The blank space should say "Spending the taxes for that on a military to defend Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc.
Funding NATO 1. USA $812B 2. UK $72B Ukraine - not a member. I wonder how many people in the USA would be in favor of ceasing all military and financial aid to Ukraine? Is Mr. Sanders for that?
Introduce a bill tomorrow reducing funding for NATO to the same level as the UK and ending aid to Ukraine, and assign those funds to Medicare for All.
We made a promise in Budapest 1994 to defend them if they destroyed their stockpile of nuclear weapons which was #3 in the world. They kept their word, we should keep ours. xoxoxoBruce
Not an argument. The U.S. could have universal healthcare without spending a single extra cent, and would very likely able to do so and spend less. The current U.S. healthcare budget is 2.74 trillion. The U.S. has a population of 332 million. That's just over $8 000 per person for non-universal coverage. Every country with universal coverage spends less per capita than that and their citizens enjoy a longer average lifespan.
There are no "death panels", you can go to whichever damn doctor you wish, private practices still exist. Yes, wait times for certain procedures exist, but they do in the U.S. as well. Wait times are determined by the seriousness of one's medical issue as they are everywhere. In many instances, if you want to pay to "jump the que", you can.
The problem, as usual, is capitalism rearing its ugly head. The for-profit healthcare industry in the U.S. likes their profits just the way they are, thank you very much, and spend a lot of lobbying dollars to make sure it stays that way.
I did not state that we should not honor that agreement. I am bringing awareness to the consequences of such agreements.
Ukraine did not destroy any nuclear weapons. They agreed to destroy the delivery devices (aka missiles) and transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for decommissioning. It is believed that many of those nuclear warheads are unaccounted for.
Most if not all "Western" countries have limited military capabilities due in large part to their reliance on the USA to provide financial or military assistance if needed. Would Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, et. al., be able to provide universal healthcare if they had to provide for an independent military for their defense? Maybe. Let them try? The NDAA is currently up for renewal in Congress and I am not aware of any member of Congress asserting that we stop funding NATO and cut aid to Ukraine, cut back on the military, and use the savings for health care.
I support some form of universal health care, but it ain't free. Cut spending or raise taxes. Until a president or leaders in Congress make an honest and rational proposal to do that and stake their political future on it, the status quo won't change.
That's not how NATO funding works, though... each member state pays to keep up their own military, based on population, to a standard set against GDP (if memory serves). The US goes above and beyond our obligation to NATO. Other countries, not so much. The point is to be able to contribute materiel and personnel in the event of a mutual defense need. The notion that NATO has a "kitty" that different nations contribute to is a fallacy.
I'll never forget when my company "accidentally" cancelled my health insurance. They at least reimbursed me for the cost of the medication I needed for the month it took to get my insurance reinstated, but I had two major procedures that had to be rescheduled that really needed to be done sooner.
And I put "accidentally" in quotes because that was the final story of three they settled on to explain why they cancelled my health insurance. The first being I had requested it (I hadn't) and the second being I had been notified well in advance (I hadn't). The HR lady had the gall to complain to me how expensive it was for them to get me reinstated.
My health insurance chained me to that job, and I still got let down. Universal healthcare is so very needed.
"I believe that marriage is a lasting partnership between one person without health insurance and one person who gets pretty good coverage through work."
I would hope they'd have good healthcare in Australia; have you seen how many plants and animals are trying to kill you down there?!
ReplyDeleteThe blank space should say "Spending the taxes for that on a military to defend Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc.
ReplyDeleteFunding NATO
1. USA $812B
2. UK $72B
Ukraine - not a member. I wonder how many people in the USA would be in favor of ceasing all military and financial aid to Ukraine? Is Mr. Sanders for that?
Introduce a bill tomorrow reducing funding for NATO to the same level as the UK and ending aid to Ukraine, and assign those funds to Medicare for All.
We made a promise in Budapest 1994 to defend them if they destroyed their stockpile of nuclear weapons which was #3 in the world. They kept their word, we should keep ours.
DeletexoxoxoBruce
Not an argument. The U.S. could have universal healthcare without spending a single extra cent, and would very likely able to do so and spend less. The current U.S. healthcare budget is 2.74 trillion. The U.S. has a population of 332 million. That's just over $8 000 per person for non-universal coverage. Every country with universal coverage spends less per capita than that and their citizens enjoy a longer average lifespan.
DeleteThere are no "death panels", you can go to whichever damn doctor you wish, private practices still exist. Yes, wait times for certain procedures exist, but they do in the U.S. as well. Wait times are determined by the seriousness of one's medical issue as they are everywhere. In many instances, if you want to pay to "jump the que", you can.
The problem, as usual, is capitalism rearing its ugly head. The for-profit healthcare industry in the U.S. likes their profits just the way they are, thank you very much, and spend a lot of lobbying dollars to make sure it stays that way.
I did not state that we should not honor that agreement. I am bringing awareness to the consequences of such agreements.
DeleteUkraine did not destroy any nuclear weapons. They agreed to destroy the delivery devices (aka missiles) and transfer all nuclear warheads to Russia for decommissioning. It is believed that many of those nuclear warheads are unaccounted for.
Most if not all "Western" countries have limited military capabilities due in large part to their reliance on the USA to provide financial or military assistance if needed. Would Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, et. al., be able to provide universal healthcare if they had to provide for an independent military for their defense? Maybe. Let them try? The NDAA is currently up for renewal in Congress and I am not aware of any member of Congress asserting that we stop funding NATO and cut aid to Ukraine, cut back on the military, and use the savings for health care.
I support some form of universal health care, but it ain't free. Cut spending or raise taxes. Until a president or leaders in Congress make an honest and rational proposal to do that and stake their political future on it, the status quo won't change.
That's not how NATO funding works, though... each member state pays to keep up their own military, based on population, to a standard set against GDP (if memory serves). The US goes above and beyond our obligation to NATO. Other countries, not so much. The point is to be able to contribute materiel and personnel in the event of a mutual defense need. The notion that NATO has a "kitty" that different nations contribute to is a fallacy.
DeleteKill the AMA and give ourselves most favored nation status for American funded drugs, and we'd have the best and cheapest healthcare in the world.
DeleteI'll never forget when my company "accidentally" cancelled my health insurance. They at least reimbursed me for the cost of the medication I needed for the month it took to get my insurance reinstated, but I had two major procedures that had to be rescheduled that really needed to be done sooner.
ReplyDeleteAnd I put "accidentally" in quotes because that was the final story of three they settled on to explain why they cancelled my health insurance. The first being I had requested it (I hadn't) and the second being I had been notified well in advance (I hadn't). The HR lady had the gall to complain to me how expensive it was for them to get me reinstated.
My health insurance chained me to that job, and I still got let down. Universal healthcare is so very needed.
"I believe that marriage is a lasting partnership between one person without health insurance and one person who gets pretty good coverage through work."
DeleteThe proper translation of "universal healthcare" to US lingo is "medical bankruptcy".
ReplyDeleteOr you could add as the last comparison + in USA - Healthcare
ReplyDelete+ in Australia - Euthanasia