Senate health overhaul cost put at $1.6 trillion

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it written in our Constitution somewhere that our country needs to dump $500,000,000,000/year into defense or we'll cease to exist?

Are Canada and Mexico going to launch a two-pronged invasion if we don't hit our quota for military spending?

Luckily for us non-hippies, there isnt a (D) willing to gut the military who is in a position to do so.

Luckily for us non-conservatives, the GOP is so neutered they can't put up a fight to UHC.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it written in our Constitution somewhere that our country needs to dump $500,000,000,000/year into defense or we'll cease to exist?

Are Canada and Mexico going to launch a two-pronged invasion if we don't hit our quota for military spending?

Luckily for us non-hippies, there isnt a (D) willing to gut the military who is in a position to do so.

Luckily for us non-conservatives, the GOP is so neutered they can't put up a fight to UHC.

Lucky for us, there isnt anyone proposing UHC.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
:thumbsup: for UHC. It is time we as a nation got out of the dark ages on healthcare. A parallel public/private system is the way to go.

Yeah its time we got away from the world-class healthcare system we have now. :thumbsup: Three cheers for rationed care and a government employee deciding if your treatment is worth having!

Yeah, its awesome when an insurance company denies your claim in the interest of profit.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it written in our Constitution somewhere that our country needs to dump $500,000,000,000/year into defense or we'll cease to exist?

Are Canada and Mexico going to launch a two-pronged invasion if we don't hit our quota for military spending?

LOOK OUT, CANADA IS GONNA SEND THE TANK!

Seriously though, 500 billion + 100 billion for Iraqistan...when is enough enough.

There is a tremendous amount of waste in the military, but it's mainly due to contractors.

I seem to remember the same members pissing and moaning about military spending being the same ones complaining our troops werent protected the best they could in Iraq. Which way do you want it? The best we can buy with a high cost? Or skimp and spend less?

Your presumption is that the only way to equip our troops properly is to spend more money, rather than spend it more intelligently.

And I'm allowed to criticize, I was in ROTC and a year away from active duty AF, so at least I tried to join 😛

No, he is just throwing a strawman out, which is pretty much all this forum does nowadays. Don't feed.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it written in our Constitution somewhere that our country needs to dump $500,000,000,000/year into defense or we'll cease to exist?

Are Canada and Mexico going to launch a two-pronged invasion if we don't hit our quota for military spending?

Luckily for us non-hippies, there isnt a (D) willing to gut the military who is in a position to do so.

Luckily for us non-conservatives, the GOP is so neutered they can't put up a fight to UHC.

Lucky for us, there isnt anyone proposing UHC.

Don't worry, we've still got 7.5 years left.

 

[ProfJohn]

Well... this thread is sorta worthless.

I guess I expect too much from this place.

 

[SunSamurai]

You expected something more than pure entertainment from P&N?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Genx87
About the costs. Lets remember that we are supposed to be running 800 billion surpluses from a decade ago projection. And the prescription drug benefit has basically cost double what Bush promised. If this goes into action expect it to be a minimum 320billio\year.

That said I think blue dog dems are getting worried and will demand a tax hike to pay for this or nothing happens.

Exactly, when has a major government program come under budget?

Look at the last 50 years of defense contracts if you want the obvious answer.

Talk about bloat. Multi-billion dollar bombers that spent their lives parked in hangers, $300 million fighter planes that have never seen combat, multi-billion dollar helicopter programs sacked before they went into operation, etc.

It's an area ripe with opportunities to slash the budget.

You see things every day in the military that we virtually never use. Air Defense Artillery (AKA Patriot missiles, Avenger systems, etc. ?) Hasn't been used since the first gulf war. MLRS batteries capable of covering an entire square km with bomblets? Never used anymore, in favor of their "guided" brethren. FASCAM artillery shells that allow you to deploy a minefield via artillery fire. The bleeding hearts will never let us use those again.

So believe me, I see your point. We need more major conflicts with conventional forces in which we can make use of, and capitalize on our amazing technological advantages. I recommend North Korea or Iran.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't worry, we've still got 7.5 years left.

Again your lack of knowledge about the election cycles does not surprise anyone.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Look at the last 50 years of defense contracts if you want the obvious answer.

Talk about bloat. Multi-billion dollar bombers that spent their lives parked in hangers, $300 million fighter planes that have never seen combat, multi-billion dollar helicopter programs sacked before they went into operation, etc.

It's an area ripe with opportunities to slash the budget.

You see things every day in the military that we virtually never use. Air Defense Artillery (AKA Patriot missiles, Avenger systems, etc. ?) Hasn't been used since the first gulf war. MLRS batteries capable of covering an entire square km with bomblets? Never used anymore, in favor of their "guided" brethren. FASCAM artillery shells that allow you to deploy a minefield via artillery fire. The bleeding hearts will never let us use those again.

So believe me, I see your point. We need more major conflicts with conventional forces in which we can make use of, and capitalize on our amazing technological advantages. I recommend North Korea or Iran.

Yeah, Iraq worked out so well I don't see why we don't just keep on going!

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right? Those people who earn their money from DoD in various forms buy things and pay taxes. Cutting more jobs is last thing we need right now as a country for starters.

We'd have a whole lot of unemployed engineers, techs, scientists and the like who won't be paying taxes, etc. University research funding will go way down (the DoD funds a shit ton of graduate research and the like) and student fees will go up (not much but some) to make up the difference in the redistribution of overhead. And eventually, the US will fall behind the 8-ball in innovation because we are doing less funded research.

Also... with less spending the armed forces will be more picky about who they recruit. Under that kind of a system maybe my friend mike woulda never got out of the ghetto into the Navy.

Our military is not evil, the money spent is not wasted. The way Bush used our military was evil and wasteful.

The DoD funds a ton of 'open source' public research -- material science, computer science, physics, etc... lots of cool stuff... even stuff that really doesn't have any military purpose.... it would just be a great technological advancement.

The military is awesome social program. Anyone who doesn't have a rap sheet, and even some that do, can pull themselves out of almost any situation and make a better life through the military (a couple of my past and present friends did just that).

The military could be an amazing entity/agent for shoring up our own infrastructure and provide humanitarian aid and safety around the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right? Those people who earn their money from DoD in various forms buy things and pay taxes. Cutting more jobs is last thing we need right now as a country for starters.

We'd have a whole lot of unemployed engineers, techs, scientists and the like who won't be paying taxes, etc. University research funding will go way down (the DoD funds a shit ton of graduate research and the like) and student fees will go up (not much but some) to make up the difference in the redistribution of overhead. And eventually, the US will fall behind the 8-ball in innovation because we are doing less funded research.

Also... with less spending the armed forces will be more picky about who they recruit. Under that kind of a system maybe my friend mike woulda never got out of the ghetto into the Navy.

Our military is not evil, the money spent is not wasted. The way Bush used our military was evil and wasteful.

The DoD funds a ton of 'open source' public research -- material science, computer science, physics, etc... lots of cool stuff... even stuff that really doesn't have any military purpose.... it would just be a great technological advancement.

The military is awesome social program. Anyone who doesn't have a rap sheet, and even some that do, can pull themselves out of almost any situation and make a better life through the military (a couple of my past and present friends did just that).

The military could be an amazing entity/agent for shoring up our own infrastructure and provide humanitarian aid and safety around the world.

Why do you think $250 billion spent on defense would create more or better jobs than $250 billion spent on public health? How is reallocating money 'cutting jobs', or for that matter getting rid of research, etc... etc... etc. Every single thing you mentioned can be created through government spending of a different sort, just as jpeyton recommended.

Military spending gives pretty much the least bang for your buck possible in terms of government spending. If you spend $250 billion on say... roads (anything really), not only do you create jobs, but you create something useful for society. A B-2 bomber does not help society function. So long as your military has what it needs to secure your interests (and we have WAAAAY more than that), anything on top is merely social welfare spending of the least efficient kind.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I was talking to a grad student from NZ about their healthcare system. Apparently everyone is on UHC, but you can still buy health insurance so you'll be top of the list when it comes to surgeries and what not. Could that work in the US?

This is indeed the case (I am a Kiwi). It's always so weird to me that Americans look at it like a total dichotomy - either health care is private, or it's not. That's all I going to say about this, I've contributed to health care threads on P&N and been attacked relentlessly by the conservatives for something they know very little about. Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring with alphatarget1.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

I like where you're going with this. We should privatize the military by dramatically expanding security contractors.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it written in our Constitution somewhere that our country needs to dump $500,000,000,000/year into defense or we'll cease to exist?

Are Canada and Mexico going to launch a two-pronged invasion if we don't hit our quota for military spending?

LOOK OUT, CANADA IS GONNA SEND THE TANK!

Seriously though, 500 billion + 100 billion for Iraqistan...when is enough enough.

There is a tremendous amount of waste in the military, but it's mainly due to contractors.

I seem to remember the same members pissing and moaning about military spending being the same ones complaining our troops werent protected the best they could in Iraq. Which way do you want it? The best we can buy with a high cost? Or skimp and spend less?

Your presumption is that the only way to equip our troops properly is to spend more money, rather than spend it more intelligently.

And I'm allowed to criticize, I was in ROTC and a year away from active duty AF, so at least I tried to join 😛

No, he is just throwing a strawman out, which is pretty much all this forum does nowadays. Don't feed.

Are you kidding me? Were you on this msgboard circa 04-05?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I was talking to a grad student from NZ about their healthcare system. Apparently everyone is on UHC, but you can still buy health insurance so you'll be top of the list when it comes to surgeries and what not. Could that work in the US?

This is indeed the case (I am a Kiwi). It's always so weird to me that Americans look at it like a total dichotomy - either health care is private, or it's not. That's all I going to say about this, I've contributed to health care threads on P&N and been attacked relentlessly by the conservatives for something they know very little about. Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring with alphatarget1.

But in some ways it's like that in the US now. If you have no money/insurance you can use medicaid. It just kind of sucks, so if you want something good you pay for it. The US may think it's a dichotomy because in Canada it is. You have public health care and...nothing else, except for a very limited impact number of private clinics that do very specific things. It's quite literally illegal for a group of doctors to get together with some nurses, buy some equipment, and open up a clinic that does more general treatments and surgeries because the government has banned it, seemingly with the applause of the people. I personally like the idea of what NZ is doing but I am sure people here would continue to cry about it and how the rich are buying themselves above the poor (which is what they do now, but people don't seem to like it).

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

Can you even fund an army well enough to protect a country of this size if you cut the budget by 75% AND keep the scientific research going?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I was talking to a grad student from NZ about their healthcare system. Apparently everyone is on UHC, but you can still buy health insurance so you'll be top of the list when it comes to surgeries and what not. Could that work in the US?

This is indeed the case (I am a Kiwi). It's always so weird to me that Americans look at it like a total dichotomy - either health care is private, or it's not. That's all I going to say about this, I've contributed to health care threads on P&N and been attacked relentlessly by the conservatives for something they know very little about. Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring with alphatarget1.

But in some ways it's like that in the US now. If you have no money/insurance you can use medicaid. It just kind of sucks, so if you want something good you pay for it. The US may think it's a dichotomy because in Canada it is. You have public health care and...nothing else, except for a very limited impact number of private clinics that do very specific things. It's quite literally illegal for a group of doctors to get together with some nurses, buy some equipment, and open up a clinic that does more general treatments and surgeries because the government has banned it, seemingly with the applause of the people. I personally like the idea of what NZ is doing but I am sure people here would continue to cry about it and how the rich are buying themselves above the poor (which is what they do now, but people don't seem to like it).

I had medicaid and it doesn't suck. I'm on a different form of it now. Of course, it could just be my state (NYS) but my public health insurance has been absolutely fantastic, even compared to the health insurance I had when I was under my mother's plan during my cancer diagnosis.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

Can you even fund an army well enough to protect a country of this size if you cut the budget by 75% AND keep the scientific research going?

Our military hasn't been used for purely defensive reasons in a very, very, long time.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

Can you even fund an army well enough to protect a country of this size if you cut the budget by 75% AND keep the scientific research going?

Our military hasn't been used for purely defensive reasons in a very, very, long time.

Preemptive defense.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

You realize that 250 billion a year pays for a whole shit ton of salaries, right?

How about we keep the 25% of military funding that actually goes to funding scientific research that you mentioned, and slash the other 75%?

Anybody else think it's funny that conservatives will continually tell you how badly government run programs like health care will be, yet will defend tooth-and-nail the $500,000,000,000/year we spend on a government run military?

Can you even fund an army well enough to protect a country of this size if you cut the budget by 75% AND keep the scientific research going?

Our military hasn't been used for purely defensive reasons in a very, very, long time.

So let's just get rid of it then... obviously it is unnecessary.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

LOOK OUT, CANADA IS GONNA SEND THE TANK!

Seriously though, 500 billion + 100 billion for Iraqistan...when is enough enough.

There is a tremendous amount of waste in the military, but it's mainly due to congress using the DoD as a giant government jobs program, forcing contractors to spread wealth through as many districts as possible and keeping open bases the DoD doesn't want and keep spending on projects it doesn't want.

fixed

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

This is indeed the case (I am a Kiwi). It's always so weird to me that Americans look at it like a total dichotomy - either health care is private, or it's not. That's all I going to say about this, I've contributed to health care threads on P&N and been attacked relentlessly by the conservatives for something they know very little about. Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring with alphatarget1.

that's because our pundits are journalism majors and don't understand things like the fact that canada's system isn't the only alternative.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can pay for it by slashing our military budget. In half for starters; that's $250 billion/year we can spend on improving the health of our nation's citizens instead of dumping it down DoD money pits.

So you're missing a GOP majority, then?

 

[Mursilis]

IMHO, Obama's major healthcare reform is going to flame out and go the way of HillaryCare. Too many interest groups are already lining up against it, and Pelosi simply isn't up to the task of getting any major reform through the House.