(06-30-2017, 08:34 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(06-30-2017, 07:24 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't see the difference between this issue and any other issue that involves government funding.  There are limits on how much we can spend on things.  There are limits on how much we can spend on Medicare, or Medicaid, or responding to overdosing addicts.   There are unavoidable financial limits.  That's the point.   The person who proposed this wasn't doing it to punish addicts.  He made this proposal in order to keep the local government from going bankrupt.

Socialism is an attempt to save everyone, no matter what.  A realist recognizes limits on resources, and the fact that by attempting to save everyone, eventually, we will not be able to save anyone.

Look at the Republican health care proposal.  One of the main planks is a limit on the growth of Medicaid.  And there is no doubt that some people will die if we cut off their Medicaid.  But on the other hand, if we don't put a limit on the growth of Medicaid, eventually the government will be bankrupt and no one will get Medicaid at all.  The program will cease to exist.  There have to be limits.  And that's the point of the proposal to limit the number of responses to drug overdoses that the local government has to pay for.  It's a matter of survival for the local government finances.  They have to put a limit.

Is it safe to assume that countries which practice socialized medicine subscribe to the same reasoning?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I will say this- I have traveled to a lot of other first-world countries in Europe and Asia, and I can't help but notice all the really nice stuff they have- public transportation that is clean and runs on time, beautiful parks and gardens, roads and bridges they can be proud of, and I cannot help but wonder why they can afford these things and we apparently cannot.

The only reason I can think of is that we have this giant defense budget and they have decided they don't need to spend so much money on defense because we will always come to their rescue if they need it. On this subject I agree with Trump- these countries have to raise their defense spending so we don't bankrupt ourselves defending them.

To me, the big issue isn't so much what we want to spend our money on, but rather, how much we spend. It's like I'm sitting on the sidelines saying, look, all you guys can argue about this program or that program. What I care about is fitting it all into a sustainable budget. To maybe overdramatize a little, I would say, I don't care about socialized medicine, or how many F-35s we buy, I care about the survival of the country, and that means avoiding federal bankruptcy. So make your choices, but limit your total spending to a certain amount that is sustainable for the long term.

There have to be limits. We cannot continue to borrow and spend, or else we won't have a country.

---