|
On June 22 2011 06:16 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:12 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 06:09 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading. I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'. You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen! The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate. What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line. Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not).
|
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote:
Only in America.
I'm sure if all the crap that happens in your country somehow managed to make it onto the TV, we could say that about your country also.
|
I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare.
i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering
im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand:
government collects taxes from people
these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash
if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans.
so what should they do, go on welfare?
really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
|
On June 22 2011 06:21 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:16 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:12 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 06:09 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading. I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'. You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen! The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate. What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line. Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.". The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not).
That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair). With the US system right now, the power is in the hands of the patient, but acting as a proxy for the insurance company who foots the bill. It just doesn't work as we're seeing sky-rocketing costs, and oftentimes genetic-discrimination as a result of that system (90% probability of Huntington's disease? OH HELL NO! Find another insurance company, buddy).
|
On June 22 2011 06:18 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote:
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare. The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures. Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote:
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all. Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future.
|
On June 22 2011 06:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare. i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right Show nested quote +
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand: government collects taxes from people these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans. so what should they do, go on welfare? really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
Do you not see how idiotic that is? Stop trying to act like you're the one who knows what you're talking about. One could use that argument for a lot of jobs that are ultimately created by the government.
Cut back on welfare programs? What are the social workers going to do - oh well I guess we can't cut that.
Simplify the tax code? Well what about all the tax accountants? out of the job... can't do that I guess either.
Obviously I could go on and on. If the defense industry needs to shrink, so be it. Most of the talent there are engineers and can probably find work elsewhere. Even if they couldn't your solution that we just can't cut funding on anything that creates jobs is absurd and impractical.
|
That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair).
that doesnt describe the NHS at least, in the place of insurance companies is a literal rationing board, the NICE. also there have been some scandals about the NHS denying coverage based on their determination of how much a costly operation or drug will "benefit" the patient and other considerations that have no real place in the hands of anyone but the patient in a humane healthcare system. i dont know much about other nationalized healthcare systems but the NHS definitely is not meeting their presumable goal.
Do you not see how idiotic that is? Stop trying to act like you're the one who knows what you're talking about. One could use that argument for a lot of jobs that are ultimately created by the government.
i agree, it is a valid argument.
Cut back on welfare programs? What are the social workers going to do - oh well I guess we can't cut that.
i disagree with abolishing entire sectors of government
we disagree only about the extent of the government's responsibilities not what they are, you're painting me as holding a position farther to the right than what i really have
Simplify the tax code? Well what about all the tax accountants? out of the job... can't do that I guess either.
another point to make is that there are arguments to be made that simplifying the tax code and less bureaucracy creates more positive economic activity than the negative impact, there is no argument to be made that ending defensive spending and having the government spend it on something else or give it back to the citizens would bring more positive activity than the negatives caused by lost jobs and loss of stability on the seas and around the world
Obviously I could go on and on. If the defense industry needs to shrink, so be it. Most of the talent there are engineers and can probably find work elsewhere. Even if they couldn't your solution that we just can't cut funding on anything that creates jobs is absurd and impractical.
i think youre wrong ive showed why i think that without having to yell
but you keep yelling you do you ill do me
|
On June 22 2011 06:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare. i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right Show nested quote +
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand: government collects taxes from people these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans. so what should they do, go on welfare? really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all
Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically.
What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
|
Funny, here we are trying to move away from free healthcare because it means doctors are underpaid and the whole system is in deep red numbers. I'd say it's a noble idea, but when you have aging population and no huge growth of economy, it can easily turn against you.
|
Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically.
What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
i disagree that things would be better. i think there would be more wars and more protectionism, more piracy, more big countries like russia economically bullying smaller countries like the ukraine, = less trade.
except in weapons maybe, so maybe we'd need that defense industry after all.
|
On June 22 2011 06:33 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare. i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
okay let's try to understand: government collects taxes from people these taxes come from their incomes or reserves of cash if the government has no more need for taxes for defense, people working in defense industries would not benefit ONE BIT, as their incomes COME from those taxes. government doesnt have that money anymore. isnt paying it out to defense companies which then pay their employees usually quite well for their skilled labor, and through usually pretty damn nice employer provided health insurance and company investment plans. so what should they do, go on welfare? really all this arrogant yelling from you guys and you dont know what youre talking about at all Well techincally they're already on welfare. They're doing things that are useless both for the population and the world, and it sertainly doesn't help the US economically. What if all your soldiers were working their asses off in US industries, colleges and doing something useful. God damn that's alot of income lost for the country.
Also valid. DeepElemBlues looks at things from a very short term perspective. OMG WE LOSE JOBS CAN'T DO IT. Sorry, our country will lose superpower status VERY soon if we keep this short term viewpoint that so many people seem to have.
It's like an American industry that can't support itself. Does the government help or does it not? If it helps, we keep jobs but create a money sink. If we don't help the industry, it likely fails, people lose their jobs, but ultimately those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
|
On June 22 2011 06:27 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:21 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 06:16 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:12 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 06:09 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading. I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'. You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen! The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate. What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line. Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.". The current system sucks too. Giving everyone free healthcare will simply make the problem worse, unless there is some serious reforming of the healthcare system. And the power shouldn't be given to doctors or patients, unless they are exposed to the cost of the service (and under our system they are not). That's what's great about a socialised healthcare system, though. Doctors are given the power to make those calls, AND they're held accountable. In addition, presumably, their goal is always to get the patient healthy (if just to get them out of their hair). With the US system right now, the power is in the hands of the patient, but acting as a proxy for the insurance company who foots the bill. It just doesn't work as we're seeing sky-rocketing costs, and oftentimes genetic-discrimination as a result of that system (90% probability of Huntington's disease? OH HELL NO! Find another insurance company, buddy).
Let's not call it "socialized" please, as if there's some "capitalist" version of health care. That deteriorates into stupid ideological debates. Personally, I'm not sure if a free market system would work, and I don't think I'd be willing to try it. So, yes, I agree that there needs to be some regulation of costs. This means by necessity that some people will not get all their health care covered. But I do think it would be better to have everyone covered at the expense of not covering every service. Again, the Singaporean system is my preferred policy choice: universal catastrophic health insurance, restrictions on which basic services are funded, and a private market for those who want it. All funded by mandatory savings accounts. The outcomes are pretty amazing even if we control for cultural factors (which sadly nobody ever does).
|
On June 22 2011 06:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much. i explained it in a post in this thread and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help. also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that? Show nested quote +I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off. no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true) and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you. 
|
To make a response regarding the original topic of this thread: I believe there are other methods of getting help instead of having to go down this road of committing a crime (that will be with you the rest of your life) and getting, what essentially is, handouts from taxpayer money. Any chance that this guy could have had at establishing a normal life is out the window with this kind of crime. Who could trust this guy enough to take a chance on employing him?
Beginning of rant:
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't mean to sound callous but my philosophy is very much conservative and coming from the Ayn Rand perspective. That's not to say I lack compassion or am not kind to others, but I have enough of a problem as it is with the amount of taxes I pay and the misappropriation of those funds during these times.
When you read misappropriation, you're probably thinking, "Jeez, this guy sounds like a dick. His money is going toward helping people and he's angry about it?" Please understand though, I am very cynical when it comes to the government at any level. I believe these people are just as selfish and greedy as the businessman trying to keep his business afloat. I don't have a problem with greed (hence Ayn Rand) but there's a difference between being responsible and moral and being irresponsible and immoral. Whereas a businessman has to MAKE his money in some way (again moral or not), politicians have this money thrown at them in the form of taxes. That doesn't seem too fair to me.
For those of you who believe that government should be the controller of health and welfare, I ask: What makes these politicians better at managing healthcare than a businessman? Why is there such a negative connotation for the word businessman? Is there no respect for the person going out day after day attending to a business that he works for or brought up on his own and fulfilling the demands of his patrons? Sure there are bad people out there, but aren't there bad politicians, too?
Another point/question: I would contend that the United States is one of the most unhealthy countries in the world. Is this, in fact, true? I would assume so based upon the amount of childhood obesity rates (which isn't going to get any better because schools have to cut budgets due to deficits) and general obesity rate for adults. But who is to blame for all this? The fast food companies (again, companies are the bad guy...) or the people who live these sedentary lifestyles and do nothing physical except for walking to/from their car. Health care costs would fall greatly if we took better care of ourselves and made better decisions about our health.
Long story short, the guy made a decision that, I think, he will live to regret, but, I guess, at least he lives, I believe government manages programs and the like very badly and with little success and instead of forcing doctors, hospitals, etc. to take better of the population, we can start making decisions at home that will lead to healthier lives.
|
So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
|
What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you
if i dont think what you said to someone was fair i think i can say so, and also, i mentioned the caricaturing after you directed it at me, not just for directing it at him
so, i guess, youre wrong and i didnt caricature myself? im pretty sure even if i did what you said it wouldnt have been caricaturing myself...
also if you reference fox news as a way to associate people with sexism, do you think im sexist too?
Also valid. DeepElemBlues looks at things from a very short term perspective. OMG WE LOSE JOBS CAN'T DO IT. Sorry, our country will lose superpower status VERY soon if we keep this short term viewpoint that so many people seem to have.
It's like an American industry that can't support itself. Does the government help or does it not? If it helps, we keep jobs but create a money sink. If we don't help the industry, it likely fails, people lose their jobs, but ultimately those resources are better allocated elsewhere.
ummm, that's a decidedly anarcho-capitalist way to look at the military, isn't it?
also i dont look at things through the short term, i mean i guess i could talk about all the technologies we have today that originated in research for things useful for the military...
theres no need to freak out the US isnt losing superpower status any time soon.
|
On June 22 2011 06:41 Irrelevant wrote:
So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket.
So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
|
On June 22 2011 06:44 DerNebel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:41 Irrelevant wrote:
So glad, I abuse the fuck out of the system and get free medical from welfare, this year alone my wife's medical bills would have been several hundred thousand dollars, but we haven't paid a dime out of pocket. So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
Yea it would be nice to not have to find loopholes and do illegal things just to take care of your medical expensive, but can't afford to move out of country just yet so have to make do with what we got.
|
On June 22 2011 06:29 Yang Wenli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:18 jello_biafra wrote:On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote:
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare. The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures. On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote:
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all. Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided... I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future.
Uh yeah. GDP isn't the same as income you know. GDP is the production of a country. The US has a huge military production that doesn't yield an income, and is only a huge cash sink for instance, whereas other countries have more refined GDP that actually makes something.
Compare IKEA to the US defense department. Guess what gives more tax money.
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
Sweden has 42% of its GDP in debt, whereas the US has over 90%, and is estimeted 2012 to be around 110%, so your logic is still flawed.
|
On June 22 2011 05:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Second,I'm aware of the US budget.What you aren't aware of is how insanely high the cost of your military is compared to the world.1/5 of the 3.5 trillion dollar budget going to the military is insane.
You spend more on military than the rest of the world.
So? it's irrelevant how much we spend compared to the rest of the world, this is what you are missing Of course it's not irrelevant,it shows that the US(not you,your government,more precisely the banks that own them) has a interest in war,weather you like to admit it or not.And war helps no one except the banks and stock holders.Us has a 14 trillion $ debt,who do you think they ow it to? Show nested quote +first of all you can't dump 30 Germanys into the US.Germany has 81 million people living in it,the US has 311.For the sake of argument ill say EU is bigger than the US and everyone here has pretty much free healthcare in one form or another.
Show nested quote +umm you do pay taxes dont you
so i guess it isnt free
for the last time i was talking about geography and population density which have important influence on costs of everything including healthcare You pay taxes as well lol,even more than me and you still do not have health care.How is that a argument.I already said however that the US can't solve something like the health care issue without having to carefully rethink their monetary system. Show nested quote +Third,if your argument is that EU dragged the US into the war with Libya,than that's quite ironic because,the Eu is equally obliged to support the US in every stupid war march that they can think off,which during the cores of the last few decades,US had a lot of them which didn't help your budget either.
Show nested quote +no they arent
also like to mention that in those wars we pulled our weight, and your opinion of the intelligence of them is what it is. i believe one of those wars in the last few decades was another mess europe was embarrassed by and couldnt clean up itself, called the former yugoslavia?
the issue isnt a deficit caused by the wars it is the ability to pay for them period. we have the ability, europe doesnt. so dont whine about it because you ask us for help too and we GLADLY GIVE IT, not with a bunch of bitchy whining like what comes from across the atlantic Wow,just wow.Wasn't America so kind to us poor little Europeans.As i stated you fight wars not to pull your weight but because the people that own you decide that you should go to war and play the global police for their interest. And about the Yugoslavia,it is funny how little you know about it if you think the US did anything major to clean up the mess. Croatia "cleaned" that mass up practically by itself.Only thing the US did was bomb Beograd and that was ass far as they helped Croatia in that war.They had more interventions in BIH and Kosovo. Show nested quote +Your last point is exactly the root of American problem.Capitalism has its fingers in everything,and if you think that's a good thing your deluded. i disagree, and assertions are just assertions, calling me deluded makes it about as true as me saying you sound very happy with my opinions making that true i would also like to point out that a huge amount of military spending in the US goes towards maintaining our logistical capabilities, without which worldwide humanitarian operations would be hopelessly crippled. millions of people would have died from starvation, illness, and natural disasters over the last 60 years that DIDNT DIE because it was the US military and merchant marine and merchant air that was flying and sailing in the majority of relief supplies. if you wanna bitch about our military spending i guess a big chunk of all that food and medicine can find its way to africa on its own, huh?
It's funny because the people,civilians,the military ends up saving in one part of the world,it make up for it by killing double the amount in another part.
Look up the civilian casualties that the recent wars have caused.It's not pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
