I say again. The defense budget nor any other current spending is preventing us from having free healthcare. Medicare for All would be significantly cheaper than our current healthcare costs. We're already paying for both defense and healthcare. Switching to M4A would save us money and improve our healthcare experience while completely ignoring the defense budget. We can easily do both. The insurance companies, big pharma, and hospital executives are the ones preventing M4A, not Raytheon.
The way of expressing this that really put it together for me was "The United States only ever has one total healthcare bill."
People not getting the healthcare they need already has costs; costs in hours they can't work because they're sick, costs in retraining people for jobs they can no longer do due to health issues, costs in people declaring bankruptcy because they were devastated by medical bills, and costs in lost human lives because of untreated sickness. All of those costs ripple through the economy, and we all wind up paying for them, one way or another.
Even if you assume that universal healthcare wouldn't actually improve the total base amount spent on medicine (it fucking would, in several ways, but assume that it doesn't just for the sake of argument), we would still be coming out ahead because we'd be sweeping the legs out from under the private healthcare industry, which only exists to siphon profits off of expenses that people have to pay or else they die.
Fuck everyone who ever voted against universal healthcare.
we’d be sweeping the legs out from under the private healthcare industry
And health insurance. Which is why we'll never do it. The president who puts almost a million people out of work will never get re-elected.
"We can't turn off the orphan-crushing machine! Think of all the unemployed orphan crushers!"
Those orphan crushers vote in the very special places that it matters. Also there's more of them than people who oppose orphan crushing.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's what we're stuck with.
Yes. but those people that lose their jobs wouldn't have to stress about either paying for or using healthcare - This freedom can give many people the opportunity to do something they love (or like to do). Maybe that is starting a new business or creating a new product? Or they could go work in a different industry that they find more fulfilling where previous they couldn't because of the lack of health benefits.
I think in the long run the people that lose their job grinding away in a huge faceless health insurance job might actually be a good thing for them?
I think people think in the short term and not the long term, that health insurance is just one small expense that people have, that losing your job is a traumatic event, that getting into a new career requires retraining, that having a glut of people looking for a job will lower wages, and that a lot of these folks live in suburban swing districts.
I agree that eventually universal health care would be better. It would free up labor to do the hard jobs in health care like nursing. But this comment has big "coal miners should learn to code" energy.
Many of those employed in private health insurance may find key roles in administrating a single payer system.
Along those lines: If a sudden mass of bureaucrats were unemployed: there is a (not so) coincidental massive shortage and generational gap in local governments across the states.
More than that though I think freeing up people's need for affording modern healthcare is a strong career incentive. The private healthcare system can have a restrictive effect for small businesses, especially small family businesses. It is one of the single largest expenses an employer has to account for which is bad for labor and bad for small business.
But that is great for large business that can absorb the cost more reliably. Also great for the insurance industry who are more than happy to negotiate a contract with a major corporation instead of administering plans for 1000 similar small operations. Which is a bit of a feedback loop as health insurance is big business.
I always felt that was one of the more compelling point, at least.
No, they just need to get their successor elected to continue their legacy, and make sure Congress doesn't change hands.
And if we need permanent Democratic supermajority for fifty years to fix this travesty of a country they're not going to get that if they put a million people out of work.
That's what the lame duck portion is for. Pass all the shit that may be unpopular, but necessary after the election has already been decided. The people don't remember what happened in the last few months of a lame duck term, by the time the next election happens. They'll have forgotten, unless they happen to be part of that million people, and a million people is less than ¼ of 1% of the country.
They’re aware. It’s no coincidence that the same party that just voted in favor of increasing military funding also dismantled the ACA and votes against socialized single-payer healthcare.
It would be great except if (and they would) turn over administration to private insurance companies.
Yeah that $895 billion should go to infrastructure and social services in the US. What a giant fucking waste of money they're using it on.
Social services investment would save the government money by reducing policing and incarceration costs, among other things. We could do both. I'd have to learn more about the financial side of infrastructure to say anything meaningful.
The defense budget nor any other current spending is preventing us from having free healthcare.
You missed a "neither". I got what you're saying after a bit, but your sentence literally means the opposite of what you intend it to mean.
Is it actually necessary? I figured you could leave it implied. But hey, if it's confusing people, then I guess it is necessary.
How much of this goes to private contractors profits instead of actually helping defend this country and taking care of our troops?
70%
And if you even suggest lowering the amount spent. The Pentagon immediately stops supplying body armor to the troops and blames you for killing them...
About half, publicly at least. Half of all this budget will go directly to private contractors.
Compared to previous budgets, less. The rise in spending is 1%, whilst the rise in military wages will be 4.5% to reach a $15 Minium wage for federal employees (Neither is inflation adjusted).
What's a MAC and what do they do? A Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) is a private health care insurer that has been awarded a geographic jurisdiction to process Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) medical claims or Durable Medical Equipment (DME) claims for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries. CMS relies on a network of MACs to serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare FFS program and the health care providers enrolled in the program. MACs are multi-state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims. MACs perform many activities including:
Process Medicare FFS claims Make and account for Medicare FFS payments Enroll providers in the Medicare FFS program Handle provider reimbursement services and audit institutional provider cost reports Handle redetermination requests (1st stage appeals process) Respond to provider inquiries Educate providers about Medicare FFS billing requirements Establish local coverage determinations (LCD’s) Review medical records for selected claims Coordinate with CMS and other FFS contractors
ETA; Wrt military private contractors, they used to be called "mercenaries." Iirc, Rene Descarte was, so make of that what you will.
Private contractors do help defend this country. Yes there are bad apples. I live near a ton of these private contractors since I live right outside DC. A lot of these guys are former troops. If you’re talking about the C-Suites, well, that’s an issue not exclusive to defense contracting.
Reading these comments about the defence budget, I'm trying to remember the last time the US "defended" themselves
Was it in 2001 when they "defended" themselves against Saudi Arabia by attacking Iraq?
Hey, preventing humanity's progress out of capitalism by installing authoritarian regimes on potentially socialist countries ain't cheap!
WW2 was last time the US military actually did anything of value. After that they were fighting farmers and peasants and/or just feed the industrial machine.
Did they ever catch the pilots that did the 9/11s? I’ve been assured that they were cowards who hated freedom.
So like you just want us to wait until we get attacked first?
The entire doctrine of the US military is to fight wars over there to prevent them from coming here.
Why would anyone attack you? You'd have to spend decades destabilising the planet through pure greed to make people angry enough
If the USA wasn't starting and fighting wars it began without provocation , maybe there'd be less groups interested in "going there".
Besides, of the countries the USA considers an enemy, only Russia can ever "realistically" invade 'murica, and that's assuming they only focus on Alaska. Even if USA only had 1/3 of its current military, it'd send the Russians packing due to logistical advantage.
The only other route for Russia, China or anyone to invade is to use Cuba as a staging ground, which is not only very susceptible to a naval blockade, it's also within range of fuckloads of USA missiles.
Right. How else are we going to make the rest of the world safe for Walmart and McDonalds if we just stay home?
The most insidious part of this is people will say, "any price to keep us safe." Nevermind that a resource draining military is a catch22 proven idiotic by history time and time again, and we shouldn't be funding it at all. The money we are spending is absolutely not going to keep us safe. It goes to the heads of weapons manufacturers so that they can manipulate governments into buying their products and provke wars to create demand. As a veteran i can tell you it sure as shit doesn't go towards paying members of the military, it doesn't go towards buying top of the line equipment to keep us safe, and definitely not towards maintaining the broke ass equipment that the military has now. Even if you like the military, the best thing you can do is to topple the military industrial complex and advocate for less spending.
a resource draining military is a catch22 proven idiotic by history time and time again, and we shouldn’t be funding it at all.
What, so Russia can invade us? You think any of us are that stupid?
That's right, the only thing stopping those vile ruskies from Red Dawn'ing all over our beautiful homeland is our $52,000 trash cans and $14,000 toilet seats. Freedom isn't free 🫡🇱🇷
That’s how most votes go. Have you seen the marijuana decriminalization and expungement bill? Stalled in the House with 116 cosponsors.
Democrats need to vote in congressional elections.
Democrats need to vote in congressional elections.
"But the democratic candidates aren't perfect or exciting or far left enough, so I'm going to stay home and teach them a lesson!"
Narrator: that lesson? That your (left) vote isn't worth fighting for, so they go right to get votes. V. O. T. E.
To add to your point, not voting is ceding power to those who would (and do!) act against you and your best interests. Perfect is the enemy of good. No candidate exists that shares all your views, so the only way to make things better is to vote for the better option that can win so the worse option doesn't roll back progress. If that's not good enough, run for office yourself locally or invest in local parties to change your locale for the better.
“Or young enough”
I’ve fallen victim to this sort of apathetic sentiment before and even voted for Trump in 2016. I quickly learned my lesson and have voted Blue on everything since. Sometimes even a subjectively mediocre candidate is far better than an exciting candidate who may not have anyone’s best interests in mind. Don’t be like how I used to be!
I hear you. I voted for Nader in 2000, then spent years protesting the Bush administration. If Democrats consistently win for long enough, primaries can force them further left to capture more of the vote. I’d love to see us break the two-party system, but they always fail to get a single Electoral College vote, and mostly help elect Republicans. Why do you think RFK Jr. is funded by conservative PACs and Jill Stein is supported by Putin?
If that's not good enough, run for office yourself locally or invest in local parties to change your locale for the better.
Yeah I'll get right on that with the suitcase full of campaign money that I definitely have.
I get the point you're making but running for office is not a realistic goal for most people. This is intentional.
It doesn't take much to run locally. I know someone who wanted to be a member of the county board and he did so without doing much more than some mass mailers to constituents.
Going for bigger offices you have a point, but not on the super local level.
You can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure nobody gave AOC a suitcase full of cash. She put in the effort and that got her first the district and later the congress. You can dismiss her as the exception, but she's "the exception" only if you consider her effort to be exceptional. And there was that other guy (literally blanking on the name) who ran as a democrat and is now turning republican after being elected, pretty sure he also did a grassroots campaign. You can absolutely get shit done if you put in the effort.
The "suitcase full of campaign money" is the lie you're told to keep you from running.
“But the democratic candidates aren’t perfect or exciting or far left enough, so I’m going to stay home and teach them a lesson!”
People would stop thinking things like this if they met the people in their local and state parties. They insist they're the adults in the room and that they have no lessons to learn.
Republicans are "fuck everyone but the insanely wealthy". Democrats are "give a crumb to everyone and everything else to the insanely wealthy". Voting Democrat is the only real option we have in this country against a "side" that wants to destroy everything America is about, but it's still voting for a bunch of scumbags who are just going to vote for the same thing that maybe isn't quite as absolutely devastating to every single person who makes under a billion dollars in this country but still doesn't help nearly enough.
Alter or abolish. Voting is useless.
It's cute you people are too stupid to know what words mean. You think they're like some kind of magic incantation you can chant and harm your enemy.
We already give a fuck ton of money to healthcare, even more than we give to the defense budget. The problem is that too much of our money goes to lobbying, pharma companies, medical companies, hospital Administrators, and other greedy fucks. We pay health insurance and most of the time they try to screw us over. What we need is paying for stuff that will actually go directly to us. Throwing as much money as possible doesn't help, we need to make sure that the money goes where we want it to go.
Federal Spending budget:
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
It's not like even passing healthcare reform helps much. Obamacare got gutted to hell and back by the Republicans, to the point where it's more likely to give you a paper cut than help with healthcare care.
No, if you're low income and don't get healthcare through your employer it's pretty fucking awesome compared to what came before it, which was "oh, well you see the hospital exit there? Keep going until you hit the gutter and die there kthnx bye. Oh, you have insurance? Well your provider says this is a pre-existing condition, so refer to my original statement."
The subsidies on the ACA marketplace make insurance feasible, and the restrictions on pre-existing conditions make it actually useful. Even after being gutted.
You're spreading misinformation that could legitimately cause people harm by not seeking out coverage through Obamacare. Could it be better? Of course.
Can confirm. When I signed up through the marketplace though I didn't get a very good plan. The real trick was calling one of the approve agents they had listed. Now with the subsidy it doesn't cost me anything for the premium, I pay 10 bucks for a doctors visit, and, while I haven't needed much, the prescriptions have all been covered. It's the best insurance I've ever had honestly. I highly recommend speaking with an agent.
The ACA was good the first year it existed, but deductibles and premiums have both since increased beyond the point of usefulness.
Only for not-poor people. It's still saving thousands of lives. I mean this sincerely: if you make enough money that the ACA is useless to you, check your privilege.
That's factually inaccurate.
The cheapest plans cost hundreds of dollars per month and have deductibles that make you pay thousands of dollars out of pocket before the insurance company will pay out a cent. Its worse than just not having any insurance - not only are you still paying full price for healthcare, but you're also out hundreds of dollars a month paying the premiums for an insurance policy that doesn't actually cover anything unless you happen to have thousands of dollars in the bank to pay the deductibles.
If you make enough money that you can afford to pay the premiums and deductibles for even the cheapest of ACA plans, or if you're so out of touch and far removed from shopping for ACA plans as a poor person that you're not aware of just how expensive they are and how little they cover, perhaps it is you who needs to re-evaluate how privileged you are.
The cheapest plans cost hundreds of dollars per month
That's just a fucking blatant lie. Obamacare is free if your income is low enough. That's bad enough I'm actually going to report your post for misinformation, and I almost never do that.
If your income is low enough. I make $3/hr above minimum wage in my state. I make too much to qualify for Medicaid, so I was redirected to the marketplace.
Cheapest plan when I checked less than a month ago was $275/month with a $10,000 deductible that had to be met, prescriptions were only covered like 50% until you hit the deductible, doctor's visits and tests were 60% on me until I hit the deductible, none of my doctors were in their network, and it was a shit plan.
The best "budget" plan I could find was about $400/month, doctor's visits were $50, tests were split 50/50, prescriptions were 60% covered but only until the deductible of $7,000 was reached, then it was 100%, oh, and still none of my doctors were in their network.
So I make $37,000/year before taxes, and I'm expected to spend $3,300 to $4,800 annually on insurance that's going to make me spend another $7-$10k before they'll even cover everything. So I have to spend $10,300-$14,800 of my salary that, again, is too high to qualify for Medicaid, for health insurance.
What part of that is easy or so simple that you just get on the marketplace and have free health insurance, yay!! My state caps the Medicaid qualifying salary for a single person with no dependents at like $19,000/year. So should I just go knock up a few women and pump out a couple kids? Cause then I'd fucking qualify for Medicaid on my current salary, and maybe I could visit a fucking dentist for the first time in 6 fucking years.
Edit: Oh, and those monthly insurance costs were after the reductions you mentioned, that's what I'd have paid with help from the government. If Obamacare works for some people, I'm glad, but it leaves a lot of us out in the fucking cold and I'm tired of hearing that it's just so goddamn easy to get free health insurance in this fucking Third World country we call America.
That’s just a fucking blatant lie. Obamacare is free if your income is low enough.
This is also factually inaccurate. If your income is low enough, then I know from experience that the sign up process for the ACA will redirect you to Medicaid.
I believe that you believe that you're telling the truth, but it seems like you've been misinformed. In reality, you've asked me to disregard my own lived experience and to ignore the evidence provided by my own lying eyes.
I'm in it. Right now. Trying to get healthcare as a poor person in USA.
Your replies make it seem like you are not - like you're out of touch and apparently believe its easier to be poor in USA than it actually is. A poor person in USA can get free healthcare, but you have to stay poor to keep it. If your income grows to about 1 standard deviation below the median, which is still less than a living wage, then you'll lose access to Medicaid and have to shop for an ACA plan in the marketplace. Those marketplace plans became garbage after the Republicans repealed the important parts of 'obamacare'.
Medicaid IS Obamacare. Remember the whole "medicaid expansion" debacle where some states decided not to accept free federal money to stop their own residents from dying, because a Black Democrat was offering it?
The ACA was always a health insurance industry handout. It was the opposite of a healthcare reform from the moment Obama dumped Dean over the public option. Deans whole thing was it HAS to have at least a public option or it would just be what the ACA is today: repackaged RomneyCare bullshit that functions as labor control.
The ACA has saved thousands of lives, but cool, it's nice to know you're too privileged to care
It is a system for providing health insurance, so one would hope it would have a measurable effect, yes.
The ACA turned my insurance from affordable to "yeah, you're not going to be able to afford health care now, and no, you don't qualify for cheap health care because of your situation." Fuck the ACA and fuck the appeasement bullshit. Every single fucking citizen of this rich as goddamn fuck country should have free/very affordable health care like the rest of the goddamn civilized world. There's no goddamn excuse any more and anyone praising the fucking ACA can go to hell.
"Every step we take in a positive direction is actually bad because we didn't immediately get everything we wanted"
Yeah fuck that stupidity
During the Obamacare debates, we were sooooo close to getting a public option....you could taste it. But powers that be didn't want to introduce Medicare as an option because it would upset the status quo and for profit health care aystem
You think Obamacare didn't upset the status quo?
You're imagining there's some Deep State cabal preventing you from getting a public option, but it's just conservatives.
Did the Dems do something we don't like? Dems are bad. Did the Repubs do something we don't like? Dems are bad for not stopping it. I am definitely a very left leftist, which I why I use the exact same rhetoric and disingenuous talking points as the far right.
Yeah. Just to be clear, the reason all those Dems voted against this appropriations bill was that it contains carve outs for things like abortion, among other things the far-right caucus wanted. As a result, it will never pass the Senate.
There will now be a lengthy back and forth between the two chambers to try to get a reconciled version passed, and morons like Butthead and Troll-foot can grandstand and repeat Russian talking points to the public.
So many assholes, looking at the votes...
bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe WhY bOThEr VoTiNg, being egged on by his pal Dimitri Jessie on social media, to keep his purity intact by not bothering to vote.
Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), Jared Golden (D-ME), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) and Mary Peltola (D-AK)
Cuellar, of course.
We have to keep pouring oil into The Emperor of Mankind, otherwise the warp will consume us.
Pretty sure 'muricans are planning to invade Canada, South Park made a whole movie about that!
No one. We're funneling tax dollars into arms manufacturer's pockets, and the pockets of their shareholders. 'Murica.
THIS HAS GOT TO FUCKING STOP!!! THE WEAPONS CO.OANIES MUST BE NATIONALIZED!! NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE UNTIL LOBBYISTS ARE IMPRISONED FOR BRIBES! ELECT ME AND I WILL PUT AND END TO THIS BULLSHIT
895 TRILLION to main, kill and destroy others and militarize police. Our own people living in cars and sleeping rough.
I see little to no difference. Plus, I think he made a typo. Most people do know pentagon budgets are typically in trillions.
I am with you on the fact that Lemmy seems a little trigger happy on the downvotes sometimes. Sometimes a mistake is just a mistake
This is $3000 per American. We could easily cut it in half and allocate the savings to something useful, like healthcare.
Bear in mind you already spend more per capita on healthcare than countries with universal healthcare , it's just you don't get anything for it, except the opportunity to make some different billionaires richer
So yeah you could add it to that and I dunno, buy some megayachts for someone or something
We don't need to. We could take the existing amount spent on healthcare, re-organize as universal healtch care single payer, and spend the same amount.
That's usually what a defense budget is for.
The healthcare budget is for healthcare strangely enough.
I don't know much about this topic, but I'm seeing a lot of uncontested claims of "us spends more on healthcare per capita" in this thread, leading me to believe that more money won't fix the underlying problem.
Okay, I know that user, and they're a fuckwit, but they're right. If you think defense spending is why we don't have universal health care, you're extremely uninformed.
Which is somewhat excusable if you're not American, but if your are, for shame, my dudes.
Unintentionally I guess, I just wonder what the defense budget has to do with healthcare.
What's funny is that there should be less healthcare budget because the current cost per capita for the whole US is the highest in the world even though public healthcare only covers a minority of people. If actual universal public healthcare was implemented like in any rich country then healthcare spendings would go down dramatically.
We already spend more on healthcare per capita than almost every other country.
More healthcare budget won't give us universal health care. All we need is the existing budget, plus single payer.
I think
There should be less defense budget
Is the reason tankies brought this post up. They don't actually give a shit about health care.
I think everyone thirteen and older should get government-supplied methamphetamine rations to increase the GDP.
I think you should take the entire ration of gov supply meth. Oh sheeeeet I believe you already did.
I'm seeing a lot of "We should have less defense budget and more health care budget" in these comments. But we don't need more health care budget. The existing budget is more than enough to give us universal health care.
I know what you fuckers are really trying to say.
"We should have less defense budget and more health care budget"
Fuck you, tankies
I'm sorry, do you think it's a good thing that we funnel huge amounts of money into the bank accounts of the people at the top of huge corporations making devices for destruction? I don't.
Not exactly, but it's actively harmful to the universal healthcare movement on multiple levels to have people believe it would cost the government more money than they are already spending.
The fact that it would cost less is already counterintuitive.
Housing the homeless would also cost less than policing them. But statistics can't address truthiness.
I get your point, I agree that the US has ample healthcare budget already; the US spends government significantly more budget money (proportionally) on social programs than the EU and most countries with universal and/or free healthcare, but has significantly worse outcomes because capitalism moment. I also agree that the US should value its ability to fight wars. We don't need to lower our military budget in order to get better healthcare, we need to get rid of liberal capitalism and replace it with heavy regulation or (preferrably but unrealistically) socialism...
That being said, when our military supplies are being used to bomb Palestinian kids, it's harder to feel justified in giving the military money that could go towards our extremely broken social welfare, which is where others are coming from
Or to not get too in the weeds, specific to healthcare just take an off the shelf single payer program that already works well in any number of countries.
It's only hard because of conservative opposition. Vote those bastards out, and elect enough progressives to override the conservative Dems.
We probably would have an extremely robust universal and free healthcare plan by now if it weren't for certain crucial legislatures being filled with conservatives; Truman tried pretty hard to give America universal healthcare, plus civil rights and the best social welfare in the first world in general, but he was stopped in his tracks by a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans. Obama also likely would have gotten us universal healthcare if a portion of the Democrats under him were less conservative – he went for the ACA because he knew that would pass, even if it was sub-par.
It's a shame how Truman couldn't achieve his goals in office, otherwise I feel we would probably be far better off, and leading the first world in social welfare. Truman was dead-set on bolstering New Deal policies including extremely progressive taxation and better social programs – the same policies which were the foundation of America's greatest economic success, which is a big part of why recession hit after his conservative Republican second legislator came in and started opposing him. We likely wouldn't even have had Reagan if it went differently – his election was mostly a reaction to the perceived failures of Carter (which were in reality mostly a result of the policies of Nixon and Ford, combined with the 1970s energy crisis) and progressive Democrats as a whole at the time. We might have not even had Nixon, since Truman's progressive policies being implemented and succeeding likely would drag the Democrat party, and Americans in general, more leftwards; which is important considering he was elected due to McGovern being considered "too liberal".
We should rebrand regulation as conservative capitalism. Say that for a decade and it'll mean what we want it to.
That being said, when our military supplies are being used to bomb Palestinian kids
Ukraine is on the same coin, so it's a matter of how you choose to look at it.
