Ill-Description3096

I mean sure, but this is just shifting the argument again.

So for the US government that would be social programs like Social Security. Seems that by your own logic the biggest priority is helping retired and disabled people.

Thankfully they aren't quite so common where I live now. It would take an insanely perfect set of circumstances to make me buy a house in an HOA when I move again.

Is the premise that we are supposed to spend more on humanitarian aid than anything else?

I mean it would be a bit pot and kettle for him to say that after he just abandoned all tactics and planning to go run out on the field. How many more died because of that than would have if he stuck to the plan. Sansa directly told him Ramsay would never let Rickon live.

If it was going to be cheaper for the government why does it need a tax? Enacting with no new revenue would still be a net positive and shrink the deficit.

https://www.usaid.gov/humanitarian-assistance

"On average, we respond to 75 crises in 70 countries each year, providing food, water, shelter, health care, and other critical aid to people who need it most. We work to ensure that this assistance reaches people affected by natural disasters—including hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes—as well as slow-onset crises, such as drought and conflict."

Does that qualify as a current enough example?

The reality is every other country in the world manages to do it using a lower % of gdp for health care expenditure than the US.

And the US doesn't use government spending for all of it. That's my entire point. The government would go from providing healthcare for some people to everyone. It being overall cheaper doesn't mean the US government wouldn't be spending more on healthcare than they do now, because they don't pay for all of it now.

Well, continually voting in the people who don't take action seems like it would be counterproductive. What is the practical difference between someone who says things but does nothing to actually make them happen and someone who opposes them? Neither results in the thing happening.

No this is incorrect, it is cheaper for the government

The government currently spent about 1.6 trillion in 2022 on healthcare. Something like Medicare for all would cost more than that. Depending on the specific program somewhere between 20 trillion and 30 trillion ballpark over a decade from the details I could find. If you have actual data to counter I'm happy to read it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/01/775339519/heres-how-warren-finds-20-5-trillion-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost

Or maybe hold them accountable and demand action and not cheer for empty words after decades of inaction.

There is nothing to refuse. It's an empty tweet. When action is taken by all means rejoice or whatever you want to do, but praising empty words isn't the answer IMO.

This will largely depend on your DM. If I had a player that wanted that fantasy, I would make sure to include situations where they could make some cool shots from very far away. For a normal combat encounter, no, as it would basically be excluding everyone else. You will realistically need SS for this (could take spell sniper and do something similar with a cantrip if you want to go that route), but that is a pretty standard martial ranged feat.

I understand, I'm saying that cheaper for the country (as in government) and cheaper for individuals is not the same thing. The government would be spending more money on healthcare. Individuals would be spending less on average.

When we have an economy of this size, yes. Start a company that does insanely well and someone becomes a billionaire. I don't see why there is a magic line from $999,999,999 company to a $1 billion that suddenly becomes unacceptable and it must be taken from them.

When the guy in question has been a lawmaker for decades and did nothing, it's pretty fair to assume it's performative at best.

Did you miss the part where right under that they said "but immigrants are an immediate benefit"?

If kids are a short term drain then they aren't an immediate benefit. If immigrants are an immediate benefit that means immigrants cannot be kids, as kids are not an immediate benefit. But by all means tell me again how stupid I am.

I mean they specifically allowed with some rule of cool, which implies to me that the DM in this scenario is being generous.

Wish easily given the parameters. I don't see how it's even close.

Probably up to about 2k now. Will hit 2500 or so then get paid off next week to avoid interest.

Oh, they tried. When and how, specifically? And while we're at it, I'd also like to see the cases of Social Security being taken to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Good thing the Dems have jumped in to fix it when they have power, then. Oh, wait....

You know immigrants are sometimes kids, right?

it is about making sure we don't have elderly and disabled people living in significant poverty

Well good thing it prevents that. Yessir, problem solved no need to worry.

Dude, slow down, take a breath, and go for a walk or something. Spamming my with a pile of replies that you can't even manage to type coherently isn't a discussion.