Why are people so keen on gov't run healthcare again?

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

There's the rub. GP's appointments are easy to get if you have a general complaint. However, if you require specialist attention it can take a very long time to get the appointment you need. I myself had to wait nearly a year to address heart problems. I'm not familiar with American healthcare proceedures, but I'm guessing if I had the right insurance over there I could have resolved my issues much sooner.

Well that's the thing, if you paid a BUPA subscription or whatever, you'd get seen for any ailment within weeks. If you choose to pay for healthcare in Britain, you get much better service. On the flip side, should you choose not to pay you wait a bit longer but, they'll try really hard not to let you die and nobody is ever refused healthcare because they can't afford it.

Our health service is incredible and I'll hear nothing said against it.

If your medicare thing is running low on cash, why not divert some funds from your monstrous defence budget? Sure the lack of funding there might lead to a few more deaths of military personel but you'd make up for that by saving more poor, sick people and military people volunteer to get shot at, poor people don't volunteer to catch life-threatening illnesses.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Radez29

I recall a comment Shin made just recently about how you can't schedule appointments in the UK anymore in order to avoid months long wait-lists. Can you provide concrete examples of efficient government run health programs? I hear a lot about selective or slow service. It does not make me comfortable.

He also said this recently:

Originally Posted by Shin

Paying for medicine, what an intriguing concept.

So I mean, there is the whole concept of not having to pay hundreds of dollars a month for medicine that keeps you alive. Which happens in the US, a lot, and to people who have good health insurance.

The argument I hear frequently with regards to this is that medicine costs so much for first world countries because they can afford it, primarily, and to pay for the cost of R&D. And that, in addition, it costs so much more for us because the rest of the first world has single payer health insurance and force pharmaceuticals to charge only a certain amount.

Am I a little pissed off that my hard-earned money, both coming from my health insurance and from out-of-pocket when I need pharmaceuticals, is subsidizing the rest of the world's pill habits? Yeah, I am. Fuck you faggots.

Most amazing jew boots

Because providing for the common defense is the primary function of the federal government. You don't compromise the nation's defense to fund a program that's naturally insolvent by design.

But let me humor you - we have for ease of math's sake, a 500 billion dollar defense budget. How much do you cut from the Department of Defense to bolster social programs? 10%? 20%? 50%? Give me a percentage that you feel is appropriate to cut our nation's defense by.

I also wonder if Pang has caught on to the fact that he's been on my ignore list for months and I can't see shit he posts. I'm fairly sure he's been replying to me the entire thread. *shrugs*

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The total 2009 budget for defense-related expenditures is about 1 trillion dollars. I think 10% of that would buy quite a bit of medicine, yeah.

Or do you think $900 billion is inadequate for our defense?

(who am I kidding, any number I could shoot out would be considered "inadequate" by the kind of person who labels anything he doesn't like as "socialism")

$900B is about $3000 for every single person in the country, or about $300K for each member of the military. I am fairly skeptical that this is an inadequate sum when dedicated to the purpose of blowing up random assholes in the desert.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Maybe the defense spending budget should be brought down to $500b. That'll be a ton of money left over to pay off all those IOUs we wrote for SS, and bulk back up our civil services so people ain't driving over crumbling bridges no more.

Of course that means that the terrorists win but I don't really care what some asshole half a world away thinks while he's busy throwing acid over women because they wouldn't marry him. I got my own to take care of.

How ya doing, buddy?

The more I read this thread, the more I realize what a paranoid schitzophrenic country the United States really is.

(A trillion dollars and apparently, we can't give the soldiers decent gear.)

FELIPE NO

Haha, the truth is that the military was massively incompetent under Republican administration as well as all other branches of government.

As a matter of trends, the military has also been a huge money sink as we wasted billions on carrier groups that could be sunk by Chinese diesel submarines, and stealth fighters that were designed to fight Russian 4th generation aircraft that they can't produce.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

In fairness - any ship can be sunk, Brady. It's not like we have some revolutionary Adamantium plating with which we can armor our warships with (which, if we did, would be fucking awesome). However, just because a diesel submarine is capable of killing a carrier doesn't mean that we wasted money on carrier groups. Know why? Because the purpose of the carrier group is to protect the carrier - that's why you have dedicated ASW frigates and a pair of 688 Los Angeles-class subs protecting the ship from anti-submarine threats.

Besides, you can't project force with a frigate and destroyer navy. You can with aircraft carriers, which is why we have them.

And some of the cuts they're making to the defense budget I really don't have a problem with - we don't need all the F-22s the Air Force wants because no one challenges us in the air.

The more I think about it, some of our defense spending does need to be trimmed, if only to move us away from building up an even more formidable "I'm going to be fighting an opponent with tank divisions and full air wings" capability to fighting a "I'm going to be fighting guys who are highly mobile and have no intention on waiting around for a US tank regiment to run me over" capability.

If some of that savings can be funnelled into making Medicare and SS solvent, cool.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

In fairness - any ship can be sunk, Brady. It's not like we have some revolutionary Adamantium plating with which we can armor our warships with (which, if we did, would be fucking awesome). However, just because a diesel submarine is capable of killing a carrier doesn't mean that we wasted money on carrier groups. Know why? Because the purpose of the carrier group is to protect the carrier - that's why you have dedicated ASW frigates and a pair of 688 Los Angeles-class subs protecting the ship from anti-submarine threats.

One of the few things that kept the US from invading Iran were those wargames that demonstrated their Sunfire missiles would turn US carrier groups into billion dollar coffins. There is no defense against anti-ship missile systems, and AEGIS can be easily overwhelmed. The days of the surface navy have been over since the 50's.

Quote:

Besides, you can't project force with a frigate and destroyer navy. You can with aircraft carriers, which is why we have them.

It could be possible to create a low-cost fleet of WW2-esque escort carriers offloading CAS and drone aircraft into crisis zones. There's not a country in the world that would necessitate a navy air presence without a neighboring country perfectly willing to lease air bases to the US for some sweet moolah.

Quote:

And some of the cuts they're making to the defense budget I really don't have a problem with - we don't need all the F-22s the Air Force wants because no one challenges us in the air.

The more I think about it, some of our defense spending does need to be trimmed, if only to move us away from building up an even more formidable "I'm going to be fighting an opponent with tank divisions and full air wings" capability to fighting a "I'm going to be fighting guys who are highly mobile and have no intention on waiting around for a US tank regiment to run me over" capability.

If some of that savings can be funnelled into making Medicare and SS solvent, cool.

This is at least one policy decision everybody should agree upon. There's no point in developing high technology weapons to fight another high technology military that doesn't exist.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

... demonstrated their Sunfish missiles would turn US carrier groups into billion dollar coffins.

Glad I misread that... Not one for beating a dead horse, but I seriously saw it like that.

Well, whittling down on the military is all fine and dandy, but we'd have to have all the troops (or most) that are off in between Iraq & a Hard Place as well as Afghani-land back over here. Any attempt to cut back on defense funding would get mauled by Republicans and some Dems because OMG LETTING THE TERRACES WIN.

As bitching as homing bullets and rayguns are, there isn't much point in them at present But once we are invaded by aliens, I will be going WHYYYYY

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

One of the few things that kept the US from invading Iran were those wargames that demonstrated their Sunfire missiles would turn US carrier groups into billion dollar coffins. There is no defense against anti-ship missile systems, and AEGIS can be easily overwhelmed. The days of the surface navy have been over since the 50's.

I'm well aware of that exercise - the OPFOR commander actually got mad because the Admirals and Generals running the op made them start over because the OPFOR was a little too successful for their liking.

And you're wrong - AEGIS is a defense against anti-ship missile systems. The main problem with the SS-N-2 Sunburn or the Silkworm missile is that it's hypersonic, which means that the time to engage it with the SM-2 and SM-3 missiles is dramatically cut down.

Regardless - a ship is a fool to fight a fort. That's always been a linchpin of naval warfare.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

we don't need all the F-22s the Air Force wants because no one challenges us in the air.

While this plays right into the "build up for build up's sake" argument, I feel I must throw out a mention of China's J-XX programme as a possible F-22 competitor in the near future, provided it turns out to be the proper Air-Superiority fighter everyone thinks it's gonna be. (The J-10 serves a fine role and certainly doesn't need a total replacement 7 years in.)

Also the USAF recently put a stop to ordering more Raptors, didn't they? I think the orders ceased at just under 200?. Not saying more are needed but that there are shifts towards potential competing aircraft designs.

If anything, considering who you're fighting, those Lightning IIs would probably be a better way to spend cash if you're into that whole look at my new shiny things that blow you up good mentality.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

The government cannot do things efficiently because there are Republicans in it.

No, no. Hear me out.

It is the Republican philosophical position to seek out "small government". In order to garner support for this position, they have to demonstrate that government is inefficient and corrupt. What is the best way to make the government appear inefficient and corrupt?

Be inefficient and corrupt yourself, and then become part of the government.

It is in the best interest of the Republican party's long-term policy goals to make every government agency other than the military look thoroughly bumbling and stupid.

There are dozens of examples in the wider world of government-run health services operating at a reasonable level of efficiency and solvency, so clearly the idea itself isn't intrinsically infeasible. There is something about OUR government that makes it seem implausible, and that something is a great plurality of rednecks with significantly more authority than they deserve.

Don't really have anything to add beyond what Pang's saying (other than props), but for the curious, the above post is tackled in book form: The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank (the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?").

I enjoyed it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The universal health care program being talked about is not single-payer coverage. That's what got all those activists riled up and thrown out of the Congressional hearings. The insurance lobby simply has too much clout to allow such a sane solution to our problems. What makes it cost efficient on our end makes it unprofitable on behalf of the health insurance corporations. The difference between countries with universal health care and America is the profit margin. Any health care system (universal or otherwise) setup to protect the profit margin will not be cost efficient. Which isn't all that different then the current dysfunctional state of Medicare.

Help! I've been infected by socialism! Any moment now Gorbachev will come crashing through my window to take my capitalist virtue away from me by force.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Maybe the defense spending budget should be brought down to $500b. That'll be a ton of money left over to pay off all those IOUs we wrote for SS, and bulk back up our civil services so people ain't driving over crumbling bridges no more.

The Social Security fund doesn't hold IOUs. They hold US Treasury bonds that pay interest. Instead of getting put into the washing machine and being ruined because the government forgot to take it out of their pants. This is good for a variety of other reasons. It keeps interest rates and inflation low. It also creates a domestic market for government debt so foreigners can't use their financial position to strangle government policy. Oh, and there's that whole full faith and credit of the United States government backing them up.......

I've yet to see any evidence that Social Security is in any solvency crisis. It's just the usual Cato think-tank bullshit.

FELIPE NO

NP:

Aren't you black and a "rapper" (or whatever it is you kids call being a bum these days), therefore doubly likely to benefit from universal health-care?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It's like the same post Brady already made, but with the Douche and Wrong turned up to 300%.

Sir, do you have a goatee? Can you point me to the portal via which you entered our universe from your evil-aligned home?

Aren't you (sniffs disdainfully) a 'rapper' (finger quotes)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

He simply hasn't the time to take seriously the antics of those who "get jiggy with it".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Tamburlaine

Aren't you black and a "rapper" (or whatever it is you kids call being a bum these days), therefore doubly likely to benefit from universal health-care?

Aren't you white and a "posh Concert Hall groupie" (or whatever it is you kids call being cake-eating composer snob these days) and likely to benefit a from a little "SHUT THE FUCK UP"?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Aren't you black and a "rapper" (or whatever it is you kids call being a bum these days), therefore doubly likely to benefit from universal health-care?

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I'm an emcee (and I'll rhyme circles around 90% of niggas you can put up against me), but I'm also college educated, so calling me a bum is the furthest you can get from the truth. Understand this, you arrogant bastard: I'm ten times the musician you'll ever be and just because I'm black and a 'rapper' as you put it doesn't mean I would want to or have to support this socialist bullshit the left is peddling.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by ramoth

Don't really have anything to add beyond what Pang's saying (other than props), but for the curious, the above post is tackled in book form: The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank (the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?").

I enjoyed it.

This is why the best solution to ensure things work better in the future would be to reinstate the 3/5 Compromise, but apply it so that those who clearly have no rights to wield control be permanently reduced in influence.

Either that or allow enfranchisement only after proof of competency in civics. Having the nation being led by people who don't know what they're doing for more than half the time is not conducive to a good and just republic.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I'm an emcee (and I'll rhyme circles around 90% of niggas you can put up against me), but I'm also college educated, so calling me a bum is the furthest you can get from the truth. Understand this, you arrogant bastard: I'm ten times the musician you'll ever be and just because I'm black and a 'rapper' as you put it doesn't mean I would want to or have to support this socialist bullshit the left is peddling.

I was just joking. I guess it was a pretty bad (and racist) joke. Sorry?

Quote:

Either that or allow enfranchisement only after proof of competency in civics. Having the nation being led by people who don't know what they're doing for more than half the time is not conducive to a good and just republic.

I am not sure I buy this. "Don't know what they're doing" is a bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? Who decides what people should know?

People are entitled to their views and freedoms on both parts of the spectrum.

If someone wants to vote for a canditate because of their hair or religion, what is it to you? If the problem is a lack of education, perhaps the ball is on your court to educate. It isn't as if rural areas asked to be poor or underfunded -- there are specific historical conditions that led to this. You wouldn't blame a kid who never went to school for not being able to write; why would you blame people from rural areas with "subpar" education for not having their priorities straight?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

i dont understand

FELIPE NO

well see the argument is

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yes lets just make our system like canadas or france where people get rationcare. Oh and people who want to extend their life as long as possible DON't get needed care.

I sure hope Obama does not get the chance to push any socialized health care system thru to law.

We could use a system where the goverment can give us emergency insurance. For them times like you're in a car accident or an emergency comes up.

Fact is not every one is going to have top of the line health insurance, people can get what they can pay for. I agree the goverment should have oversight to what insurance companies can charge but I seriously do not want the goverment providing health care to people in this country illegally.

At this point any one can get emergency care at any hospital as its against the law to turn them away but if the goverment provides health innsurace for every one its not only going to raise taxes on the rich but on the middle class as well. People are fools to believe their taxes won't be raised and stay raised to provide care for people who don't have it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Brunotwirl

people who want to extend their life as long as possible DON't get needed care

D-

Extravagant claim, no sources cited

see me after class

There's nowhere I can't reach.