"Dassari: if you think you can talk about the country being run bankrupt and NOT talk about military spending, then you might as well talk about everything that went wrong with the Titanic except the iceberg. "

Since you're intent on pursuing this line of thinking...

Duh, military spending is out of control. Theoretically we've reduced our active military commitments by 40% when we left Iraq, yet the budget grew for 2013. Every year since 2004, our military spending has been higher (adjusted for inflation) than the highest spending during the Cold War (1985, I believe).

$700 billion are a drop in the bucket compared to unfunded liabilities stemming from social programs, however. Military (discretionary) spending is also a far easier category to fix in the face of a crisis than mandatory (social security, pensions, medicare/aid etc.) spending, which the new healthcare laws exacerbate. If all discretionary spending were eliminated (no military, no government save payments on the debt and mandatory spending), we would STILL be running a budget deficit every year.

Sure, stick to the 70s military-industrial scapegoat if it makes you feel better, but don't pretend that that math adds up.

And yeah I love that I can put tax-deductible money into my HSA and have it roll over annually.

"How does a hospital bandaide cost $20 when it costs ten cents from the drug store? But nobody ever questions."

I'm not sure this is really the consumer's fault. I've asked about prices for medical treatment and they can't/won't answer. Unlike a car, I don't really have the option of going next door to the other CAT scan store.

h, HSAs are perfect for young people, but the HSA eligible plans are for shit for anyone else. To get older folks coverage (like myslef) we have to stick with the FSA elgible plans which are use it or lose it and are, unfortunately, capped at $2500 per year per income. So with mine being the only income, I can only contribute $2500 to the FSA. While my primary insurance is fine with that $2500, I also have lots of prescriptions and we could use putting another $1000 away for that each year. Obamacare fucked us on that one as it the cap used to be $5000 per year until Obamacare went into effect. Why he decided to fuck over older folks and families with children I'll never understand.

@ Dassarri

I'd rather go after all "mandatory" spending before I touch the military. After all, SS, Medicaid/Medicare, and welfare are all blatantly unconstitutional.

@Gunfighter, you realise the constitution isn't the bible, right?

"@ Dassarri

I'd rather go after all "mandatory" spending before I touch the military. After all, SS, Medicaid/Medicare, and welfare are all blatantly unconstitutional."

+1000. The military does offer fruitful avenues for spending cuts, but won't do a thing to save us from the mandatory spending we cannot afford.

Referring to the constitution with respect to healthcare seems odd given that they didn't even know what a germ was.

They didn't know what automatic weapons were, but the Constitution still has a right to bear arms. they didn't have TV or radio, yet it still has freedom of speech. They had healthcare, it was just based on more primitive techniques (leeches and blood letting and such).

@'they didn't know what automatic weapons were...' - which is why people who DO know what automatic weapons are should consider reviewing the constitution. Just a thought.

Social Security is funded from outside of the federal budget, so eliminating it won't affect the national deficit. Of course, eliminating it WILL mean that lawmakers can't raid the fund anymore.

Medicare/Medicaid could be brought under control with an Israeli policy or something similar. Most of the money in that program pads corporate profits by subsidizing monopoly-price care providers. That's why Americans pay mre than anyone else for health care, even though the "free market" system is supposed to hold that down. Health care simply doesn't function like other goods and services in the marketplace.

Not surprising to see that defense spending is still a sacred cow on the right, even to the point of stripping the federal budget down to JUST military spending. I'm sure the Founders would have loved to see their Republic supporting a standing army of this size, with no peace dividend in sight.

"I guess it's easy to assume that state-sponsored health care would fail if you only look at instances where it hasn't worked and assume that policymakers are incapable of learning from failure."

I don't follow that at all.

I have no problem with reviewing and even revising the constitution. But I have a problem with trying to pass unconstitutional laws. Change the constitution then pass the law that fits it.

Actually Draug, i think it is better than 'not doing something stupid' - ie living with unconstitutional laws; it is taking power from the unelected Supreme court (who as the only ones whose opinion of what is 'unconstitutional' matters) and giving it back to the people - you know, the ones who all other powers are supposed to be derived...

Unfortunately, the people don't have the power to change the US constitution... I mean in theory they do, but in practice exercising that ability is not something they can do.

@ orathaic

"which is why people who DO know what automatic weapons are should consider reviewing the constitution. Just a thought."

I OWN automatic weapons. I am convinced that they still would have left the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights if they knew how powerful weapons would become in the future.

After all, in 1791, the populace was actually much better-armed than the military. Rifles were relatively common among the people, whereas less accurate, less deadly muskets remained standard issue well into the 19th century. This trend continued with no significant issues until the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, when military firepower continued to grow more deadly as opposed to civilian power. In the late 1800s, the populace was much better-armed than the military, with many citizens owning double-action revolvers and lever-action rifles, as opposed to the military's use of single-shot breech-loading rifles and single-action revolvers.

With respect to small arms of 20mm or less, I believe that the citizens should be able to possess whatever the military is allowed to possess. People seem to forget that citizens had superior firepower compared to the military for much of our history.

"I am convinced that they still would have left the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights if they knew how powerful weapons would become in the future."

Why's that matter? We have no time machine, we aren't about to go ask James Madison his opinion.

Bo sox: it's easy to assume that a program will fail if you only focus on instances where it failed, ignore the successes, and assume that the decisions that led to the failures when they happened will be repeated.

If you don't assume all of that, state-provided health care works pretty damn well.

Yes, it does. I just researched failures on it but all I can find are political blogs that say France, Germany, and Israel have failing healthcare systems, which is beyond egregious and takes all credibility from those writers. The only obvious failure of universal healthcare would be in Russia, and let's face it, anything the government does in Russia is going to fail.

James Madison was dick.

Russia's healthcare system has become noticeably worse since the fall of the Soviet Union. The liberalization of the Russian economy has helped only a very small number of Russians.

Of course, the systemic problems are only partly to blame for Russia's woes. There's also The Heroin and The AIDS that goes with it, not to mention The Alcoholism.

Holy shit, the heroin. Russia consumes over a fifth of the global supply.

"Failure" is a subjective term. Define what a "failed" health care is.