I'm thinking the Christian National type that is not going to be happy that they are creating a way to avoid God's wrath.
American Healthcare continues to go backward
- Thread starter steross
- Start date
Or the anti-Big Pharma people, which are pretty much the same people. That is certainly a consideration.
But I have been in healthcare long enough to remember when being diagnosed as HIV+ was a death sentence and now eradicating it is a real possibility.
God can always come up with something else.
Everyone remembers it as a death sentence. Heck, I still wonder if its a death sentence if you are poor but I don't know how lifelong drug regimens work if your insurance sucks.
The Ryan White program hasn't been cut... yet.
That’s good for the US. The USAID cuts don’t help globally though.
Magic Johnson announced that he was HIV+ in 1991. Gen Z and Alpha really don’t know HIV as a death sentence. They haven’t experienced it that way. Magic Johnson’s announcement was a turning point.
And he was on the dream team. You are right-he probably did more for AIDS awareness than anyone.
I was a huge Magic and Lakers fan. Went to their 2nd game of the season that yr in Dallas. Couldn’t believe he had the “flu” and missed the game. Luckily I had seen him play in Dallas before.
JTOSU
Ranger
One of about 6 or 7 times that I have a very vivid memory of when it happened. I was in the OSU Student Union and several gathered around a TV as Magic made the announcement. I certainly thought it was a death sentence for him. Wonderful that he not only survived it, but has been a champion showing courage in the face of massive adversity.
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
No wonder I suggested giving birth in the USA should be free:
www.buzzfeed.com
$44,318.41 to give birth with no complications!
I wonder if having to declare medical bankruptcy over that is often and helps to explain why it's so high.
A Mom Went Viral For Breaking Down The Cost Of Giving Birth In America, And It's Wild
"We should NOT have to pay that much. America is wild."
Last edited:
Interest on the U.S. national debt is projected to become the largest single item in the federal budget by around 2051, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, more recent trends suggest it could happen even earlier, potentially in the early to mid-2030s, depending on several factors:
Key Points:
If the U.S. doesn’t reduce deficits or if interest rates stay elevated, interest on the debt could become the single largest federal expense within the next decade, well before 2050.
Would you like a chart or a breakdown of future budget projections?
Key Points:
- Rapid Growth in Interest Payments:
- In 2024, the U.S. is expected to spend over $1 trillion on interest alone — more than it spends on defense or Medicaid.
- Interest is now one of the fastest-growing budget items, driven by both rising interest rates and the ballooning national debt (over $34 trillion as of mid-2025).
- Comparison to Other Spending:
- Currently, the largest budget categories are Social Security, Medicare, and defense.
- As the population ages, Social Security and Medicare will continue to grow, but interest is catching up fast.
- When Will Interest Be #1?:
- Most likely by the mid-2030s, if current trends continue.
- If interest rates stay high and Congress doesn’t reduce borrowing, it could even surpass Social Security or defense earlier, depending on budget choices.
If the U.S. doesn’t reduce deficits or if interest rates stay elevated, interest on the debt could become the single largest federal expense within the next decade, well before 2050.
Would you like a chart or a breakdown of future budget projections?
Solipsism. The global birth rate is declining, not just in the United States.No wonder I suggested giving birth in the USA should be free:
$44,318.41 to give birth with no complications!
I wonder if having to declare medical bankruptcy over that is often and helps to explain why it's so high.
A Mom Went Viral For Breaking Down The Cost Of Giving Birth In America, And It's Wild
"We should NOT have to pay that much. America is wild."
Global birth rates are declining, both in terms of total fertility rate (children per woman) and crude birth rate (births per 1,000 people):
Fertility Trends
- The global total fertility rate (TFR) dropped from about 4.9 children per woman in the 1950s to roughly 2.3 in 2023 (theguardian.com, ourworldindata.org).
- Projections show it falling further—to about 2.0 by 2050 and 1.8 by around 2100 (healthdata.org).
- Over half of countries already have fertility below the replacement level (around 2.1 children per woman) (healthdata.org).
Birth Rate Decline
- The crude birth rate (births per 1,000 population) has declined from ~37 in the 1950–55 period to about 17 in 2024 (en.wikipedia.org).
- While there was a slight uptick in 2024 (likely statistical noise), the long-term pattern remains downward .
Implications & Commentary
- The decline is part of a global demographic transition, driven by factors like better access to education, contraception, urbanization, and changes in social norms (en.wikipedia.org).
- Many wealthy nations now hover well below replacement levels, contributing to aging populations, shrinking workforces, and shifts in economic dynamics (theatlantic.com).
- In contrast, high-fertility regions like sub‑Saharan Africa still contribute the bulk of births, though their rates are also slowing (healthdata.org).
Bottom Line
Yes—the global birth rate is declining significantly. Women are having fewer children on average, and the number of births per capita is steadily decreasing worldwide. Projections indicate this trend will continue, with important implications for economies and societies globally.
What are people’s opinions on this? Personally I see a gradual decline in population growth as a good thing. This would seem to help reduce the humans environmental strain and reduce wars over natural resources.Solipsism. The global birth rate is declining, not just in the United States.
Global birth rates are declining, both in terms of total fertility rate (children per woman) and crude birth rate (births per 1,000 people):
- The global total fertility rate (TFR) dropped from about 4.9 children per woman in the 1950s to roughly 2.3 in 2023 (theguardian.com, ourworldindata.org).
- Projections show it falling further—to about 2.0 by 2050 and 1.8 by around 2100 (healthdata.org).
- Over half of countries already have fertility below the replacement level (around 2.1 children per woman) (healthdata.org).
- The crude birth rate (births per 1,000 population) has declined from ~37 in the 1950–55 period to about 17 in 2024 (en.wikipedia.org).
- While there was a slight uptick in 2024 (likely statistical noise), the long-term pattern remains downward .
- The decline is part of a global demographic transition, driven by factors like better access to education, contraception, urbanization, and changes in social norms (en.wikipedia.org).
- Many wealthy nations now hover well below replacement levels, contributing to aging populations, shrinking workforces, and shifts in economic dynamics (theatlantic.com).
- In contrast, high-fertility regions like sub‑Saharan Africa still contribute the bulk of births, though their rates are also slowing (healthdata.org).
Yes—the global birth rate is declining significantly. Women are having fewer children on average, and the number of births per capita is steadily decreasing worldwide. Projections indicate this trend will continue, with important implications for economies and societies globally.
I agree. But, it seems our economy needs growth to be “a good economy.” Hard to grow with fewer people. We may need to change what is considered good.
Our social programs are basically Ponzi schemes. With declining population they all eventually collapse, just like Ponzi schemes all need a steady stream of new investors to maintain them. You can’t want both, a declining population and maintaining our social programs, you have to choose one or the other.
Do you think social security is a ponzi scheme?
It wasn’t originally set up that way. But that’s the way it works.
Ida May Fuller received the first monthly social security check January 31, 1940. She paid in $24.75. She received a total of $22,888.92 until her death at age 100. A early investor received back what other new investors were paying in. How is that not a Ponzi scheme?
I don't agree with that assessment, as Social Security does not meet the definition of a ponzi scheme. This is a good article that breaks it down: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2024/03/10/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme-answer-surprise/
I am more interested in a solution though. From the same article, this seems to diagnose the issues that Social Security faces:
Here's what's really wrong with Social Security
In addition to the fallacy of Social Security being a Ponzi scheme, other outright lies have made the rounds on social media, including "Congress stole from Social Security" and that "undocumented workers are receiving benefits." None of these claims bear any bit of truth for why Social Security is contending with a $22.4 trillion long-term funding shortfall.The bulk of Social Security's financial shortcomings can be traced back to demographic shifts.
Some of these shifts are well known. For instance, the steady retirement of baby boomers is lowering the worker-to-beneficiary ratio over time. Likewise, life expectancies have notably risen since the first retired-worker check was mailed in January 1940. Social Security was never meant to pay beneficiaries for multiple decades, as can happen now.
But it's the less-visible demographic shifts that are causing the most harm.
As an example, legal migration into the U.S. has declined for 25 consecutive years. Most legal immigrants arriving in the U.S. tend to be young, which means they'll spend decades in the labor force contributing to the program via the payroll tax before collecting a benefit of their own. Social Security relies on a healthy level of net migration into the U.S., and this figure has been precipitously declining.
Another problem for America's leading retirement program is a historic decline in U.S. birth rates. Although a lower number of births isn't a problem right now, it will become an issue a generation from now when the worker-to-beneficiary ratio falls even further.
Income inequality is an obstacle, as well. In 1985, 88.9% of all earned income was subject to the payroll tax. But as of 2021, only 81.4% of earned income was applicable to the payroll tax. More earned income is "escaping" taxation over time.
Lastly, Congress deserves its fair share of the blame. Lawmakers are well aware of the issues facing Social Security, but neither party has been willing to work with their opposition to find a common-ground solution. The longer lawmakers wait to act, the more painful an eventual solution is going to be for working Americans and Social Security beneficiaries
Similar threads
