(USA) A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage

[Olivaero]

Plenty of nations have a decent military without spending the excessive amount of money the US does. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS India spends a full 1.2 percent less than the US does and they have a hostile nuclear power next door! Korea spends a percentage point less and they are technically at war with a nuclear power!

Umm, Korea can spend less because THE US MILITARY PROTECTS THEM!
Korea relies on the US military to support them, without the US Korea would have to double or triple what they spend. Terrible example, try again.

Korea would take up the slack if the US withdrew

And will India and Korea protect the Yazidis from ISIS? Will Korea and India prevent them form being turned into sex slaves?

No Europe will we're closer anyway so obviously it's more effecient for us to.

And Korea uses American GPS, and so does India. And I did not see a large contingent of Indian ships helping us in Haiti. How do those countries compare with us in humanitarian response? Nobody, absolutely nobody else has the ability to respond to disasters like the US Navy does.

The UK manages to remain active in sending humanitarian aid despite spending 1.4 less percent of our GDP on millitary and that's whilst maintaining a blue water navy as for maintaining GPS staleites do not need that much maintenance when there up there I'd imagine the responsibilities could easily be picked up by NASA which definetly deserves more funding anyway.

Plus the US military has numerous functions those militaries might not have, like nautical charting (they use US charts anyways). Cutting the military would not save money, since you would need other government agency to take over functions like levee construction and canal maintenance. And is India fighting ISIS? The India military did not create GPS or the internet, but they use it.

Other countries manage those things without massive military budgets I suspect the only reason thoes things are funded through the millitary are because thats the only thing in the US that it appears politically safe to properly fund.

Oh and what about Russia? If we cut the use military drastically NATO would collapse, we cannot fully meet our NATO commitments as it is. Russian troops would be in the Baltics. The US military has huge commitments other nations do not. And our military spending is not excessive, it is a lower percent of GDP than many countries, including Russia.

Russias troops are not going to be in the Baltic... France and the UK are still nuclear powers you know? and still have professional armies of some esteem.

Look at the list of things I cited, how many has the Indian military done? None of them. Again, see Hurricane Katrina if you think the military is overfunded, we cannot maintain our infrastructure properly because our military is not adequately funded.

other countries manage to maintain their infrastructure woithout such a ridiculous expenditure. millitary expenditure shoyuld be for defending the country otherwise things like infrasture become whats convenient for the military not whats needed for the civillians.

The US has capabilities and commitments those countries do not have. And again, we spend less than Russia on defense.
You cut our funding, you cut our commitments and capabilities. There is no way around it, and people will likely die as a result. When an huge earthquake or tsunami hits people need that US hospital ship and aircraft carrier to survive. Nobody else has anything comparable.

It does not need to have commitments though once again the UK manages to aid people using it's navy on a much smaller budget than the US does so no people who wouldn't of died before are not necessarily going to die if the US decommissions an aircraft carrier or two.

[Arkolon]

... don't you know how the health insurance system works?

Oh you can find what you consider a reasonable premium to pay but then the negotiation is no longer between the consumer and the healthcare companies it's then between the insurer and the healthcare providers the insurers which may not always have your bets interests at heart.

No, they have their own best interests at heart. Conveniently, these interests are primordially that your own interests are met. Insurers also work on risk-assessment price strategies, and price their premiums very carefully. This sometimes transcends what we commonly think of supply and demand: smokers have much higher premiums to pay for the same quality of service, yet young, healthy people pay lower premiums. The same occurs everywhere in the insurance industry: young drivers pay more for car insurance, and loan sharks lend at specific four-digit interest rates not because they're having a laugh, but because that is the lowest they can offer you considering the risk they are taking. Yet we don't really see the nationalisation of the whole insurance industry gaining much traction, do we? So why the strange focus on medical insurance? It's important, duh, and that's why I suggest that we subsidise health insurance as to make it more accessible for all, instead of nationalising it. I would have to add, by the way, that the very same actuaries who perform the exact same job would still set insanely-high interests for high-risk people even if the sector was nationalised. That's just the nature of the insurance market.

Let me put it this way when some one needs medical care, they need to go to the nearest doctor possible right? so they're taken to the nearest doctor possible and given what ever service they need in this situation is the isurance company going to be shopping around for which hospital to put you in? No. you go to the one which is closest and the one that you need.

The job of the insurance firm is to insure you for your costs, so it doesn't really matter which hospital you go to. The premiums you pay already cover the risk of taking you anywhere from tomorrow to in the next twenty-five years.

The demand is inelastic so competition doesn't work as well. In other markets if if the price of ham goes up then people switch to beef if the price of the medical care they need goes up...what do they switch to?

Insurance programs don't operate on the same supply and demand curve as traditional commodities do.

[Novus America]

Umm, Korea can spend less because THE US MILITARY PROTECTS THEM!
Korea relies on the US military to support them, without the US Korea would have to double or triple what they spend. Terrible example, try again.

Korea would take up the slack if the US withdrew

And will India and Korea protect the Yazidis from ISIS? Will Korea and India prevent them form being turned into sex slaves?

No Europe will we're closer anyway so obviously it's more effecient for us to.

And Korea uses American GPS, and so does India. And I did not see a large contingent of Indian ships helping us in Haiti. How do those countries compare with us in humanitarian response? Nobody, absolutely nobody else has the ability to respond to disasters like the US Navy does.

The UK manages to remain active in sending humanitarian aid despite spending 1.4 less percent of our GDP on millitary and that's whilst maintaining a blue water navy as for maintaining GPS staleites do not need that much maintenance when there up there I'd imagine the responsibilities could easily be picked up by NASA which definetly deserves more funding anyway.

Plus the US military has numerous functions those militaries might not have, like nautical charting (they use US charts anyways). Cutting the military would not save money, since you would need other government agency to take over functions like levee construction and canal maintenance. And is India fighting ISIS? The India military did not create GPS or the internet, but they use it.

Other countries manage those things without massive military budgets I suspect the only reason thoes things are funded through the millitary are because thats the only thing in the US that it appears politically safe to properly fund.

Oh and what about Russia? If we cut the use military drastically NATO would collapse, we cannot fully meet our NATO commitments as it is. Russian troops would be in the Baltics. The US military has huge commitments other nations do not. And our military spending is not excessive, it is a lower percent of GDP than many countries, including Russia.

Russias troops are not going to be in the Baltic... France and the UK are still nuclear powers you know? and still have professional armies of some esteem.

Look at the list of things I cited, how many has the Indian military done? None of them. Again, see Hurricane Katrina if you think the military is overfunded, we cannot maintain our infrastructure properly because our military is not adequately funded.

other countries manage to maintain their infrastructure woithout such a ridiculous expenditure. millitary expenditure shoyuld be for defending the country otherwise things like infrasture become whats convenient for the military not whats needed for the civillians.

The US has capabilities and commitments those countries do not have. And again, we spend less than Russia on defense.
You cut our funding, you cut our commitments and capabilities. There is no way around it, and people will likely die as a result. When an huge earthquake or tsunami hits people need that US hospital ship and aircraft carrier to survive. Nobody else has anything comparable.

It does not need to have commitments though once again the UK manages to aid people using it's navy on a much smaller budget than the US does so no people who wouldn't of died before are not necessarily going to die if the US decommissions an aircraft carrier or two.

Umm, Korea can spend less because THE US MILITARY PROTECTS THEM!

It has always seemed very odd to me that conservatives in the US are fine with the USA subsidizing the defense budgets of essentially every other country in the world, but aren't ok with subsidizing healthcare for their own citizens.

And Korea uses American GPS, and so does India. And I did not see a large contingent of Indian ships helping us in Haiti. How do those countries compare with us in humanitarian response? Nobody, absolutely nobody else has the ability to respond to disasters like the US Navy does.

... Haiti is a stone's throw away from the US but halfway across the world, literally 3 oceans away from India. Other nations help out in their local areas, but expecting India to send ships to Haiti is a bit ridiculous.

The US does do a lot of good work with their military. But the amount of humanitarian aid the US provides isn't going to be significantly diminished if there were only 12 aircraft carriers instead of 19. The US has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world *combined* - is that really necessary? Is the world really going to be plunged into war, is ISIS going to take over, if the US lost 20% of its military aircraft (which still places them ahead of all their closest 'enemies' combined)?

First of all we are getting kind of off topic. Israel spends more on defense (6%), while still providing quality healthcare. Funding the military and funding healthcare are not mutually exclusive.

We do not actually spend that much on defense (Russia spends more). Sure Europe spends less but only because we protect them. And Europe is increasing spending. They regret cutting. China and Russia are also increasing spending. So why would we want to cut spending? Unless you want China and Russia to run the world. Also see the Korean War about how well military spending cuts work.

Yes, it is very ironic the right wants to raise military spending, while the left wants to cut military spending. As the military is our primary method of providing foreign aid, the left would in reality cut foreign aid, and the right would expand it. Yes our politics are insane as both sides hold internally inconsistent arguments.

The left wanting to cut military spending is internally inconsistent for other reasons. All military personnel are working or middle class. Cutting military spending means eliminating working and middle class jobs, increasing poverty, wealth inequality and unemployment. Pretty interesting the left wants to destroy middle class and working class jobs.

The military is not just aircraft carriers. Each aircraft carrier has some 5,000 crew. Each aircraft carrier gone is 5,000 (more considering ship yard workers) middle and working class jobs eliminated. Oh and since you have to pay them welfare, unemployment, etc., are you really saving money? Is it not better to save the sailors job?

When you cut the military you have a terrible human impact. Real people suffer. This is not some numbers game. And you have very little room to talk if you have never served, you could never understand how hard the job is.

Those 11 carriers (there are only 11, the other "carriers" are big-deck amphibs, they have different capabilities and cannot operate conventional fixed wing aircraft) are working at maximum capacity. Their crews are working 80 hours a week, only see their family 6 months of the year, and many cannot support their children on their meager pay. There are already more missions than carriers, we cannot maintain our presence in the Western Pacific anymore. Fewer carriers means more work for the remainder.

Do you want the crews to work 100 hours a week? Would you be happy if they worked 168 hours? Is that what you want? That is no straw man, that is what your polices would cause.

Would you rather they never see their families? How would you like to not see your family 6 months of the year? And be told it is now 9 months and your pay is getting cut? Their children are already hungry, do you want them to starve on the street when their father becomes a homeless vet?

You cannot compare France and the UK to the US. That is like comparing a housecat to a mountain lion. Sure they look similar, but the 15 pound housecat cannot do many things the 150 pound mountain lion can. The UK and France provide what they can in humanitarian support, but it is tiny in comparison. The UK no longer has carriers, and the French only have 1. So if you need a carrier, and the French one is getting repaired (which is often, it is old) the French and British have NOTHING.
In a major humanitarian response the US provides dozens of ships, France and the UK maybe one or two. So yes people would die if you cut military spending. The military cannot afford any more cuts. We already cannot fulfill many missions. We have to let people die because we lack the resources to respond. We can never have enough to help everyone. Fewer resources means fewer people saved.

Oh and France only operates one small carrier at 52.4 billion, the US operates 11 huge ones at 600 billion. The US spends almost the same amount per carrier, yet our carriers are far more capable. The US military is a bargain in comparison.

They Royal Navy in particular is in a wretched state. We do not want to be like them. Their crews are well motivated, but their equipment is pathetic.

Now about moving military responsibilities to other agencies. That would COST money. See the military has no overtime, no holidays, no union, no OSHA. The military works far harder than the government civilians. Example when we loaded missiles in California, civilians operated the cranes. They only work from 10 to 4 and got an hour lunch break. It took all week to load the ship. In Guam the military operates the cranes. We ran those cranes from 7 in the morning until 8 at night. It took the military only a day and a half to load the ship. The military can do in 1.5 days what it takes civilians 5 days to accomplish. Oh and the civilians get paid better. We should do the opposite, and have the military take over other agencies, like NASA, to get rid of redundancy. Having NASA and the military operate separate redundant space programs is wasteful. Have the Bureau of Reclamation is silly when the Army Corps of engineers does the same thing is silly.

I could keep going on, but I have a military commitment to attend. I cannot teach you how the military operates, it is too complex.

Those who served and still serve do not ask for much.

But we would prefer a thank you rather than a screw you.

[Old Tyrannia]

That's rather...strong. What's wrong with being wary of stepping stones to full-out Socialism, enemy of Conservatism?

Free market capitalism is as much as, if not more of, a threat to conservatism as socialism. In the last century, many traditional communities have been damaged more by the effects of globalisation and free trade than socialist policies. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production; there is no inherent link between the provision of free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare and socialism. Socialists tend to support universal healthcare, true; they also tend to support laws against murder. This mentality that because "the Left" is for something means that "the Right" must be against it will be the death of the contemporary conservative movement.

Also, Bismarck was a dick. Like, a huge dick.

There is much to criticise about Otto von Bismarck, but that does not change the fact that he was a decidedly conservative and monarchist leader who pioneered universal healthcare. His Imperial Majesty Emperor Wilhelm II was even more passionately interested in workers' rights to better conditions, and it was this that eventually led to the split between the Kaiser and Bismarck; I suppose you'd consider the Kaiser a socialist, too? Allowing people to die because they cannot afford healthcare spits in the face of the virtues of Western civilisation Western conservatives should be defending. Providing basic healthcare to all parts of society does not bring us closer to collective ownership of the means of production.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

That's rather...strong. What's wrong with being wary of stepping stones to full-out Socialism, enemy of Conservatism?

Free market capitalism is as much as, if not more of, a threat to conservatism as socialism. In the last century, many traditional communities have been damaged more by the effects of globalisation and free trade than socialist policies.

As Marx said, capitalism is an evolution to previous production methods because it ends up creating a class that identify with its worker nature, and as it harms tradition to reinvent itself, it arms us with the means to social change. Its lust also is endlessly related to the expansion of our capacity of resistance and consciousness, and it will eventually turn into a classless production method because it unhelpfully leads to its own demise as we advance.

So you are absolutely right. If capitalism is too fast-paced, it is verily a threat to your whole status quo.

[SaintB]

Social conservatism has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Fiscal conservatives are the ones opposed to it.

Fiscal conservatives are stupid for doing so since its a clear money saving measure.

[Murkwood]

That's rather...strong. What's wrong with being wary of stepping stones to full-out Socialism, enemy of Conservatism?

Free market capitalism is as much as, if not more of, a threat to conservatism as socialism. In the last century, many traditional communities have been damaged more by the effects of globalisation and free trade than socialist policies. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production; there is no inherent link between the provision of free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare and socialism. Socialists tend to support universal healthcare, true; they also tend to support laws against murder. This mentality that because "the Left" is for something means that "the Right" must be against it will be the death of the contemporary conservative movement.

Alas, this is where we part. Socialism demands rapid societal change, an ideal incompatible with Conservatism. Capitalism and Conservatism, on the other hand, can and do live hand in hand.

[Republic of Coldwater]

And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg shows that Singapore has a 66% private healthcare spending. Singapore mainly has a savings system, and as far as I can see, you basically save up for a situation, and you spend that saved money, which is different than many traditional universal systems.

Yes, because it's a public private partnership. Which works well, because Singapore is a city state. But, to say that Singapore's healthcare is anything but universal, and not heavily, heavily regulated by the government is silly.

It is largely from a savings account of citizens, which is then spent on private healthcare. This is less government run than other countries with universal care, and guess what, Singapore is more efficient than they are, and provide much better care than those countries with more private sector involvement than a completely government run system.

[Fortschritte]

Yes, because it's a public private partnership. Which works well, because Singapore is a city state. But, to say that Singapore's healthcare is anything but universal, and not heavily, heavily regulated by the government is silly.

It is largely from a savings account of citizens, which is then spent on private healthcare. This is less government run than other countries with universal care, and guess what, Singapore is more efficient than they are, and provide much better care than those countries with more private sector involvement than a completely government run system.

That's not what I'm reading. From what I can tell, the country has a highly efficient healthcare system because the government works with the private sector.

[Republic of Coldwater]

It is largely from a savings account of citizens, which is then spent on private healthcare. This is less government run than other countries with universal care, and guess what, Singapore is more efficient than they are, and provide much better care than those countries with more private sector involvement than a completely government run system.

That's not what I'm reading. From what I can tell, the country has a highly efficient healthcare system because the government works with the private sector.

By having this savings account from the pockets of citizens that they can utilize when necessary for private health insurance.