That means the US could spend less on healthcare, spend significantly more on defense, still have better healthcare than you do now AND save money doing so.
It’s a bit like brexit. UK politicians found it useful to blame foreign governments and the EU, as it helped distract from domestic corruption and profiteering.
In fact Boris Johnson promised the UK £350 million a week for the healthcare system in the run-up to the brexit referendum, pushing a similar false dilemna. UK voters were told that they had to choose between EU membership or funding their healthcare system. Of couse, after brexit voters ended up with neither. It was a lie.
Surprisingly common rhetoric device. Eg. quite common when discussing the green transition and the economy/jobs. People are told by fossil fuel interest groups that they have to choose between saving the environment or saving the economy/jobs. In reality, the World Economic Forum suggest that the green transition would create millions of jobs, not cost jobs.
Not questioning your intentions, but that’s a false dilemna. Common logical fallacy, often used rhetorical device.
Reality: the US doesn’t have to choose between healthcare and military spending. The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other high income country.
That means the US could spend less on healthcare, spend significantly more on defense, still have better healthcare than you do now AND save money doing so.
It’s a bit like brexit. UK politicians found it useful to blame foreign governments and the EU, as it helped distract from domestic corruption and profiteering.
In fact Boris Johnson promised the UK £350 million a week for the healthcare system in the run-up to the brexit referendum, pushing a similar false dilemna. UK voters were told that they had to choose between EU membership or funding their healthcare system. Of couse, after brexit voters ended up with neither. It was a lie.
Surprisingly common rhetoric device. Eg. quite common when discussing the green transition and the economy/jobs. People are told by fossil fuel interest groups that they have to choose between saving the environment or saving the economy/jobs. In reality, the World Economic Forum suggest that the green transition would create millions of jobs, not cost jobs.
I was mocking them but OK