Constitutional argument - public healthcare is protected right

And if your confidence were currency, that might mean something. But I don't see what that confidence is actually based in.

What is "nonsense spending," exactly, and how much does cutting it add up to? And what is the cost of the program you're suggesting? And how much does it grow over time? These aren't stonewalls, these are important questions.

There's a reason people (politicians in particular) use vague references like "wasteful programs" and "cleaning up inefficiencies" to explain how they'll pay for things: because they're non-specific. It allows them to promise programs without having to justify new spending, even though the cost is virtually never offset by these marginal changes.

You're not paying for new entitlements by trimming fat. The math just isn't there.

As a rule expenses which I don't consider a direct survival necessity, or something people could easily afford without subsidization, are ones I consider on the frivolous side. I used the USPS as an example, and I generally favor privatization of non-necessary expenses. Healthcare however is necessary just to live, go to work, etc - so I consider it survival related.

There are lots of areas we could cut, or raise taxes to offset the costs (e.x. I'd be fine with unhealthy food being heavily taxed if it increases the likelihood of people needing medical care), not to mention ways the govt could work to bring the current costs of healthcare down. Even without all the specifics I see it as totally feasible rather than insurmountable as it's being made out to be.

Not to mention I'm definitely in favor of tougher stances on illegal immigration (as well as repealing automatic citizenship on birth) to discourage illegals from coming here and adding to our healthcare costs - this just gives you an idea of the wide variety of policies which come into play in reducing costs - it's not as simple as just 'raising taxes'.

What you're arguing about how providing healthcare will make people stronger for national defense, can be applied on a much more general scale too, I think. Greater healthcare means a healthier work force, which will mean greater number of workers and productivity within jobs, which has a knock on effect and helps the economy, so in the long term these external benefits outweigh the initial costs of providing the healthcare. In a free market people wouldn't pay for others healthcare because they don't see it as a direct benefit to them, failing to account for the true social gain of it, they'll have better services, products, more money will eventually be generated in the country that they'll gain from in a variety of ways, including a better equipped national defense in your argument.

__________________

There are so, so many ways in which this comparison is invalid. But I'll stick to three:

First, fire and police services are way way WAY less expensive than healthcare. Like, insanely so. Healthcare is a fifth of the economy.

Second, fire and police services are local, not Federal, so they are more directly accountable (and malleable) to the people in any given area. Federal mandates are one-size-fits-all.

Third, police and fire are not entitlements. Paying for them does not involve the assertion of any right or an expansion of governmental power, the way a Federal mandate does.

And a bonus fourth objection: the fact that people get used to situations cuts both ways. People would (and in some countries, have) get used to socialized medicine, too. And they would whether it was a particularly good idea or not. Which is more reason to fight it at its inception, not less: because entitlement programs have a long, perfect record of becoming entrenched and nearly impossible to repeal (and highly difficult to meaningfully reform).

Not to mention, people not paying for insurance premiums, or high costs of medical bills means more income in their pockets to spend in other areas.

Many medical expenses are tax deductible as it is, so this leaves people with more taxable revenue.

My point is that you seeing it as "totally feasible" is just a guess. A guess that is conspicuously (and tellingly) devoid of specific numbers. And one that, frankly, suggests a pretty major misunderstanding about how big entitlements are, and how they compound in size and cost over time.

The problem here is that lots of people who argue for these sorts of things just handwave the details away. They just see big numbers and assume someone else will figure out how to make it line up. But it doesn't line up. Entitlements are huge. They dwarf basically everything else, and they're only growing. This is not some incidental point that can be brushed off with vague references or the completely faith-based assertion that there's probably enough money if you cut some general category of (conspicuously ill-defined) programs.

This is absolutely terrible economics, dude. Every dollar spent to pay for the program is a dollar they don't have, so people don't have "more income in their pockets" at all. And since overhead is never zero, the amount removed is always more than the amount saved.

This is why where the money comes from is important, and not some incidental detail: because people always turn around and argue something like this, which only works if you pretend these programs appear out of thin air and cost nothing.

No, it would just be a 're distribution of costs' - as I mentioned in an alternative proposal, the universal coverage wouldn't completely extend to the top earners - it would simply guarantee, say, that annual costs never exceed more than 5% of a person's income.

Then it wouldn't put more money into the economy, as you just argued.

This seems incredibly difficult to quantify. What hard evidence do we have that suggests the "external benefits outweigh the initial costs"? And, more specifically, if this is true, what stops private business from recognizing it and factoring it into employee compensation?

The argument for public spending is, as you indicated earlier, something for which benefits the common good and for which there isn't any mechanism to spur people to bring it about themselves, so that last question is particularly important.

There's no real hard evidence that I'm using here, it just seems like a common sense theory that healthcare available at a lower cost for everyone = stronger workforce, greater productivity and profits for companies, more people being employed etc.

And private businesses might recognise it, I'm not sure how it works in America, but don't companies provide their employees with healthcare schemes? Otherwise, a basic level of healthcare for everyone would fail to be provided because the costs are too long term and apply for a variety of things, not just work in a specific job, a healthier work force would be something that would develop over a larger period of time and they wouldn't expect greater results, there's also not a guarantee that these workers will be working for them for long enough, also what about those unemployed and struggling for jobs, companies are unlikely to want to fork out high initial costs for them in return for work, it's not a short term solution but more a long term economic one.

I never really got a response on how you expect taxes to pay for this

__________________

Just to kind of clear the air, The Iraq war totaled- off liberal estimates from Brown university- just over 1.1 trillion in its 7 year period. This idea of universal health care would cost 3-4 trillion dollars per year

Probably an exaggerated figure - but that's roughly the same as we spent in 2014. Even if we doubled our annual spending (which I doubt we'd have to do) it'd be feasible.

Social security would be the biggest area to cut if anything - not to mention there would be overlap. The govt can also start manufacturing healthcare supplies directly at a lower cost rather than relying on the inflated prices of private competitors.

Most likely, targeting catastrophic incidents, as well as price reduction rather than complete elimination like in the European nations is the best bet.

Not to mention, discouraging the financially irresponsible from producing children they can't afford, as well as illegal immigration, would also help.

What about the moral cost?

This is how ISIS develops... Someone who was a child years ago who lost their entire family with "collateral damage" want revenge. The U.S. also funded Al-Qaeda in the 80's because Russia was "such a threat"

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I don't understand that argument - that's probably not the best argument to use in a discussion about spending for healthcare. Using a scary "what if someone becomes a terrorist because they're angry about their family not getting healthcare" sounds way too emotional and rhetorical for this discussion.

I am not for us getting involved with every country's issues and I understand people's frustrations in a lot of ways. Surely we are not going to act like the middle east is war torn and that extreme sects rise up because of US involvement? That is showing no awareness of history at all.

I am not even disagreeing with you about the moral cost. I am against military involvement in these situations then not. I would be a fool not to think that oil is our underlying motivation in most things middle east.

__________________
Letterboxd

Aside from moral cost, you can't be serious about history... Shah of Iran, the CIA killed Mossadeq. They also hired Saddam, a thug back then to kill Karim Abdul Kassim because of his warming ties with the USSR, and when he couldn't, not only did they help him get to Egypt, but they (CIA) ended up killing him... The government talks big about rights, but they support Saudi Arabia and Israel.

This is all public, just like so much of history when it's too late. For example, in a few years there should be some information about JFK coming out of the archives. They close the information (and probably not the most important) for 75 years so that anyone who was alive back then won't have an impact.

The middle east has been having these same problems before the US even existed. Should we keep our nose out more often? Sure. Did we create these extremist cells by our involvement? No. Its about power and opportunity.

I'm confused now - are we talking about the 'moral cost of war' or about the 'moral cost of not providing healthcare'?