal health care system of a reasonable standard could cost about $750bn.

It wouldn't surprise me if medicaid and medicare somehow cost more than this already.

I'm not claiming to know anything about this, or why it might be, as this is obviously a complex subject, but it's an interesting starter thought for why america somehow can't afford it or won't do it.

Every country has it's oddities. I remember reading that the US spends more on air conditioning for it's troops than the entire UK defence budget.

Whatever they say it costs is a giant lie. The costs of future payments of socialized programs are almost never accurately accounted for.

The official debt is irrelevant. It's the fiscal gap, which everybody conveniently ignores. The government accounts for these costs differently so they don't include them in the official figures, but the debts are real things which will have to be funded with real money.

As of 2015, by the US government's own figures, the fiscal gap between projected government revenue and the present day value of all the services promised to its citizens (medicare, medicaid, social security, federal pensions, etc) is over 210 trillion dollars.

That's over 20X the official debt.
https://www.kotlikoff.net/sites/default/files/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf

And it's the same case pretty much everywhere else, including the UK. All of these socialized programs are unsustainable in the long term. All of these countries that rely upon them will cripple themselves economically, and a lot of them are making it worse by also engaging in overseas hegemony. Warfare, welfare, and inflation. That's what kills countries.
 
Last edited:

StevenK

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023
10 Year Member
Whatever they say it costs is a giant lie. The costs of future payments of socialized programs are almost never accurately accounted for.

The official debt is irrelevant. It's the fiscal gap, which everybody conveniently ignores. The government accounts for these costs differently so they don't include them in the official figures, but the debts are real things which will have to be funded with real money.

As of 2015, by the US government's own figures, the fiscal gap between projected government revenue and the present day value of all the services promised to its citizens (medicare, medicaid, social security, federal pensions, etc) is over 210 trillion dollars.

That's over 20X the official debt.
https://www.kotlikoff.net/sites/default/files/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf

And it's the same case pretty much everywhere else, including the UK. All of these socialized programs are unsustainable in the long term. All of these countries that rely upon them will cripple themselves economically, and a lot of them are making it worse by also engaging in overseas hegemony. Warfare, welfare, and inflation. That's what kills countries.

If on that basis we assume the NHS numbers are a lie then we have to assume the medicaid and medicair numbers are also a lie, and most likely they're lying in a similar way so the comparison still holds as a talking point.

As for the present value of future promises, the blame will be laid with the opposite of whichever party is in power at the time, when the numbers come home to roost. I mean, is anyone here seriously thinking they're going to be getting a state pension when they retire?
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Insurance is socialism. You buy into a pool with other members. The money used to treat your uncle’s care is taken from your wife’s potential. But everyone has to be playing and paying in order for it to continue.

The difference between having a single payer program with the government and having people buy it themselves is that the shit broke will need to stop biying their drugs and beer and start paying more taxes and display better health.

Not a real problem if my neighbor needs to stop smoking.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Insurance is socialism. You buy into a pool with other members. The money used to treat your uncle’s care is taken from your wife’s potential. But everyone has to be playing and paying in order for it to continue.

The difference between having a single payer program with the government and having people buy it themselves is that the shit broke will need to stop biying their drugs and beer and start paying more taxes and display better health.

Not a real problem if my neighbor needs to stop smoking.

Insurance is voluntary, socialism is at gunpoint. Theoretically, insurance companies compete with each other for the benefit of the consumer. But presently insurance companies basically are in a symbiotic relationship with government, which is fascism, a form of socialism in itself. The solution isn't more socialism, it's less. On the free market insurance companies have to serve the ends of consumers, otherwise they'll lose business. There is no competition in socialism, when the state controls the means of production.

Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.
 

SpamYouToDeath

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.
15 Year Member
Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.

This is a very broad assertion and is unsupported by reality. Countries with universal social health care pay far less than the US does.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Insurance is voluntary, socialism is at gunpoint. Theoretically, insurance companies compete with each other for the benefit of the consumer. But presently insurance companies basically are in a symbiotic relationship with government, which is fascism, a form of socialism in itself. The solution isn't more socialism, it's less. On the free market insurance companies have to serve the ends of consumers, otherwise they'll lose business. There is no competition in socialism, when the state controls the means of production.

Distorting the price structure in the economy always harms the consumer. Usually the poorest first, as it's the rich that get to use the power of the state to distort it in the first place.

If you think your voluntary health insurance is not socialism, then you deserve medicare.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Insurance is socialism. Voluntary or not.

The idea of insurance is also abhorrent to the Ayn Randians of the world.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
If you think your voluntary health insurance is not socialism, then you deserve medicare.
Socialism means the state controls the pricing and means of production. On the free market, prices are set via voluntary exchange and the means of production are privately controlled.

Insurance is socialism. Voluntary or not.

The idea of insurance is also abhorrent to the Ayn Randians of the world.
Socialism is funded by taxation which is involuntary. If you really can't differentiate between people freely spending their own money on products of their choice and being forced to buy things at gunpoint by the state, there isn't a lot I can do for you.

And yet that cunt needed help to pay her medical bills, which she took under a pseudonym.
Who gives a shit what a dead fiction writer thinks?
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
This is a very broad assertion and is unsupported by reality. Countries with universal social health care pay far less than the US does.

Actually, it's incredibly basic microeconomic theory and you can't make apples to oranges comparisons. Even assuming all governments are being honest about health care costs (they aren't), "healthcare" isn't one giant, homogenous product. Different people will have different health care needs based on their individual lifestyles, genetic makeups, locations, etc. And again, saying that the current US health care system comes anywhere close to resembling the free market is straight up retarded.
 

SpamYouToDeath

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.
15 Year Member
Actually, it's incredibly basic microeconomic theory and you can't make apples to oranges comparisons. Even assuming all governments are being honest about health care costs (they aren't), "healthcare" isn't one giant, homogenous product. Different people will have different health care needs based on their individual lifestyles, genetic makeups, locations, etc. And again, saying that the current US health care system comes anywhere close to resembling the free market is straight up retarded.

You're dancing around the issue. Health care is a case where markets obviously don't produce a good outcome. We didn't start out with all these regulations - the market fails over and over, and we keep trying to prop it up. Each time, we do the minimal amount necessary to defer the problem. Each time, we end up with a worse outcome than the countries that just fixed it right away. Those countries which have a single universal risk pool, enforced by their government, pay far less than we do.

More generally, "incredibly basic microeconomic theory" is often wrong. The simple case of "have a market and let everyone compete" is great for making wrenches and screwdrivers. It relies on too many assumptions about human behavior, though, and falls apart under complex pressures.

I had a friend move to the UK recently.
https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-much-pay
We can debate philosophy until we're blue in the face. The simple fact is, social health care works better.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
You're dancing around the issue. Health care is a case where markets obviously don't produce a good outcome. We didn't start out with all these regulations - the market fails over and over, and we keep trying to prop it up. Each time, we do the minimal amount necessary to defer the problem. Each time, we end up with a worse outcome than the countries that just fixed it right away. Those countries which have a single universal risk pool, enforced by their government, pay far less than we do.

More generally, "incredibly basic microeconomic theory" is often wrong. The simple case of "have a market and let everyone compete" is great for making wrenches and screwdrivers. It relies on too many assumptions about human behavior, though, and falls apart under complex pressures.

I had a friend move to the UK recently.
https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-much-pay
We can debate philosophy until we're blue in the face. The simple fact is, social health care works better.

Microeconomic theory is derived from taking axiomatic truths and then spinning out the necessary logical implications.

So say microeconomic theory is "wrong" would be like ssying Euclidean Geometry is wrong. The method of discovering new knowledge in both fields is the same.

You can misinterpret the theory or apply its lessons incorrectly, but microeconomic theory is not wrong. That's like saying you can have round squares.
 
Top