Entire Global Military Spending Less Than U.S. Entitlements

Global spending $1.2 trillion. 2005 entitlements 1.3 Trillion. This will go up as soon as 12-20 million new hardworking illegals are made citizens. Guess who's paying.

what's odd is that about half (about $650 billion) of the world's military spending is from one country... guess which one...

rdang, got anything that sources entitlements in 2006? i just want to see a comparison
and were those federal entitlements or federal and state?

[edit on 6/12/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Looks like Federal entitlements.Here. Largest increase in 40 years. Guaranteed to go up,since we will be subsidizing Mexico in the very near future.

well... i see nothing wrong with any of these programs. veterans need their benefits, families that are working to make ends meet but can't quite get it there should be given a helping hand (they aren't the ones that are mooching), and social security is a good idea.

though i think medicare/caid should be completely taken away and replaced by government subsidized healthcare. it only makes sense that health be a right instead of a privelege.

rdang, why will we be subsidizing Mexico soon?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what's odd is that about half (about $650 billion) of the world's military spending is from one country... guess which one...

Yes, because essentially the United States subsidized the militaries of Europe for around half a century. Had the U.S. not spent so much on military spending during the Cold War, the European nations would have been forced to spend a lot more. But since the U.S. did, the European nations put military spending on the back-burner, since the U.S. was essentially "subsidizing" them in terms of protection.

Right now, U.S. military spending only accounts for about 3% of our GDP, and is the lowest it has been since the Carter Administration. Entitlements are what take up the majority of the Federal Budget.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
though i think medicare/caid should be completely taken away and replaced by government subsidized healthcare. it only makes sense that health be a right instead of a privelege.

No, it doesn't. For one, healthcare is not a right. Who do you think will pay for it? The government will take away money that people earn through taxes to pay for other people's healthcare, many of whom are undeserving.

Secondly, take a look at the quality of government-subsidized healthcare programs throughout the world. In the United States we still overall have the best healthcare. Socialist healthcare systems do not work very well. There is no incentive to improve your skills as a doctor and so forth.

Also, we already have government-subsidized healthcare. You think if a teenage girl gets pregnant and has no healthcare, that she is up the creek without a paddle? Not a chance. The government will pay for her healthcare automatically.

As a matter of fact, the United States currently spends more PUBLIC money on healthcare PER person than do most nations with completely socialist healthcare systems.

Since we spend more public money per person on healthcare and still have a "private" healthcare system, how much do you think a completely government-subsidized system would cost? Things such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security take up the largest portion of the Federal budget.

We put 16% of our GDP into healthcare. This could easily spiral to a much larger number if the healthcare was completely subsidized.

Another problem with a completely subsidized system is since the healthcare is "free," the system becomes overloaded, because everyone goes to the doctor for the tiniest problems, such as colds, little cuts, etc...the system thus becomes way clogged up for the people who really need care. And then the doctors, as I said, have no incentive to improve as everyone is paid the same salary.

Now you are probably thinking, "The United States healthcare system is very bad though, too many people don't have healthcare. People can't just "get a job and work" to afford healthcare, as many people with very good jobs and salaries still cannot afford healthcare."

This is true and there is a reason for this.

America does have the best healthcare, but the system itself is screwy, and that is because of GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. We don't really have a privatized healthcare system in this country, we have a supposedly private one with a ton of government regulation.

The solution is to remove a good deal of that regulation. For example, Medicare has about 133,000 pages worth of regulation. The drug companies are highly-regulated (this is also the reason the drug companies have a cartel). Insurance companies have tons of regulations to deal with.

If the system is de-regulated a god deal, we would have a much more private healthcare system, which would then become very affordable for people.

Whoops, double-post.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
No, it doesn't. For one, healthcare is not a right.

alright...um
well
all i can really say is that you're a horrible person for believing that.
that's really all i have to say. everyone who is sick or wounded deserves medical attention.

Who do you think will pay for it? The government will take away money that people earn through taxes to pay for other people's healthcare, many of whom are undeserving.

1: will it cost the people more or less? answer: less, we get rid of the profit aspect of medical care
2: who the hell doesn't deserve medical attention?

Secondly, take a look at the quality of government-subsidized healthcare programs throughout the world. In the United States we still overall have the best healthcare.

we have the best healthcare IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. care to back up your claims on healthcare with statistics?

Socialist healthcare systems do not work very well. There is no incentive to improve your skills as a doctor and so forth.

really? how about... promotions? hell, doctors in malta still have private practices when the government pays for it.

Also, we already have government-subsidized healthcare. You think if a teenage girl gets pregnant and has no healthcare, that she is up the creek without a paddle? Not a chance. The government will pay for her healthcare automatically.

yet we won't teach her about condom use...

As a matter of fact, the United States currently spends more PUBLIC money on healthcare PER person than do most nations with completely socialist healthcare systems.

alright can you back that up?
and even if we did... we could make the system more cost effective if we went fully federal

Since we spend more public money per person on healthcare and still have a "private" healthcare system, how much do you think a completely government-subsidized system would cost? Things such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security take up the largest portion of the Federal budget.

well, since i don't know how the hell we spend more per person than a socialized country... i can't give you an answer
though i could point out that we probably spend so much because we so freaking unhealthy.

We put 16% of our GDP into healthcare. This could easily spiral to a much larger number if the healthcare was completely subsidized.

are you sure that's the government putting 16% of our gdp, or is it the people putting that into our gdp?

Another problem with a completely subsidized system is since the healthcare is "free," the system becomes overloaded, because everyone goes to the doctor for the tiniest problems, such as colds, little cuts, etc...the system thus becomes way clogged up for the people who really need care.

can you give me a place where this has happened?

And then the doctors, as I said, have no incentive to improve as everyone is paid the same salary.

no... that's again wrong. in no country are doctors all paid the same amount of money, socialized or not.

Now you are probably thinking, "The United States healthcare system is very bad though, too many people don't have healthcare. People can't just "get a job and work" to afford healthcare, as many people with very good jobs and salaries still cannot afford healthcare."

This is true and there is a reason for this.

America does have the best healthcare, but the system itself is screwy, and that is because of GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. We don't really have a privatized healthcare system in this country, we have a supposedly private one with a ton of government regulation.

alright, how is this argument substantiated?

The solution is to remove a good deal of that regulation. For example, Medicare has about 133,000 pages worth of regulation. The drug companies are highly-regulated (this is also the reason the drug companies have a cartel). Insurance companies have tons of regulations to deal with.

alright, which regulations do you want to throw out... the safety ones?

If the system is de-regulated a god deal, we would have a much more private healthcare system, which would then become very affordable for people.

can you point out one needless regulation?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
alright...um
well
all i can really say is that you're a horrible person for believing that.
that's really all i have to say. everyone who is sick or wounded deserves medical attention.

No it doesn't. Food is more important to life than healthcare, but you don't see the government issuing out food do you? You want healthcare, you work to make money so you can afford it. You don't give everyone the same quality healthcare. You want better healthcare, you work more. I can understand a bare-bones system, but overall, healthcare isn't a right.

1: will it cost the people more or less? answer: less, we get rid of the profit aspect of medical care
2: who the hell doesn't deserve medical attention?

The profit aspect is what would drive DOWN costs. It is because of government regulation that costs are driven up. With profit-based operations, they would spend only as much money as absolutely needed; with government control, they spend it wastefully, so they can get more funding.

So costs wouldn't be as much with a profit-based system. Furthermore, the market regulates prices in a profit-based system. And doctors would have incentive to improve their skills, to offer better quality healthcare and also so they could charge more for that extra quality.

we have the best healthcare IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. care to back up your claims on healthcare with statistics?

All you need do is look at the healthcare systems of Canada, Britain, and the European nations. In Europe, their systems are short on money, so they are literally having to make decisions on who gets to live and who has to die. In Britain they have private health care if you are willing to pay for it because it is better than socialized healthcare. In Canada, they had made private healthcare illegal, but they are changing this as the socialized system is so terrible that many people were just crossing over to the U.S. to get healthcare.

really? how about... promotions? hell, doctors in malta still have private practices when the government pays for it.

It's still a fixed income scale. The absolute best brain surgeons, heart surgeons, eye surgeons, etc...can charge a LOT of money because they have spent years studying hard and learning and practicing to be as good as they are. There is no incentive if they are on a fixed pay-scale. Plus you took away their right to practice medicine freely. They shouldn't have to have permission from the government to practice medicine.

yet we won't teach her about condom use...

They know about condom use. It happens because the girls know the government will support them and they are lazy, so they get pregnant on purpose. Both my cousins did just this.

alright can you back that up?
and even if we did... we could make the system more cost effective if we went fully federal

How so? There has never been any nationalized industry that was ever cost effective in the history of America. When it's federal, then it's a bunch of bureaucracy and it's a government agency that does its best to spend money (i.e. it spends it wastefully) so it can get more and expand its power. It would never be cost effective.

Take a look at the military's healthcare system (remember Walter Reed?). Or HMOs (horribly inefficient). Those are managed healthcare. Socialized medicine is managed healthcare. The military is about one million strong and the healthcare system in that is horribly mis-managed. Imagine one supporting 300 million. I have a friend who had a vasectomy done by a military doctor, and when he went to have it reversed by a civilian doctor, the doctor asked him who'd performed it, as it was done so poorly.

As for the public money per person thing, that particular statistic I have somewhere, I am sure it can be found through some Googling, however I do not have it at the moment. But my understanding from reading is America puts more public money into healthcare per person than most nations with socialized systems. I will find this statistic, it's somewhere out there, I just need to find it.

well, since i don't know how the hell we spend more per person than a socialized country... i can't give you an answer
though i could point out that we probably spend so much because we so freaking unhealthy.

It's likely because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all the regulation, and corruption.

are you sure that's the government putting 16% of our gdp, or is it the people putting that into our gdp?

Well it's kind of the same thing, as the government gets its money from the people.

can you give me a place where this has happened?

Look at any country with a socialized healthcare system.

no... that's again wrong. in no country are doctors all paid the same amount of money, socialized or not.

If it's a socialized system, the salary for the most part is fixed.

alright, how is this argument substantiated?

There hasn't been an industry in the history of this nation (or the world really) that government interference has improved.

alright, which regulations do you want to throw out... the safety ones?

Nope, some regulation is needed, just not the insane amount there is.

can you point out one needless regulation?

Read this, you'll get an idea of what I mean by there being too much regulation: www.strike-the-root.com...

Also read this article: www.fff.org...

And check out this website: www.angelfire.com...

[edit on 12-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
No it doesn't. Food is more important to life than healthcare, but you don't see the government issuing out food do you?

food stamps.

You want healthcare, you work to make money so you can afford it. You don't give everyone the same quality healthcare. You want better healthcare, you work more. I can understand a bare-bones system, but overall, healthcare isn't a right.

so what the hell is a right?
we don't have the right to healthcare... but we have the right to complain about not having healthcare...
and again, this WOULDN'T give everyone the same healthcare. socialized healthcare just means that you don't have to pay for healthcare, it doesn't rid the world of private practices

The profit aspect is what would drive DOWN costs.

have you seen the skyrocketing costs of drugs? pfzer and the cartels drive up costs. do you have any idea the type of profits they make on each pill?

It is because of government regulation that costs are driven up.

show me a single regulation that drives up costs

With profit-based operations, they would spend only as much money as absolutely needed; with government control, they spend it wastefully, so they can get more funding.

and with profit-based operations they charge as much as they possibly can for a pill... because it's normally not a product with much competition and demand is at the level of "i need to take this or i'll die"

So costs wouldn't be as much with a profit-based system. Furthermore, the market regulates prices in a profit-based system.

And doctors would have incentive to improve their skills, to offer better quality healthcare and also so they could charge more for that extra quality.

the majority of the doctors in this country don't get paid more for being more skilled, they get paid based on their position. the incentives for promotion is still there in a socialized system and private practices don't get removed

All you need do is look at the healthcare systems of Canada, Britain, and the European nations. In Europe, their systems are short on money, so they are literally having to make decisions on who gets to live and who has to die.

source?

In Britain they have private health care if you are willing to pay for it because it is better than socialized healthcare.

again, source?

In Canada, they had made private healthcare illegal, but they are changing this as the socialized system is so terrible that many people were just crossing over to the U.S. to get healthcare.

source?

It's still a fixed income scale. The absolute best brain surgeons, heart surgeons, eye surgeons, etc...can charge a LOT of money because they have spent years studying hard and learning and practicing to be as good as they are. There is no incentive if they are on a fixed pay-scale.

really, where are you getting your data that all socialized systems are on a fixed income scale?

Plus you took away their right to practice medicine freely. They shouldn't have to have permission from the government to practice medicine.

well, the maltese system isn't like that. you can either work private or public... it's your choice.

They know about condom use. It happens because the girls know the government will support them and they are lazy, so they get pregnant on purpose. Both my cousins did just this.

really? the government only supports abstinence education. how the hell are they learning about condom use?

How so? There has never been any nationalized industry that was ever cost effective in the history of America.

nationalized and socialized are two different things.

When it's federal, then it's a bunch of bureaucracy and it's a government agency that does its best to spend money (i.e. it spends it wastefully) so it can get more and expand its power. It would never be cost effective.

yet other countries can do it...
are you saying malta can do something that the united states can't?

Take a look at the military's healthcare system (remember Walter Reed?). Or HMOs (horribly inefficient). Those are managed healthcare. Socialized medicine is managed healthcare.

alright, we address inefficiencies. problem solved. you're giving up before you're trying to make it work.

The military is about one million strong and the healthcare system in that is horribly mis-managed.

because they keep cutting the funding...

Imagine one supporting 300 million. I have a friend who had a vasectomy done by a military doctor, and when he went to have it reversed by a civilian doctor, the doctor asked him who'd performed it, as it was done so poorly.

ok, that's an attack on military doctors... not socialized medicine.

As for the public money per person thing, that particular statistic I have somewhere, I am sure it can be found through some Googling, however I do not have it at the moment. But my understanding from reading is America puts more public money into healthcare per person than most nations with socialized systems. I will find this statistic, it's somewhere out there, I just need to find it.

alright, there are a bunch of unsourced claims in your posts.. i want support for a lot of them

It's likely because of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all the regulation, and corruption.

again with the regulations! which ones? how do they harm the system and not protect the people?

Well it's kind of the same thing, as the government gets its money from the people.

no, how much money WE spend on healthcare and how much money the GOVERNMENT spends on healthcare are two different things. you're manipulating the numbers to support your point if you say otherwise

Look at any country with a socialized healthcare system.

but you can't source that... can you?

If it's a socialized system, the salary for the most part is fixed.

source?

There hasn't been an industry in the history of this nation (or the world really) that government interference has improved.

that's not a substantiation. historical arguments only go so far...
oh, and healthcare in malta. it's amazing... look it up, compare it to the USA's average healthcare.
oh, highways got better with federal interference.

Nope, some regulation is needed, just not the insane amount there is.

when you're dealing with companies that are already dealing in the lives of people... i wouldn't take any risks

Read this, you'll get an idea of what I mean by there being too much regulation:

again, just point out a single needless regulation.
just one.

i want you to point out 1 regulation, give me the wording of that regulation, and show me how the hell it hurts companies without benefiting the public.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
food stamps.

Yes, food stamps are only given to those who can't afford regular food though, and technically should only be temporary. If you lose your job and can't afford food, you can't just go to some government building and get free food.

so what the hell is a right?
we don't have the right to healthcare... but we have the right to complain about not having healthcare...
and again, this WOULDN'T give everyone the same healthcare. socialized healthcare just means that you don't have to pay for healthcare, it doesn't rid the world of private practices

Yes you DO have to pay for it, through higher taxes. Nothing is free. If I have to pay for private healthcare, then it's wrong to make me pay for socialized medicine through taxes.

As for rights, you have the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, protection from illegal search and seizures, freedom of religion, etc...the Bill of Rights are your main rights.

have you seen the skyrocketing costs of drugs? pfzer and the cartels drive up costs. do you have any idea the type of profits they make on each pill?

Exactly. And it is the government regulation of the drug industry that causes the cartel. Cartels cannot form in a free market. They only form when there is government intervention. In the case of the drug industry, there's the FDA, which causes the drug cartel.

You can read about this type of economics in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" and "Capitalism and Freedom."

There is a very wrong notion that cartels form in free markets. This isn't so. Cartels form in industries (and societies) in which the government interferes a lot. The cartel then sets the prices as they wish.

show me a single regulation that drives up costs

Price controls can be one. But overall, there is no single regulation that drives up costs, it's the combined effect of them overall.

Here is a link of how government regulation messes up healthcare: www.liberty-page.com...

and with profit-based operations they charge as much as they possibly can for a pill... because it's normally not a product with much competition and demand is at the level of "i need to take this or i'll die"

Yes, and if the drug industry wasn't so highly-regulated, there would be no drug cartel, there would be a LOT more competition and a lot more drug companies, which would drive up quality and drive down prices. Companies charge as much as the market can handle, but the market always regulates prices to a reasonable level for an industry as logn as there is lots of competition. Otherwise, the industry dies off.

the majority of the doctors in this country don't get paid more for being more skilled, they get paid based on their position. the incentives for promotion is still there in a socialized system and private practices don't get removed

Yes, and it is wrong that doctors get paid this way. More regulation. The incentives are not there in a socialized system though. Private practices still existing is good, but it is wrong to tax people to pay for the healthcare of those who cannot afford it, yet then at the same time make those same taxpayers, who likely can afford it, pay for their own healthcare. They are thus paying for their own healthcare and the rest of society's, which is not only wrong, but creates a needy, entitlement-minded society.

source?

www.cato.org...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
again, source?

Ask any British person. they have socialized medicine there, but private healthcare is available too.

source?

If you go to the above link (the first one I posted) and scroll down to the "Canada" section, you will see the following:

Parliament unanimously passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 and established a single-payer, publicly-financed health care system. To ensure a true government monopoly (is there any other kind?) Canadian provinces outlawed private health insurance.

Chaoulli v. Quebec UPDATE (June 9, 2005): In a 4 to 3 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance.

They struck it down because the public system was not meeting the needs.

really, where are you getting your data that all socialized systems are on a fixed income scale?

That is how a socialized system works. If a doctor is limited in how much money they can earn, they are not going to put in the effort to learn more if they will earn the same as the person who doesn't.

well, the maltese system isn't like that. you can either work private or public... it's your choice.

That's good. But it infringes on the people's rights by taking their money. At least by American standards, anyhow.

really? the government only supports abstinence education. how the hell are they learning about condom use?

Good point, however, most all teens I've known, even stupid ones, know of condoms. The ones I know get pregnant on purpose.

nationalized and socialized are two different things.

How are they different? Nationalized, socialized, both mean: it's publicly-funded, and controlled by a government agency.

yet other countries can do it...
are you saying malta can do something that the united states can't?

No they can't. I mean they do, but their systems aren't nearly as good and they must ration health care now (see the second link I posted in the previous post).

alright, we address inefficiencies. problem solved. you're giving up before you're trying to make it work.

But that's the thing, there is no way to make it work. That's the problem with a socilialized system. Bureaucracy, people with guaranteed jobs, etc...for example, at Walter Reed, they cannot fire the civilians who work there, because they are government workers. Thus they have no incentive to work hard to keep from being fired.

because they keep cutting the funding...

I agree, the system can use more funding, but even still, it is still horribly mis-managed. Money wouldn't change that.

ok, that's an attack on military doctors... not socialized medicine.

Yeah, but if the system can't support one-million, how would a system for handling 300 million work? And be cost-efficient?

As for the public money per person thing, that particular statistic I have somewhere, I am sure it can be found through some Googling, however I do not have it at the moment. But my understanding from reading is America puts more public money into healthcare per person than most nations with socialized systems. I will find this statistic, it's somewhere out there, I just need to find it.

Still searching for that one, but I gave you other sources.

again with the regulations! which ones? how do they harm the system and not protect the people?

Refer to my first link. Also again I recommend those Friedman books.

See this link for an example of what regulation does: www.strike-the-root.com...

Overall, regulation slows things down, destroys competition, and makes things very rigid.

no, how much money WE spend on healthcare and how much money the GOVERNMENT spends on healthcare are two different things. you're manipulating the numbers to support your point if you say otherwise

OH, you mean the difference between private spending and public spending on healthcare? In the case of GDP, that is the overall economy. It means basically that of all the money the people of the United States produce, 16% of that goes to healthcare, which is about $2 trillion.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) is $12.98 trillion, and U.S. GDP (official exchange rate is $13.22 trillion). 16% of both of those numbers is approximately $2 trillion. (.16 x 12.98 = 2.07, 13.22 X .16 = 2.1)

The U.S. economy, in short, produces about $13 trillion a year, and we put 16% of that into healthcare overall. That is an ENORMOUS AMOUNT. To fund a public system to cover all 300 million people, the costs would skyrocket most likely.

but you can't source that... can you?

That one I can, but I don't know where the source is at the moment. But that is a problem with socialized systems. I will post that when I find it. I would suggest you search that link I gave you though (that website on socialist healthcare, I think it is somewhere in that).

If it's a socialized system, the salary for the most part is fixed.

That's how socialized systems work.

that's not a substantiation. historical arguments only go so far...

Yes, but when history shows a particular system fails almost everytime it's tried or fails to do as well as an alternative, which consistently does a lot better, than history is probably good enough.

oh, and healthcare in malta. it's amazing... look it up, compare it to the USA's average healthcare.

Just looked it up, and they mentioned that it has amongst the best private hospitals in the world, with medical staff trained in the United States and the U.K. And they also mentioned very competitive prices. No where did I see anything about public healthcare.

oh, highways got better with federal interference.

Yep, highways are one of the main things government does well, which is because highways can't compete. Usually everyone uses the same freeways in an area. Since highways cannot compete, private ownership is bad because the owners can literally charge whatever they want and they can get away with it and poorly maintain the roads (because there's no competition).

With government ownership of the highways, the government has a responsibility to keep the highways well-maintained, but also if a government official does not maintain the highway properly, they will get voted out of office.

when you're dealing with companies that are already dealing in the lives of people... i wouldn't take any risks

Well the problem is that there have been studies done showing that more people die from drugs that do not reach the public than do people that die from bad drugs reaching the public. So de-regulation would save more people.

again, just point out a single needless regulation.
just one. i want you to point out 1 regulation, give me the wording of that regulation, and show me how the hell it hurts companies without benefiting the public.

Medicare alone has to deal with over 133,000 pages of regulation. Insurance companies have to deal with tons of regulations. The drug companies have to deal with tons of regulations.

You expect me to actually have the literature of ALL those regulations, pick out one little individual regulation, and then explain to you how it works badly?

That's impossible. On paper, one regulation might sound great. But when you see the combined effect of it with all the other thousands of regs, you see the damage.

The market, for the most part, regulates itself. Certain regulations are needed, but overall, very little.