4 ms·

Socialized health care might work in Canada (pop. 34.48 million) or Australia (pop. 22.32 million), but it will never work in the US (pop. 313.9 million). It's

Socialized health care might work in Canada (pop. 34.48 million) or Australia (pop. 22.32 million), but it will never work in the US (pop. 313.9 million). It's way too expensive. US federal spending for both Medicare/Medicaid is already 23% (Social Security is 22%) of the federal budget in 2012. You want to add another unfunded entitlement program that will cost tax payers $4-$6 trillion? Here's a little fun fact: Canada and Australia's GDP COMBINED won't be enough to pay for Obamacare. "How Obamacare Will Further Explode the Deficit" http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obamacare-will-further-explode-the-deficit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obam... "CBO: Obamacare to Cost $1.930 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-...

grecy 13y ago
I hear this argument all the time and it's complete nonsense. Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. If anything, economies of scale mean America can provide health care at a lower per capita cost than smaller countries. Your argument is such nonsense it suggests that merely dividing America up into 10 countries each of 30 million would mean it could provide healthcare at a more affordable rate. Nonsensical at best.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  >Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) 1. Not everyone in the US has a job. More than 23 million Americans are unemployed/underemployed.[1] And are therefore paying very little/not paying taxes. A large population means a large pool of tax payers, and an even larger pool of non-tax payers. 2. Income inequality. The middle-class/rich are paying more taxes."CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes"[2] The top 10% earners of this country already pays more than 70% of all the income taxes. 3. Entitlements are already killing the US economy. 62% of the federal budget goes to entitlement.[3] Where are you going to get the $4-$6 trillion to pay for Obamacare??? OH RIGHT, 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficit under Obama. The government is already borrowing money to pay for existing entitlements![4]OR tax wealthy people! (those earning more than $250K under Obama's plan). you are laughably uninformed about the issues regarding entitlements in America. [1]http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/inde... [3]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta...
  - grecy 13y ago
    > I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) Australian, actually. I just live in Canada. I spent 1.5 years living and working in America too. Those problems or "issues" you present are not unique to America. Every country in the world has unemployment, income inequality and entitlements. It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare.
    - sinnerswing 13y ago
      >It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare. 62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security). That's ONLY $2 Trillion. 18.7% goes to the defense spending. [1] Implementing Obamacare will cost $4-$6 Trillion. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST WE GET $4-6 TRILLION? Even if you cut 100% of the defense budget it won't be not enough to pay for Obamacare. [1]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe...
      - run4yourlives 13y ago
        >62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements In other words, 62% of your revenue goes back to the taxpayers that provided that revenue. If anything, I'd be complaining about the other 48% if I were you. >Implementing Obamacare The argument that Medicare costs x and support y people, and Obamacare costs 2x and supports 2y people, therefore full universal care would cost 100x and support 100y people is flawed. Clearly, if the US went universal, the massive administration costs associated with HMOs and such would no longer be an expense to be paid. Instead of being a large employer within your currently broken system, you replace the system. There is a reason your health spending is almost double per capita to the next highest nation, and it has nothing to do with your population.
run4yourlives 13y ago
Nonsense. It works in every other developed nation on the planet AND we spend close to 50% per capita you do right now. You spend so much on Medicare/Medicaid because of your system; the US government is simply just a big employer. The idea that the US is somehow operating under a different set of rules for basic math is mind boggling to me.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  It DOES not "work in every other developed nation on the planet" spain, greece, germany, france, cyprus and 99% of all socialist countries have declining economies, high unemployment rate, high taxes, ZERO innovation, etc. Hey but they have free health care! horay for socialism!
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    The US stands alone in its approach to health care. See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/her...
    - sinnerswing 13y ago
      Yeah that's because we're not a bunch of socialists. :) You HAVE to provide universal health care because there are NO jobs in your pathetic country.
      - run4yourlives 13y ago
        I live in Canada. Unemployment is less that the US, and so is our budget. You were saying?
        sinnerswing 13y ago
        That's because the Canadian government employs 3.6 Million government employees out of 17 Million of your total labor force. WOW! talk about big government! That's almost 25% of your total labor force! % of gov't employees in the US is only 15% of our labor force. Considering the size of our country, military, etc. that figure is small compared to Canada's labor force-gov't employee ratio. NICE TRY ;) I get it that you're proud of your universal healthcare system. I honestly wish we have one but the issue is COST. if you can think of a way to implement universal healthcare without bankrupting our country i want to hear it.
hamburglar 13y ago
This crazy line of reasoning is the perfect analog to the notion, associated with liberals, that services provided by the government are "free." You are basically thinking that if a service isn't provided by the goverment, you can consider it free. Well, guess what, we are still going to have those trillions needing to be spent on healthcare, and it's got to come from somewhere. If it's impossible to fund collectively, the alternative (funding it out of all of our pockets individually) is impossible too.

grecy 13y ago

I hear this argument all the time and it's complete nonsense. Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. If anything, economies of scale mean America can provide health care at a lower per capita cost than smaller countries. Your argument is such nonsense it suggests that merely dividing America up into 10 countries each of 30 million would mean it could provide healthcare at a more affordable rate. Nonsensical at best.

sinnerswing 13y ago
>Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) 1. Not everyone in the US has a job. More than 23 million Americans are unemployed/underemployed.[1] And are therefore paying very little/not paying taxes. A large population means a large pool of tax payers, and an even larger pool of non-tax payers. 2. Income inequality. The middle-class/rich are paying more taxes."CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes"[2] The top 10% earners of this country already pays more than 70% of all the income taxes. 3. Entitlements are already killing the US economy. 62% of the federal budget goes to entitlement.[3] Where are you going to get the $4-$6 trillion to pay for Obamacare??? OH RIGHT, 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficit under Obama. The government is already borrowing money to pay for existing entitlements![4]OR tax wealthy people! (those earning more than $250K under Obama's plan). you are laughably uninformed about the issues regarding entitlements in America. [1]http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/inde... [3]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta...
- grecy 13y ago
  > I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) Australian, actually. I just live in Canada. I spent 1.5 years living and working in America too. Those problems or "issues" you present are not unique to America. Every country in the world has unemployment, income inequality and entitlements. It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare.
  - sinnerswing 13y ago
    >It's simply a question of where you want your government to spend the tax dollars it collects. Currently, they spend it blowing things up while tens of millions of it's citizens are without basic healthcare. 62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security). That's ONLY $2 Trillion. 18.7% goes to the defense spending. [1] Implementing Obamacare will cost $4-$6 Trillion. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST WE GET $4-6 TRILLION? Even if you cut 100% of the defense budget it won't be not enough to pay for Obamacare. [1]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe...
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      >62% of the US federal budget goes to entitlements In other words, 62% of your revenue goes back to the taxpayers that provided that revenue. If anything, I'd be complaining about the other 48% if I were you. >Implementing Obamacare The argument that Medicare costs x and support y people, and Obamacare costs 2x and supports 2y people, therefore full universal care would cost 100x and support 100y people is flawed. Clearly, if the US went universal, the massive administration costs associated with HMOs and such would no longer be an expense to be paid. Instead of being a large employer within your currently broken system, you replace the system. There is a reason your health spending is almost double per capita to the next highest nation, and it has nothing to do with your population.

run4yourlives 13y ago

Nonsense. It works in every other developed nation on the planet AND we spend close to 50% per capita you do right now. You spend so much on Medicare/Medicaid because of your system; the US government is simply just a big employer. The idea that the US is somehow operating under a different set of rules for basic math is mind boggling to me.

sinnerswing 13y ago
It DOES not "work in every other developed nation on the planet" spain, greece, germany, france, cyprus and 99% of all socialist countries have declining economies, high unemployment rate, high taxes, ZERO innovation, etc. Hey but they have free health care! horay for socialism!
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  The US stands alone in its approach to health care. See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/her...
  - sinnerswing 13y ago
    Yeah that's because we're not a bunch of socialists. :) You HAVE to provide universal health care because there are NO jobs in your pathetic country.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      I live in Canada. Unemployment is less that the US, and so is our budget. You were saying?
      - sinnerswing 13y ago
        That's because the Canadian government employs 3.6 Million government employees out of 17 Million of your total labor force. WOW! talk about big government! That's almost 25% of your total labor force! % of gov't employees in the US is only 15% of our labor force. Considering the size of our country, military, etc. that figure is small compared to Canada's labor force-gov't employee ratio. NICE TRY ;) I get it that you're proud of your universal healthcare system. I honestly wish we have one but the issue is COST. if you can think of a way to implement universal healthcare without bankrupting our country i want to hear it.

hamburglar 13y ago

This crazy line of reasoning is the perfect analog to the notion, associated with liberals, that services provided by the government are "free." You are basically thinking that if a service isn't provided by the goverment, you can consider it free. Well, guess what, we are still going to have those trillions needing to be spent on healthcare, and it's got to come from somewhere. If it's impossible to fund collectively, the alternative (funding it out of all of our pockets individually) is impossible too.