Could America run at a Clinton sized budget?

Could America run effectively run on a Clinton Sized budget? Currently the obama budget is, shall we say record breaking. Were we doing without in 99?

No matter how big a government's budget is, it will never be enough. Running a country is expensive, y'know.

Deficit spending is never a good thing.

Well, dealing with two wars, and a broken economy can get little expensive.

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

Well, dealing with two wars, and a broken economy can get little expensive.

we still have higher revenue than we did in the clinton era.

overseas military operations would have to be cut.

Between inflation and significantly expanded military endeavors, of course spending will be up.

I would suggest to americans that you invest in a proper health care system (everyone else has one) -- if that happens the budget numbers will be rather high as well.

Indeed. If the US heavily cut back on its military then the budget might drop to at least being balanced, if not a surplus.

One reason spending is up is that debt (and, due to that, interest payments) keep increasing. So cut back. Balance things, and pay off your debt. The more debt you pay off the less interest you pay, the more money you have to pay off your debt, leading to even less interest...

Originally Posted by Trico

Between inflation and significantly expanded military endeavors, of course spending will be up.

I would suggest to americans that you invest in a proper health care system (everyone else has one) -- if that happens the budget numbers will be rather high as well.

And what exactly is a proper health care system?

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

we still have higher revenue than we did in the clinton era.

overseas military operations would have to be cut.

Huh, that's funny. Considering how taxes in the Bush era were even lower than the Reagen years.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

And what exactly is a proper health care system?

A universal health care system like every other industrialized country that wastes less on healthcare then we do, that covers everyone and no longer makes health care a privilege.

In other words, not our current one.

Originally Posted by Citizen Snips

Huh, that's funny. Considering how taxes in the Bush era were even lower than the Reagen years.

laffer curve

in a market system,
at a 0% tax rate you get effectively no tax money.
at a 100% tax rate you get effectively no money as everyone evades it, or does nothing which would be taxable. Also at a 100% tax rate in a market system your economy is pretty much dead.

by rolle's theorem there then exist a point between 0% and 100% which generates a maximum amount of revenue. Based on market conditions, this point can fluctuate. It just so happens that Bush was closer to this point than Clinton was and as such tax revenue went up by around 30%

as for healthcare, the problem IS NOT money, the problem is efficiency, in America, we spend over twice as much per person as compared to Canada.

Originally Posted by Citizen Snips

A universal health care system like every other industrialized country that wastes less on healthcare then we do, that covers everyone and no longer makes health care a privilege.

In other words, not our current one.

Health care is a privilege, why should it not be? People think they are entitled to all of these things, when really they aren't. You deserve things when you earn them. You are insane if you actually think the government can operate an organization effectively.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Health care is a privilege, why should it not be? People think they are entitled to all of these things, when really they aren't. You deserve things when you earn them. You are insane if you actually think the government can operate an organization effectively.

while I believe health care is a privilege and not a right, if we're forced to spend money on it, why can't we at least do so in a less inefficient manner?

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

while I believe health care is a privilege and not a right, if we're forced to spend money on it, why can't we at least do so in a less inefficient manner?

Because the government let's politics seep into everything they do. They don't give a **** about the American people(the ones who have the real power and all the deals and have their long tendrils into everything), they don't care what they do to this country as long as they stay elected and what lets them do that is securing votes by taking handouts from organizations.

Universal health care is just the sentimental way to being to regulate more and more things. No is is going to admit they would let someone walk around with no insurance or health care (except me). Thats how they get you. It's bull****, and if someone has to get the ****ty deal so the rest of us can live better, so be it.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Health care is a privilege, why should it not be?

Because the ability to be healthy without going bankrupt seems to be a rather basic need.

I mean, seriously now, should only the rich be healthy? Should only those with the good luck to not be born with defects deserve to keep their income, rather than spending all of it on treatment? Should only those who, through sheer random chance, don't get hard-to-cure diseases be allowed to avoid bankruptcy?

People think they are entitled to all of these things, when really they aren't. You deserve things when you earn them. You are insane if you actually think the government can operate an organization effectively.

Canada, the UK, and, indeed, most developed western nations would disagree.

Canada has a better standard of care than the US has.
Canadian citizens pay less in taxes to support our health care service than US citizens do on insurance.
No one goes bankrupt due to randomly getting cancer in Canada.

The only way that the US system beats the Canadian one is in terms of waiting times.

Why not adopt the Canadian model? The US government would pay less, US citizens would pay less, and your standard of care would skyrocket.

It seems win-win to everyone involved.

Originally Posted by John

Because the ability to be healthy without going bankrupt seems to be a rather basic need.

That ability should not be given to you as it is not a basic need. Water, food, etc, those are basic needs. Being able to get insurance should not come at the expense of other peoples earned money.

I mean, seriously now, should only the rich be healthy? Should only those with the good luck to not be born with defects deserve to keep their income, rather than spending all of it on treatment? Should only those who, through sheer random chance, don't get hard-to-cure diseases be allowed to avoid bankruptcy?

No, only those who can afford to protect them selves through the services offered by others should be able to get insurance. You act as if everyone who doesn't have health insurance is hard working but has bad luck, when in reality people make bad choices which influences them for the rest of their lives, some people have to live with that and suffer for their choices. I would be willing to help people who didn't bring bad fortune upon themselves, (that would require an extensive background check.) but if someone made bad choices, **** em.

Canada, the UK, and, indeed, most developed western nations would disagree.

Canada has a better standard of care than the US has.
Canadian citizens pay less in taxes to support our health care service than US citizens do on insurance.
No one goes bankrupt due to randomly getting cancer in Canada.

The only way that the US system beats the Canadian one is in terms of waiting times.

I think standard of care should include wait time as well. Besides, you are forgetting that American culture, population and other important variables play a big part in how our system would run, not to mention our ******* politicians.

Why not adopt the Canadian model? The US government would pay less, US citizens would pay less, and your standard of care would skyrocket.

And we would be paying for those who are irresponsible, have massive wait times, over regulate systems that are entwined with health care, create even larger government, and force people to pay for something they don't need and potentially they don't want.

It seems win-win to everyone involved.

I don't feel that way : /. Listen, I think everyone should have access to health care, but I don't think our government is capable of doing it the right way, look at how poorly our other attempts have turned out, social security for example, it's awful.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That ability should not be given to you as it is not a basic need. Water, food, etc, those are basic needs. Being able to get insurance should not come at the expense of other peoples earned money.



No, only those who can afford to protect them selves through the services offered by others should be able to get insurance. You act as if everyone who doesn't have health insurance is hard working but has bad luck, when in reality people make bad choices which influences them for the rest of their lives, some people have to live with that and suffer for their choices. I would be willing to help people who didn't bring bad fortune upon themselves, (that would require an extensive background check.) but if someone made bad choices, **** em.



I think standard of care should include wait time as well. Besides, you are forgetting that American culture, population and other important variables play a big part in how our system would run, not to mention our ******* politicians.



And we would be paying for those who are irresponsible, have massive wait times, over regulate systems that are entwined with health care, create even larger government, and force people to pay for something they don't need and potentially they don't want.



I don't feel that way : /. Listen, I think everyone should have access to health care, but I don't think our government is capable of doing it the right way, look at how poorly our other attempts have turned out, social security for example, it's awful.

dude, the gov would be SPENDING LESS...

this would be a SMALLER government program than we have now. I'm the neoliberal. I'm the anarchist. What do you see wrong with a less expensive program which gives the government control over fewer of our resources?

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

dude, the gov would be SPENDING LESS...

this would be a SMALLER government program than we have now. I'm the neoliberal. I'm the anarchist. What do you see wrong with a less expensive program which gives the government control over fewer of our resources?

It would be smaller government if the government implemented a universal health care plan rather than letting private insurers carry on? That makes no sense. Could you tell me how exactly they would be spending less? And spending less on what exactly?

Also, for the record John, Canada was 30th on the WHO's list, US was 37th, that was in 2000, and people have criticized their ranking system, the results could have changed over the past 9 years. However, this study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. But as I said, it was criticized and is nearly 10 years old.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Health care is a privilege, why should it not be? Peoplve think they are entitled to all of these things, when really they aren't. You desere things when you earn them. You are insane if you actually think the government can operate an organization effectively.

Funny, I never thought of being able to live as a privilege...

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

Funny, I never thought of being able to live as a privilege...

It isn't, we are talking about people health care coverage, which is a privilege.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That ability should not be given to you as it is not a basic need. Water, food, etc, those are basic needs. Being able to get insurance should not come at the expense of other peoples earned money.

Why not?

No, only those who can afford to protect them selves through the services offered by others should be able to get insurance. You act as if everyone who doesn't have health insurance is hard working but has bad luck, when in reality people make bad choices which influences them for the rest of their lives, some people have to live with that and suffer for their choices. I would be willing to help people who didn't bring bad fortune upon themselves, (that would require an extensive background check.) but if someone made bad choices, **** em.

Your current system punishes people with birth defects, chronic illnesses that are not their fault, etc.

Indeed, the current US system explicitely acts as if only the rich should be healthy. A rich person smokes all the time, eats nothing but high-collesterol foods, and sleeps around without protection? Well, that's fine, he gets medical treatment for his lung cancer, heart attacks, and STDs.

Poor person happens to be born with a heart defect? Clearly they should just die.

Most people who go to hospitals are not there through any fault of their own. They've been involved in an accident, or have a disease that just appears, or were born with problems, or are suffering from something caused by malnutrition or similar.

Should those people be punished for not being rich?

I think standard of care should include wait time as well. Besides, you are forgetting that American culture, population and other important variables play a big part in how our system would run, not to mention our ******* politicians.

If someone urgently needs care then the wait time is the same.

The less urgently care is needed the longer you wait vs. the US.

Most of the wait time now is, however, simply caused by a lack of doctors and nurses. If more were trained then most waits would plummet.

The US only has an advantage here because most people in the US don't go to see doctors until they can't get out of bed any more, due to the cost.

The problem there is that waiting that long means that something that could've easily been treated in a few days at little cost to the medical system will now take months or years, tying up resources and costing your government far more than it otherwise would.

By forcing people to pay for every treatment you force them to make their conditions worse, which ends up making the US government pay more than if it just covered treatment to start with.

And we would be paying for those who are irresponsible, have massive wait times, over regulate systems that are entwined with health care, create even larger government, and force people to pay for something they don't need and potentially they don't want.

Why not pay for those who are irresponsible? I mean, you do that already.
Your wait times would not appreciably change, I'd wager.
Over regulate? The US currently regulates medical companies more than Canada does.
Create larger government? What, exactly, is wrong with that in this case?
Pay something they don't need? Government health care costs less than health insurance.

I don't feel that way : /. Listen, I think everyone should have access to health care, but I don't think our government is capable of doing it the right way, look at how poorly our other attempts have turned out, social security for example, it's awful.

Social security in the US is awful because of this bizarre fixation on people getting something they didn't earn. That's why it costs so much, having to run constant background checks on everyone. That's why people who need money can't get it, while others game the system, as soon as you set up convoluted and arcane rules the people who need money can't get it, while the tricksters use the rules against themselves to get free money.

If the US just said: "Alright, if you don't have a job then you get x per week." then it would cost less, be abused far less, and would generally work.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It would be smaller government if the government implemented a universal health care plan rather than letting private insurers carry on? That makes no sense. Could you tell me how exactly they would be spending less? And spending less on what exactly?

They'd spend less because treatment would cost less and all this supplementing of insurance companies could stop.

Also, for the record John, Canada was 30th on the WHO's list, US was 37th, that was in 2000, and people have criticized their ranking system, the results could have changed over the past 9 years. However, this study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. But as I said, it was criticized and is nearly 10 years old.

The US does have lower wait times. No argument here. It falls far shorter in every other regard, though.

Us insurance companies do everything in their power to either not pay (hoping the person will die before they have to) or to kick people out of hospitals despite their condition not being cured. No such problem in Canada.