What is the SDN opinion on Single Payer Health Care?

[Cadaverous]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Comparing the cost, ease, and effectiveness of implementing a completely socialized healthcare system in America to other countries a fraction of our size with completely different budgets and priorities is no better of an argument than mine. I'm simply saying the government is highly inefficient and the "reports and estimates" of Bernie's healthcare plan costs are probably a fraction of what it would actually cost.

We need policy that makes American healthcare better, not policy that makes American healthcare more like other countries' healthcare. There are vast differences in American vs. European culture, which are likely affecting healthcare costs and outcomes more than the actual system. I would argue America's obesity and opioid pandemic are just as important as healthcare reform and likely contributing factors to our "broken" system.

And if there is no doctor shortage then I should mark the AAMC as spam b/c I get a new email every month about it.

Got something better than the five points Windom Earle posted above that outline the social and economic benefits of adopting such a system? If so, I'd love to hear it. Nothing easier than poking holes in someone else's plan, and nothing harder than original thought. (Edited for grammar)

 

[goatmed]

Comparing the cost, ease, and effectiveness of implementing a completely socialized healthcare system in America to other countries a fraction of our size with completely different budgets and priorities is no better of an argument than mine. I'm simply saying the government is highly inefficient and the "reports and estimates" of Bernie's healthcare plan costs are probably a fraction of what it would actually cost.

Can you please clarify how the priorities of healthcare in the United States are or should be different from those of Germany, Italy, etc. or how the larger scale precludes a similar system? I thought we were all trying to make people able to access healthcare and reap its outcomes.

We need policy that makes American healthcare better, not policy that makes American healthcare more like other countries' healthcare.

There are many measures, all of them not quite complete, of measuring the quality of a healthcare system. I'd argue we're not doing a great job in outcomes or in coverage, especially given how much we spend. If we are to take those measures as indicative of "better healthcare," making the U.S. more like other countries would indeed be "better healthcare." My point in suggesting "more like other countries' healthcare" was that these governments have tried different versions of varying success to address the issue of delivering healthcare to their constituents, but that all of those versions are cheaper and offer more widespread coverage than our own. To quote Jerry Seinfeld, sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.

(source)

There are vast differences in American vs. European culture, which are likely affecting healthcare costs and outcomes more than the actual system. I would argue America's obesity and opioid pandemic are just as important as healthcare reform and likely contributing factors to our "broken" system.

Surely the presence of health issues not so prevalent in our European neighbors make for worse outcomes, too. 10% of citizens not receiving healthcare outside of the ER does not help at all and correlates with higher mortality (source.) While single payer wouldn't magically solve our opioid epidemic or obesity, it would certainly help us manage those with actual care rather than total neglect.

And if there is no doctor shortage then I should mark the AAMC as spam b/c I get a new email every month about it.

Yeah AAMC does do that. And there's a side to the issue other than that of the AAMC. Some, like the Institute of Medicine, argue that the incorporation of allied health professionals will cancel out the shortage and yet others that the shortage isn't a national isssue but an issue in areas less desirable for doctors. But again, off topic to this thread.

 

[Dr. Snow]

Can you please clarify how the priorities of healthcare in the United States are or should be different from those of Germany, Italy, etc. or how the larger scale precludes a similar system? I thought we were all trying to make people able to access healthcare and reap its outcomes.

Other countries spend more money on social services than the U.S.
More money can be allocated to social services and government programs when you don't have to spend it on various other things such as the military. If our military didn't spend so much then we could probably afford more government programs that help the less fortunate. But at the same time, **** could hit the fan real quick if we started neglecting military spending.

While we may be able to "reap the outcomes" of increasing healthcare accessibility, we will lose somewhere else.

I would love to have cheap, quality, and accessible healthcare. Throw in free college and higher minimum wages while we are at it. Of course these all sound great but the money has to come from somewhere. The U.S. is 20 trillion in debt and continually increasing government spending isn't the answer to our problems.

 

[goatmed]

Other countries spend more money on social services than the U.S.
More money can be allocated to social services and government programs when you don't have to spend it on various other things such as the military. If our military didn't spend so much then we could probably afford more government programs that help the less fortunate. But at the same time, **** could hit the fan real quick if we started neglecting military spending.

While we may be able to "reap the outcomes" of increasing healthcare accessibility, we will lose somewhere else.

I would love to have cheap, quality, and accessible healthcare. Throw in free college and higher minimum wages while we are at it. Of course these all sound great but the money has to come from somewhere. The U.S. is 20 trillion in debt and continually increasing government spending isn't the answer to our problems.

But they're spending less than us per capita on it. If our healthcare was similarly structured, a fraction of the money you spend on premiums currently would be going to whatever form that system takes in exchange of services. Heck, imagine what the NHS in the UK would be like if they spent 238% per person of what they presetly do into healthcare (as we do currently.)

In fact, only Norway, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg spent more public money on healthcare than us in 2010. This means that, while we weren't offering single payer healthcare, unlike many of these countries, and over 10% of our population had no insurance, public or private, they were spending less than us.

 

[Spectar]

Other countries spend more money on social services than the U.S.
More money can be allocated to social services and government programs when you don't have to spend it on various other things such as the military. If our military didn't spend so much then we could probably afford more government programs that help the less fortunate. But at the same time, **** could hit the fan real quick if we started neglecting military spending.

While we may be able to "reap the outcomes" of increasing healthcare accessibility, we will lose somewhere else.

I would love to have cheap, quality, and accessible healthcare. Throw in free college and higher minimum wages while we are at it. Of course these all sound great but the money has to come from somewhere. The U.S. is 20 trillion in debt and continually increasing government spending isn't the answer to our problems.

There is actually much belief by world famous economists that the US debt doesn't even mean that much, it's really just a talking point.

 

[Med Ed]

Comparing the cost, ease, and effectiveness of implementing a completely socialized healthcare system in America to other countries a fraction of our size with completely different budgets and priorities is no better of an argument than mine. I'm simply saying the government is highly inefficient and the "reports and estimates" of Bernie's healthcare plan costs are probably a fraction of what it would actually cost.

We need policy that makes American healthcare better, not policy that makes American healthcare more like other countries' healthcare. There are vast differences in American vs. European culture, which are likely affecting healthcare costs and outcomes more than the actual system. I would argue America's obesity and opioid pandemic are just as important as healthcare reform and likely contributing factors to our "broken" system.

And if there is no doctor shortage then I should mark the AAMC as spam b/c I get a new email every month about it.

Specious.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

Single-payer is a very rare thing in the world. Most countries have a mix of payers, even in those nations with universal coverage. I'm a fan of the German model of compulsory insurance on a marketplace that has a mix of for-profit and non-profit options, as well as government coverage for citizens making under a certain amount that is free.

The argument for single payer is that the government would have more power to demand lower medical costs. If you have a bunch of insurers in the market, and insurer Z demands lower costs from Hospital A, that hospital can drop insurer Z, raking in income from insurers A-Y. A corollary of this decrease in healthcare costs -- in addition to large decreases in administrative costs - would likely be a decrease in physician compensation. So I would only support it if med school debt gets socialized.

I also support physicians having a strong role in maintaining the physician-led model of healthcare. If libertarians like Ben Shapiro had their way, and were intellectually honest, they would eliminate all licensing barriers to practicing medicine, enabling cost-cutting hospitals to employ midlevels to provide unsupervised second-class care to the poor.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

People have mentioned the increase in taxes, but let's not forget the loss of jobs. Aside from the millions of people employed by insurance companies, corporations themselves staff many people to work healthcare/insurance-related positions (in corporations it's almost 20% of the workforce). A rapid transition to a single-payer system would be costly in terms of taxes and its potential effect on the economy through many lost jobs. I like the idea of a government-backed public option funded through limiting tax benefits given to private industry (for employer-provided health insurance).

Also, lost jobs are a problem but that happens with most industry-shifts. I don't support Bernie's plan because it's far too rapid of a shift. We would need to figure out a way to transition the many people whose jobs rely on a large insurance system.

These jobs are unnecessary, the consequence of a highly inefficient system. Should we take care of the people who may lose their jobs? Certainly. Part of that involves guaranteeing them healthcare.

 

[aldol16]

Other countries spend more money on social services than the U.S.
More money can be allocated to social services and government programs when you don't have to spend it on various other things such as the military. If our military didn't spend so much then we could probably afford more government programs that help the less fortunate. But at the same time, **** could hit the fan real quick if we started neglecting military spending.

While we may be able to "reap the outcomes" of increasing healthcare accessibility, we will lose somewhere else.

I think spending itself only tells part of the story, just as how outcomes itself only tells part of the story. Even if we spend the most money out of anybody else on healthcare, if we're content with the outcomes, then that could make it worth it. We as a society can agree that healthcare spending should be fixed at 20% of the GDP (or any other arbitrary level) because we as a society are happy with the outcomes we get with that level of spending. But the problem is that we're not happy with the outcomes we're getting given our spending. The route to acceptance doesn't have to be cutting spending - it could be improving the outcomes so that we're satisfied with what we get given what we're paying. We can of course reduce spending on healthcare but only as long as we're happy with what we're getting. The problem isn't fixed if we spend less on healthcare but still are not happy with what we get given what we're paying. That's like downgrading from an iPad because it's too expensive to a knockoff tablet version that is cheaper but we're still not happy with what we get given the price we're paying.

I would also point out that the idea of this all being a zero-sum game only works out if we're operating at productive efficiency, which we're not. There are many inefficiencies in the whole healthcare system (and other systems) that we can address first that improves productive efficiency first without getting into allocation issues.

 

[RNtoMD87]

If my experience in the Army taught me anything about socialism, no thanks.

 

[Mad Jack]

The argument for single payer is that the government would have more power to demand lower medical costs. If you have a bunch of insurers in the market, and insurer Z demands lower costs from Hospital A, that hospital can drop insurer Z, raking in income from insurers A-Y. A corollary of this decrease in healthcare costs -- in addition to large decreases in administrative costs - would likely be a decrease in physician compensation. So I would only support it if med school debt gets socialized.

I also support physicians having a strong role in maintaining the physician-led model of healthcare. If libertarians like Ben Shapiro had their way, and were intellectually honest, they would eliminate all licensing barriers to practicing medicine, enabling cost-cutting hospitals to employ midlevels to provide unsupervised second-class care to the poor.

I mean, if I can operate outside of the socialized insurance system via a two-tier system, I don't care about the debt, I'll find patients willing to pay.

 

[deleted480308]

What does this mean? Taxes represent shared burdens - you can argue they are misused by government, but I don't understand where this thing about being taken advantage of by people who aren't paying taxes for some reason comes from.

you cannot hide behind the benign sounding “shared burden” cliche when so many pay nothing into the federal income tax system and so many pay less into the system than they get.....while a lot get plundered to pay for the shortfall

That’s not “shared burden” it’s literally making some folks pay for others

These jobs are unnecessary, the consequence of a highly inefficient system. Should we take care of the people who may lose their jobs? Certainly. Part of that involves guaranteeing them healthcare.

no, it’s not certain that we should take care of people who lose their job...

 

[Windom Earle]

Public hospital system everyone can access and a coexisting private hospital system for those with insurance or private funds. The UK and many other nations have similar setups.

What would be the point in having insurance when you can just get healthcare for free? Seems like this system wouldn't work, but I'm just trying to understand the two tier system.

 

[Mad Jack]

What would be the point in having insurance when you can just get healthcare for free? Seems like this system wouldn't work, but I'm just trying to understand the two tier system.

Higher quality care is worth paying for

 

[Mad Jack]

There is actually much belief by world famous economists that the US debt doesn't even mean that much, it's really just a talking point.

When the interest on debt service consumes enough tax dollars that necessary services cannot be offered, it becomes a problem

 

[Med Ed]

What would be the point in having insurance when you can just get healthcare for free? Seems like this system wouldn't work, but I'm just trying to understand the two tier system.

I suggest you read up on Australia's health system, which is a good example of the two tier approach.

 

[Mad Jack]

I suggest you read up on Australia's health system, which is a good example of the two tier approach.

Or the UK's, where people are more than willing to go private for certain things to avoid the NHS

 

[goatmed]

^Spain has such a system too, and I think a great number if not most doctors work in both (in the town where my father works, the anesthesia dept director even runs the department on both the public AND private hospital, though I don't think that's something to brag about)

 

[aldol16]

you cannot hide behind the benign sounding “shared burden” cliche when so many pay nothing into the federal income tax system and so many pay less into the system than they get.....while a lot get plundered to pay for the shortfall

That’s not “shared burden” it’s literally making some folks pay for others

That's the whole point of redistributive taxes. We as a society (a majority of our representatives, anyway) have decided that certain things are worth redistributing from the rich to the poor because the poor get more utility from it. You'll also find that many of the things we end up redistributing, you would also choose if you were under the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance."

 

[Cadaverous]

That's the whole point of redistributive taxes. We as a society (a majority of our representatives, anyway) have decided that certain things are worth redistributing from the rich to the poor because the poor get more utility from it. You'll also find that many of the things we end up redistributing, you would also choose if you were under the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance."

It's also just better for everybody if the poor (and indeed everyone) have access to proper healthcare, good schools, and unemployment while they look for jobs. Healthier, better educated people are more likely themselves to contribute to the economy, thus making up for the relatively small investment we make in one another.

 

[aldol16]

It's also just better for everybody if the poor (and indeed everyone) have access to proper healthcare, good schools, and unemployment while they look for jobs. Healthier, better educated people are more likely themselves to contribute to the economy, thus making up for the relatively small investment we make in one another.

I'm not disagreeing with this but I just recognize that people can differ in their opinions with regard to what specifically is worth redistributing. Saying it's "better for everybody" is just a judgement call that not everybody is comfortable with - and that's where most of the problem arises.

 

[Cadaverous]

I'm not disagreeing with this but I just recognize that people can differ in their opinions with regard to what specifically is worth redistributing. Saying it's "better for everybody" is just a judgement call that not everybody is comfortable with - and that's where most of the problem arises.

Fair enough - I only meant to point out the logic behind public schools and welfare programs, and how that can be extended to healthcare.

 

[aldol16]

Fair enough - I only meant to point out the logic behind public schools and welfare programs, and how that can be extended to healthcare.

The logic is the same but the relative values are different to different people. I think we as a society have agreed that public schools and welfare (though contentious) are goods that are worth redistributing. At least the majority of our elected representatives have thought so. But the majority of our elected representatives have not thought that healthcare (at least as it relates to the poor) is worth redistributing (outside of existing Medicaid and CHIP programs).

 

[Cadaverous]

I understand your point, but that line is obviously arbitrary and, especially with how much we spend on public healthcare programs even within a system that is largely private, doesn't make a lot of sense. (Edited for grammar)

 

[aldol16]

I understand your point, but that line is obviously arbitrary and, especially with how much we spend on public healthcare programs even within a system that is largely private, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don't think that line is arbitrary at all. I think that line precisely reflects the proportion of people in this country who believe that something is worth redistributing. Once a critical mass (majority) is reached, then that thing becomes law. It also points the way forward for those who believe in a single payer system - convince your countrymen. Stop preaching to the choir and actually try to reach people on the other side.

Public and private systems here target different populations. Most of the public programs target either the elderly and disabled (Medicare) or the very poor and their children (Medicaid/CHIP). We also spend a lot on the VA because it's the least we can do for those who defended our freedom. These public systems exist because the private market fails for these populations. The private system is what works for everybody else from 18-64.

 

[goatmed]

I don't think that line is arbitrary at all. I think that line precisely reflects the proportion of people in this country who believe that something is worth redistributing. Once a critical mass (majority) is reached, then that thing becomes law. It also points the way forward for those who believe in a single payer system - convince your countrymen. Stop preaching to the choir and actually try to reach people on the other side.

As a cursory look at healthcare politics in the last decade (or any other issue in the last year) will attest, it's kind of hard to convince the other side of anything at the present for reasons outside of the scope of this thread. But as this thread will also attest, the information we part from to take positions on the issue is also not quite the same.

Public and private systems here target different populations. Most of the public programs target either the elderly and disabled (Medicare) or the very poor and their children (Medicaid/CHIP). We also spend a lot on the VA because it's the least we can do for those who defended our freedom. These public systems exist because the private market fails for these populations. The private system is what works for everybody else from 18-64.

The private system doesn't work for about 11% of the population who has no public or private insurer. The extent to which it "works" should also be taken into account: as I mentioned earlier we spend more taxpayer dollars per capita in healthcare than most of the developed countries mentioned here, and those countries have a system in place with those taxpayer dollars that insures everyone. This isn't to say that the issues we have are necessarily and fully inherent to private systems, but certainly that the structure of healthcare in our European neighbors seems to give their taxpayers more bang for their buck. I'd be a little pressed to argue that American constituents wouldn't like that as an alternative to this, but the issue is hopelessly politicized to the point of deadlock (which is why we're stuck with this vestigial ACA remnant after a year of coherent reform attempts by congress)

Edit: clarified some of my vague pronouns

 

[aldol16]

The private system doesn't work for about 11% of the population who has no public or private insurer. The extent to which it "works" should also be taken into account: as I mentioned earlier we spend more taxpayer dollars per capita in healthcare than most of the developed countries mentioned here, and those countries have a system in place with those taxpayer dollars that insures everyone. This isn't to say that the issues we have are necessarily and fully inherent to private systems, but certainly that their structure seems to give their taxpayers more bang for their buck. I'd be a little pressed to argue that American constituents wouldn't like that as an alternative to this, but the issue is hopelessly politicized to the point of deadlock (which is why we're stuck with this vestigial ACA remnant after a year of coherent reform attempts by congress)

That figure decreased from 16% to 9.1% with the ACA, which is in the right direction. Any law that aims to get everybody covered is going to be very difficult because the reasons people don't get covered isn't necessarily because they can't afford it. Medicaid has long had a take-up problem that's unrelated to who is actually eligible. In any case, the ACA has narrowed that gap quite a bit. Just because it didn't achieve 100% coverage doesn't mean that the next thing we need to talk about is single payer. That's like saying that just because Round Up didn't kill all the pests in my house, the next option is to drop a nuke on it.

Like I also said earlier, the amount we pay per capita for healthcare doesn't tell the whole story and neither do outcomes. What matters is the value we get from care. Many Americans would be perfectly content paying the most for healthcare out of any country if we're also satisfied with the results we're getting from it. The problem isn't so much how much we're paying but rather that we're not happy with what we're getting. And as I said earlier, we are not anywhere close to being productively efficient with healthcare so there are ways to improve value-based care without actually getting into allocation issues.

 

[goatmed]

That figure decreased from 16% to 9.1% with the ACA, which is in the right direction.

And then it edged up to 11%. I would also argue we should not be content that we've taken a "step in the right direction" if we still leave most of those who were previously uninsured in that state.

Any law that aims to get everybody covered is going to be very difficult because the reasons people don't get covered isn't necessarily because they can't afford it. Medicaid has long had a take-up problem that's unrelated to who is actually eligible. In any case, the ACA has narrowed that gap quite a bit.

Certainly, but that isn't a problem in those neighbors we're speaking of because it's not an opt-in program. Medicaid has structural issues that impede recognition of eligibility and use by those eligible. Single-payer is almost by definition not an opt-in service that people have to deliberate on joining or not.

Just because it didn't achieve 100% coverage doesn't mean that the next thing we need to talk about is single payer. That's like saying that just because Round Up didn't kill all the pests in my house, the next option is to drop a nuke on it.

It doesn't mean we need to talk about single payer. That countries with the single payer approach accomplish our coverage goals better and pay less merits that we talk about it. Hardly a nuke.

Like I also said earlier, the amount we pay per capita for healthcare doesn't tell the whole story and neither do outcomes. What matters is the value we get from care. Many Americans would be perfectly content paying the most for healthcare out of any country if we're also satisfied with the results we're getting from it. The problem isn't so much how much we're paying but rather that we're not happy with what we're getting.

Certainly, and those outcomes seek to give an objective measurement for "what we're getting." If we could get more satisfactory results AND pay an equal or, even better, lesser amount, that would probably be dandy to those who want those satisfactory results. Conversely, that we're getting outcomes that are less satisfactory than those of other countries which pay less aggravates the issue.

And as I said earlier, we are not anywhere close to being productively efficient with healthcare so there are ways to improve value-based care without actually getting into allocation issues.

There are ways to improve healthcare other than single payer, but the virtue of this system is that it solves the allocation issues (I don't think Americans would go out of their way to exclude 10% of their adults from insurance coverage if it came at no additional cost to insure them) while also tackling some of the already discussed healthcare cost inflation issues that stem from the current system. It'd be killing two birds with one stone assuming it could be implemented.

 

[RNtoMD87]

Please remind me, where exactly in the Constitution does it say that the government cannot provide health care?
The government can definitely provide health care and actually encourages people to get health care using their taxing and spending powers.
The federal government actually did that with ACA where they taxed people who refused to get insurance. The Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius talks in details about this. If you want, you can review the majority opinion where they describe in details how the government can have the authority to implement health care by using their power of spending and taxation.



As for a universal health coverage, I would definitely support this idea, however, I am certain that it will be very very hard to implement. There will be huge arguments on who to cover, what to cover, how much should we cover, how long should we cover... etc

The part that says "powers not expressly given to the federal government belong to the states.

There's nothing saying states can't set up something of that sort.

 

[Cadaverous]

The part that says "powers not expressly given to the federal government belong to the states.

There's nothing saying states can't set up something of that sort.

Didn't stop us passing Medicare, CHIP, or Obamacare - should we ditch those?

 

[RNtoMD87]

Didn't stop us passing Medicare, CHIP, or Obamacare - should we ditch those?

Didn't stop us passing Medicare, CHIP, or Obamacare - should we ditch those?

I'm not saying it stops it from happening. I'm only speaking on the constitution and its intent. Healthcare wasn't the focus- defending from the British was. Healthcare wasn't even thought of yet. This was before nightingale and the Crimean wars even.

 

[Cadaverous]

I'm not saying it stops it from happening. I'm only speaking on the constitution and its intent. Healthcare wasn't the focus- defending from the British was. Healthcare wasn't even thought of yet. This was before nightingale and the Crimean wars even.

You didn’t answer my question, but let me propose another - would you be in favor of single-payer systems implemented individually within each state, based on your views on constitutional interpretation?

 

[RNtoMD87]

You didn’t answer my question, but let me propose another - would you be in favor of single-payer systems implemented individually within each state, based on your views on constitutional interpretation?

Hmm if it's run by the proximal state government that is closer to its constituents rather than from DC which is the equivalent of the crown running colonial England? I'd be much more likely to favor it. It also depends on the plan itself. It's hard to agree or disagree without a concrete plan to look at.

 

[Goro]

What does this mean? Taxes represent shared burdens - you can argue they are misused by government, but I don't understand where this thing about being taken advantage of by people who aren't paying taxes for some reason comes from.

Sb is making the classic Libertarian argument that "taxation = theft"...and ignoring the fact that taxes pay for civilization.

 

[Cadaverous]

Hmm if it's run by the proximal state government that is closer to its constituents rather than from DC which is the equivalent of the crown running colonial England? I'd be much more likely to favor it. It also depends on the plan itself. It's hard to agree or disagree without a concrete plan to look at.

Totally fair - appreciate the responses.

 

[deleted480308]

That's the whole point of redistributive taxes. We as a society (a majority of our representatives, anyway) have decided that certain things are worth redistributing from the rich to the poor because the poor get more utility from it. You'll also find that many of the things we end up redistributing, you would also choose if you were under the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance."

You clearly don’t go to spf often. No, no I wouldn’t approve of redistribution via govt

Didn't stop us passing Medicare, CHIP, or Obamacare - should we ditch those?

yes

 

[deleted480308]

Sb is making the classic Libertarian argument that "taxation = theft"...and ignoring the fact that taxes pay for civilization.

Our federal income tax pays for a bloated govt and massive welfare redistribution....we had civilization before federal income tax

 

[RNtoMD87]

You clearly don’t go to spf often. No, no I wouldn’t approve of redistribution via govt
yes

I'm not for wealth redistribution on principle, BUT like many things, it's a scale. If my tax money wasn't grossly wasted I would be like "eh, I disagree with the principle, but taxes aren't THAT much, and the benefit in certain areas is great"

It's when money is wasted on ridiculous things and congress does nothing to alleviate it. The system is flawed.


Here's an example. I believe in a STRONG defense. I feel that this is essential. BUT defense spending is a joke. We could accomplish the same with much less. When I was in Iraq they DUMPED money on us. I had an ACOG for my m240b. We were like eh? And just kept it in our pants pockets. One unit I ran into had battle axes. Medieval fing battle axes in the middle of Taji. I said "how'd y'all get those?" "Ordered em through supply". Apparently there's an NSN for them.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not for wealth redistribution on principle, BUT like many things, it's a scale. If my tax money wasn't grossly wasted I would be like "eh, I disagree with the principle, but taxes aren't THAT much, and the benefit in certain areas is great"

It's when money is wasted on ridiculous things and congress does nothing to alleviate it. The system is flawed.

The problem is that my money is not the property of the govt to be taken and given to others just because I made better financial decisions

It’s wrong long before talk about govt efficiency

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I'm not saying it stops it from happening. I'm only speaking on the constitution and its intent. Healthcare wasn't the focus- defending from the British was. Healthcare wasn't even thought of yet. This was before nightingale and the Crimean wars even.

It was intended to be a living, flexible document that could be interpreted and adapted as we developed as a country too. I don’t think rigid adherence to its historicity is really what they intended.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

The problem is that my money is not the property of the govt to be taken and given to others just because I made better financial decisions

It’s wrong long before talk about govt efficiency

You choose to live here. If you really don’t want to give up your money, you’re free to move somewhere you don’t have to.

 

[RNtoMD87]

I'm not for wealth redistribution on principle, BUT like many things, it's a scale. If my tax money wasn't grossly wasted I would be like "eh, I disagree with the principle, but taxes aren't THAT much, and the benefit in certain areas is great"

It's when money is wasted on ridiculous things and congress does nothing to alleviate it. The system is flawed.

The problem is that my money is not the property of the govt to be taken and given to others just because I made better financial decisions

It’s wrong long before talk about govt efficiency

I don't disagree, but there's ideology and then what's going to happen in the real world. People have grown dependent on the government and don't even know how to live on their own anymore. Plus we have way more people than we need to run a society, and noones going to let them starve or die of ailments

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Plus we have way more people than we need to run a society, and noones going to let them starve or die of ailments

If you go to the allo forum you’ll find a few people who would.

 

[RNtoMD87]

It was intended to be a living, flexible document that could be interpreted and adapted as we developed as a country too. I don’t think rigid adherence to its historicity is really what they intended.

I disagree on this point, I think the constitution was a rigid spine and everything else is what makes it a living document.

But, people who have a favorite "government type" miss the concept that everything is a cycle. You start off with ultimate freedom, people create rules for stability, and security, slowly the government grows to be tyrannical, and there is a revolution and the process starts somewhere between the beginning and the end. There is no such thing as absolute freedom or absolute statism. It always resides somewhere in between and the level of control is constantly shifting.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I disagree on this point, I think the constitution was a rigid spine and everything else is what makes it a living document.

Thomas Jefferson agrees with you anyway, so that’s fair enough.

 

[RNtoMD87]

Thomas Jefferson agrees with you anyway, so that’s fair enough.

I feel like we should fix the costliest problems that solve the least first. If we ever get to the point that we waste no money except on welfare fraud, I think I'd love the country I live in.

 

[deleted480308]

You choose to live here. If you really don’t want to give up your money, you’re free to move somewhere you don’t have to.

Step up your arguments

I don't disagree, but there's ideology and then what's going to happen in the real world. People have grown dependent on the government and don't even know how to live on their own anymore. Plus we have way more people than we need to run a society, and noones going to let them starve or die of ailments

I’m saying what’s happening is theft and a misuse of govt power, let everyone who feels compelled to charity make a personal choice to help with their own money. I don’t get to steal your crap and talk about how charitable I am with your money

Learn to live on your own, find a voluntary benefactor.....those are the only options. Not steal on your own and not steal via govt

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I feel like we should fix the costliest problems that solve the least first. If we ever get to the point that we waste no money except on welfare fraud, I think I'd love the country I live in.

I mean, I love it now having been to a bunch of extremely ****ty countries on deployment (as I’m sure you have as well). That doesn’t mean I don’t think it can get better though.

 

[RNtoMD87]

Step up your arguments
I’m saying what’s happening is theft and a misuse of govt power, let everyone who feels compelled to charity make a personal choice to help with their own money. I don’t get to steal your crap and talk about how charitable I am with your money

Learn to live on your own, find a voluntary benefactor.....those are the only options. Not steal on your own and not steal via govt

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. But as much of an idealist as I am, I've learned to be a realist as well. We will never go back to what the founders laid down, until there is an armed revolt, and even the founders violated their own principles.

 

[RNtoMD87]

I mean, I love it now having been to a bunch of extremely ****ty countries on deployment (as I’m sure you have as well). That doesn’t mean I don’t think it can get better though.

Well I mean I love America as far as its people, but I hate the government. I just mean I'd not have much to complain about. I have plenty of complaints right now.