Santorum Tells Sick Kid Not To Complain About $1 Million Drug Costs

• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-06 08:25
  I think healthcare is wayyyy more important than the military and, if we're gonna be spending money on anything, keeping people healthy should be the #1 priority. I think it's more important than making roads, buildings, schools, or any of that (although that would probably come at #2, lol). However, I'd put it all in the general section of "health" so it covers things like making sure everyone has clean water and food that won't make them sick. With that said,
  

  the actual taxpayer costs of America's supposedly privately funded health care system is still quite surprising. In the 2011 budget, it actually surpasses the defence budget, and people say that one's crazy. o_O...

  
  I don't mind this at all.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-02-06 08:33

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;764602:

  I think healthcare is wayyyy more important than the military and, if we're gonna be spending money on anything, keeping people healthy should be the #1 priority. I think it's more important than making roads, buildings, schools, or any of that (although that would probably come at #2, lol). However, I'd put it all in the general section of "health" so it covers things like making sure everyone has clean water and food that won't make them

  
  
  The reasoning in me says otherwise. These are important investments for the betterment of the future.
  
  But then the emotional part of me wants to agree with you too.
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-02-06 08:44

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;764602:

  I think healthcare is wayyyy more important than the military and, if we're gonna be spending money on anything, keeping people healthy should be the #1 priority. I think it's more important than making roads, buildings, schools, or any of that (although that would probably come at #2, lol). However, I'd put it all in the general section of "health" so it covers things like making sure everyone has clean water and food that won't make them sick. With that said,
  
  I don't mind this at all.

  
  
  Human beings are expected to perish by natural means. Death at the hands of an enemy that we do not fully understand could potentially change our very way of life. If the defense budget is to be reduced, it should be done very carefully lest history repeat itself.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
  
  All of these areas are important. It's simply a matter of placing priority.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-02-06 08:47

  Quote from Kaeporo;764634:

  Human beings are expected to perish by natural means. Death at the hands of an enemy that we do not fully understand could potentially change our very way of life. If the defense budget is to be reduced, it should be done very carefully lest history repeat itself.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
  
  All of these areas are important. It's simply a matter of placing priority.

  
  
  But then the amount of money America spends on its defense budget is overkill. Thats my biggest gripe with this whole thing.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-06 08:56

  Quote from Cucurbita;764611:

  The reasoning in me says otherwise. These are important investments for the betterment of the future.
  
  But then the emotional part of me wants to agree with you too.

  
  What would you consider a more important investment than health, even in the long term? "Health" covers a lot of things like research in medicine and related science.
  

  [FONT=Georgia]Human beings are expected to perish by natural means. Death at the hands of an enemy that we do not fully understand could potentially change our very way of life. If the defense budget is to be reduced, it should be done very carefully lest history repeat itself.[/FONT]

  
  I kinda get what you're saying, but I'd rather 1,000 people die of a terrorist attack than 10,000 die from smoking. I think that until we reach a point where there are a decent amount of deaths being caused by things that could be preventing by more military spending, the money is better off in healthcare.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-02-06 09:04
  Keeping people from dying to preventable diseases is much safer than spending more money on national defense.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-02-06 09:26

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;764602:

  I think healthcare is wayyyy more important than the military and, if we're gonna be spending money on anything, keeping people healthy should be the #1 priority. I think it's more important than making roads, buildings, schools, or any of that (although that would probably come at #2, lol). However, I'd put it all in the general section of "health" so it covers things like making sure everyone has clean water and food that won't make them sick. With that said,
  
  I don't mind this at all.

  
  
  I never said health care was less important than the military. But just because health care may be more important, than something else, that doesn't automatically mean that you should spend more money on health care. Instead, you should figure out how much you really need to spend, and do it efficiently. My remark was more about the disconnect of perceptions people have about the budget. Many people believe that the US military budget is the cause of all of the US' financial problems, while things like health care are way underfunded and should get even more funding so that everyone can get affordable care, like in Canada and most other developed countries. But the fact of the matter is that the US currently spends monstrous amounts on health care, all while requiring people to have private insurance on top of that. See the disconnect here?
  
  

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;764644:

  I kinda get what you're saying, but I'd rather 1,000 people die of a terrorist attack than 10,000 die from smoking. I think that until we reach a point where there are a decent amount of deaths being caused by things that could be preventing by more military spending, the money is better off in healthcare.

  
  I don't agree with your particular example. Dying by smoking is effectively suicide. To put it bluntly, people do it by choice. A terrorist attack, however, is far scarier because you have no control over it. There are numerous spin-off benefits of having such a massive defence budget, for things like R&D, economics, etc. But naturally, you need a proper balance.
• Sayoko wrote on 2012-02-06 10:41
  Spending more on healthcare doesn't mean better outcomes.
  
  US spends more than any other country on HC:
  
  

  [Image: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif]

  
  
  Yet life expentancy is shorter than so many countries.
  
  

  [Image: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif]
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-02-06 11:19

  Quote from Yoorah;764656:

  I don't agree with your particular example. Dying by smoking is effectively suicide. To put it bluntly, people do it by choice. A terrorist attack, however, is far scarier because you have no control over it. There are numerous spin-off benefits of having such a massive defence budget, for things like R&D, economics, etc. But naturally, you need a proper balance.

  
  I realize that 1,000 people dying to terrorist attacks is worse than 1,000 people dying to smoking... however, while it is kind of their fault for smoking, a slip of judgement or hard times may have gotten them hooked. It was a poor decision on their part, and we shouldn't be compensating for poor decision making, but many of these people want to quit and we should make it easier for them to get off the habit. Everyone makes mistakes, and people who want to make better decisions should be able to. People who just don't give a crap/are irresponsible will die from it no matter what anyone does so long as people are still given the freedom to do these kinds of things, which they should.
  

  Spending more on healthcare doesn't mean better outcomes.

  This could just be a cultural thing. All we can do is help, we can't tell people what to do.
  
  I'm not saying we should throw money around, we should obviously optimize our spending... but it should still take priority over spending in anything else unless the other things start to cause problems.
  
  Multiple terrorist attacks happen throughout the US over the span of short period of time? Okay, maybe it's time for better security measures. Until then, focus on what really matters. This whole process should balance itself out at some point so we only spend when something has a noteworthy amount of benefit.
  
  As it is, if they chopped the military budget in half, I would still be way more scared of walking around the street at night with $100 in my pocket than I would of getting injured/killed in a terrorist attack. Statistically, the odds are so minimal that they aren't even worth mentioning or taking seriously. If people are that worried about something like that, they must pass out every time there's a thunderstorm and have a heart attack every time they sit in a vehicle.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-02-06 11:26

  Quote from Sayoko;764715:

  Yet life expentancy is shorter than so many countries.
  
  

  [Image: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif]

  
  
  The US citizens spend more money than any other country doing things that shorten life expectancy.
• Taycat wrote on 2012-02-06 13:38
  /readies winchester/
  
  Time to go fight crime to pay for this medicine.