BF2S Forums National Health Care for the US

m3thod wrote:

Defence.

OK, that still leaves $1 trillion.

SgtHeihn wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Defence.

OK, that still leaves $1 trillion.

Assuming we cut the military altogether.

SgtHeihn wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Defence.

OK, that still leaves $1 trillion.

I wouldn't necessarily go straight for the defense budget's throat because the defense budget actually subsidises a lot of high-tech industry, which is basically one of the main things that keeps America afloat economically and competitively. Completely gutting the defense budget on the surface-reasoning that it's funding wars in the Middle-East could possibly have economical ramifications that are more dire than continuing to wage said wars.

You wouldn't need Medicare or Medicaid if you had a national healthcare system. Not as if they need to sink funding into auxiliary schemes to care for the elderly and vulnerable youth when you have a state-provided health-system; after all, that is one of the intended applications and functions of a socialist healthcare system. It's not just a matter of paying hospital bills and emergency operation fees. Plus, your government has slowly been killing off the Medicaid scheme for years- I'm not sure what the "other health related" schemes are but I find it surprising that there is a +2.9% increase in Medicaid expenditure.

So that's another $700bn dollars funding right into the pot.

Besides, I don't really understand what you're trying to say in this thread. America, one of the most developed and powerful countries in the world, couldn't feasibly scrape together enough nickels and dimes to set-up a national healthcare system? Are you kidding? Many far more impoverished and less-affluent nations have got together a national healthcare system, and not all of them are implicitly hardline socialists / Communists either.

Plus there's lots of hypothetical economic measures your government could do to raise more capital and funding for a healthcare system. For a start they could stop being so charitably lenient on the super-rich in your country and stop giving them tax handouts and refunds. Taxing the rich appropriately and distributing that wealth down the ladder a little bit would probably instantly produce you with more than enough money; you don't need anybody to tell you that your wealth-distribution is grossly iniquitous, and logically this would make sense considering free healthcare aims to help the poor and impoverished more so than the rich CEO's.

That hypothetical may sound abhorrently hardcore-Communist-Leninist-Marxist-Scumbagist to an American but he-ey, you're discussing the possibility of a socialist healthcare system- so you've got to take one step in that direction in order to make ends meet. It's never quite as simple as taking money from one pot and throwing it into the new one, but come on- you're the United States- sort it out!

Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-04 13:04:44)

Uzique wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Defence.

OK, that still leaves $1 trillion.

I wouldn't necessarily go straight for the defense budget's throat because the defense budget actually subsidises a lot of high-tech industry, which is basically one of the main things that keeps America afloat economically and competitively. Completely gutting the defense budget on the surface-reasoning that it's funding wars in the Middle-East could possibly have economical ramifications that are more dire than continuing to wage said wars.

You wouldn't need Medicare or Medicaid if you had a national healthcare system. Not as if they need to sink funding into auxiliary schemes to care for the elderly and vulnerable youth when you have a state-provided health-system; after all, that is one of the intended applications and functions of a socialist healthcare system. It's not just a matter of paying hospital bills and emergency operation fees. Plus, your government has slowly been killing off the Medicaid scheme for years- I'm not sure what the "other health related" schemes are but I find it surprising that there is a +2.9% increase in Medicaid expenditure.

So that's another $700bn dollars funding right into the pot.

Besides, I don't really understand what you're trying to say in this thread. America, one of the most developed and powerful countries in the world, couldn't feasibly scrape together enough nickels and dimes to set-up a national healthcare system? Are you kidding? Many far more impoverished and less-affluent nations have got together a national healthcare system, and not all of them are implicitly hardline socialists / Communists either.

Plus there's lots of hypothetical economic measures your government could do to raise more capital and funding for a healthcare system. For a start they could stop being so charitably lenient on the super-rich in your country and stop giving them tax handouts and refunds. Taxing the rich appropriately and distributing that wealth down the ladder a little bit would probably instantly produce you with more than enough money; you don't need anybody to tell you that your wealth-distribution is grossly iniquitous, and logically this would make sense considering free healthcare aims to help the poor and impoverished more so than the rich CEO's.

That hypothetical may sound abhorrently hardcore-Communist-Leninist-Marxist-Scumbagist to an American but he-ey, you're discussing the possibility of a socialist healthcare system- so you've got to take one step in that direction in order to make ends meet. It's never quite as simple as taking money from one pot and throwing it into the new one, but come on- you're the United States- sort it out!

The national health care system would account for almost 50% of the annual budget, I am saying it is easier for a smaller country to do it, but almost impossible for a county this size.

I was just throwing this out.

You are also talking about a Government that cant balance a budget and has bankrupted Social Security.

And the figures I did were for only 70% of the population.

You pay for it by raising taxes.

jord wrote:

If people didn't have to pay medical bills they would have more money, right? So you can tax them a little more.

And make them save nothing? with food and gas prices rising, you would make the the US starve to death.

War Man wrote:

jord wrote:

If people didn't have to pay medical bills they would have more money, right? So you can tax them a little more.

And make them save nothing? with food and gas prices rising, you would make the the US starve to death.

You mean make people not buy fancy Plasma TV's and cars?


I hardly think people in the US are starving to death or would do, however bad the economic times are.

Some interesting analysis here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer … 53509.aspx

It boils down to this:

So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.  It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If we're going to talk about extending federal health care insurance (as opposed to a full-blown NHS), that's a completely different budgetary discussion (ie, one that is reasonably affordable...unlike a full-blown NHS).

And then there's the underlying issues of increased medical costs due to lack of tort reform...

FEOS wrote:

If we're going to talk about extending federal health care insurance (as opposed to a full-blown NHS), that's a completely different budgetary discussion (ie, one that is reasonably affordable...unlike a full-blown NHS).

And then there's the underlying issues of increased medical costs due to lack of tort reform...

I think evolving the current gov healthcare system to include the uninsured millions is the way to go..and if needed beyond that, plan/do accordingly.  Of course putting some form of basic healthcare in place for some of the uninsured may be an even less expensive start.

You can have a national health care system without meeting the high standard that Canada currently enjoys.

Canada can support 10.6% of the annual budget going towards health care. The US should be able to spend 11% of its GDP. Yeah it is only covering 70% of the population, but it would be the 70% of the population who need it the most. Those with private health insurance aren't going to change any time soon even if this system was introduced.

A trillion US dollars is a lot of money though. It's close to what the war in Iraq has cost from start to present day. It would be very difficult to spend the same amount per capita that Canada has.

SgtHeihn wrote:

10.6% of the annual budget

    * $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
    * $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
    * $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
    * $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
    * $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
    * $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
    * $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
    * $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
    * $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
    * $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
    * $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
    * $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
    * $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
    * $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
    * $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
    * $23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
    * $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government



Where would the money come from for this National Health Care System?

If you take 10.6% of the budget
you can cut
* $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

Equals 15.3%

These programs should be redundant under a universal health care system and these alone account for 15.3% of the budget given your figures

* $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
* $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security

A portion of these programs that deal with healthcare costs would also become redundant, such as the costs for the VA hospitals and medical care of veterans. These expenditures should shift and be covered under a universal healthcare system.

Likewise there should be savings in state run worker compensation systems where the universal health coverage could be applied.

A lot of money that is in the budget is already ear marked for health care expenses and redistribution of the budget could cover a lot of the cost of a universal health care system.