The human right of health insurance:

[Guyzerr]

Nah, I'll answer. Let's see...without at least 3 of those wars (Revolutionary, 1812, and Civil) our country wouldn't even exist. And without at least 2 more (the WW's) the world as we know it wouldn't even exist.

Did you leave out the most expensive being Korea, Vietnam and the two you are involved with now on purpose?

And regardless of medical care provided, everybody around from those times would or will eventually die anyway.

Are you trying to tell me that Americans die? Na...... you couldn't be. Those fuckers are invincible.

Comparing wars to healthcare is like deciding which you like more, giraffes or toffee.

Always better to throw your money at a loosing war ( see 4 listed above ) than cure a toothache I always said. :24:

 

[Guyzerr]

Don't respond to guyzerr s.v.p. It would be a total waste of time.

And you are who?

 

[Minor Axis]

Did you leave out the most expensive being Korea, Vietnam and the two you are involved with now on purpose?

The U.S participation in WWII was justified. Most of the allied Europeans appreciated the effort. Both Korea and Vietnam where anti-communist wars when a prominent view was Communists were trying to take over the world. The first Gulf war was to fight back aggression from one dictator to another dictatorship, the U.S. siding with our Middle East oil interests. The Afgan War was a justifiable response to the Talaban and 9-11, but we dropped the ball there because of the second Gulf war, which the decision was outright aggression and a total criminal sham. Does that wrap it up well enough?

 

[dt3]

Did you leave out the most expensive being Korea, Vietnam and the two you are involved with now on purpose?



Are you trying to tell me that Americans die? Na...... you couldn't be. Those fuckers are invincible.



Always better to throw your money at a loosing war ( see 4 listed above ) than cure a toothache I always said. :24:

I left out those 4 because I was going for the ones that would have invariably altered the world's history had they not been fought.

I'm not totally convinced of the need to keep Communism in check that led us into Korea in Vietnam. At the same time, I can see why it was considered necessary at the time. It's also much more difficult to say how history would have been altered had we not fought these wars than the ones I mentioned.

As for the other two, I'm willing to let history be the judge. You can't look at something as objectively in the present as you can in hind sight. At the same time, I'm not sure the world would be a much different place had we not started either one. Which is, again, why I didn't mention it.

And for the record, the Korean War was an absolute win no matter how you look at it, much the same as the Gulf War. The goal wasn't necessarily the complete annihilation of an enemy, the goal was to stop massive aggression against our allies. Last I checked, S Korea had a stable, democratic government with enough food to take care of their population and one of the top economies in the world.

 

[Guyzerr]

Youwhoo....... dt3 & Minor Axis.......... anybody home.....

I wasn't looking for a history lesson. The point I you missed was if you can afford to fight all them " necessary " :24: wars you can afford to put a health care system in place.

 

[Meirionnydd]

And for the record, the Korean War was an absolute win no matter how you look at it, much the same as the Gulf War. The goal wasn't necessarily the complete annihilation of an enemy, the goal was to stop massive aggression against our allies. Last I checked, S Korea had a stable, democratic government with enough food to take care of their population and one of the top economies in the world.

An absolute win would be a united Korean nation. Saying 'absolute' implies the best result possible, in my opinion the war ended in a military and political status quo.

South Korea in the past was far from a stable democratic nation, in the 1960's if I recall, North Korea had a higher GDP than the South.

Maybe it's taken half a century for South Korea to emerge as a very strong nation. But with them facing off against a heavily militaristic and erratic regime, with artillery within striking distance of the capital, that could all change.

ANYWAY, I think we're getting slightly off topic now?

 

[dt3]

Youwhoo....... dt3 & Minor Axis.......... anybody home.....

I wasn't looking for a history lesson. The point I you missed was if you can afford to fight all them " necessary " :24: wars you can afford to put a health care system in place.

Maybe if Canada didn't have nationalized healthcare, they could afford to fight some wars too! :24: :fing27


*Disclaimer* This is not intended as a knock on the brave men and women who have given their lives serving in Canada's military. It's merely an observation by an American Right-Wing Warmonger.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Maybe if Canada didn't have nationalized healthcare, they could afford to fight some wars too! :24: :fing27


*Disclaimer* This is not intended as a knock on the brave men and women who have given their lives serving in Canada's military. It's merely an observation by an American Right-Wing Warmonger.

Afghanistan?

And proportionally speaking, the United States spends twice as much per capita on healthcare than any other nation on the planet, and there is no universal coverage.

The US in a mountain of debt, the reason partially being because of the need to fund the wars it's fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Accountable]

It bothers me that people speak of a nation and equate what the citizens spend as what the government spends, then assumes it is up to the government to "fix" whatever perceived problem is inferred. I suppose that equation exists in many countries, so the misunderstanding is, well, understandable (an understandable misunderstanding, understand?), but it doesn't apply to healthcare in the USA.

 

[dt3]

The US in a mountain of debt, the reason partially being because of the need to fund the wars it's fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're right, our debt is atrocious. Which is EXACTLY why we don't need to rack up another trillion or so to pay for this healthcare monstrosity!

 

[Meirionnydd]

You're right, our debt is atrocious. Which is EXACTLY why we don't need to rack up another trillion or so to pay for this healthcare monstrosity!

But you'd agree that doing nothing is worse?

To people who don't support Obama's proposed health reform, what would your alternative be? (I'm not trying to sound condescending there, i'm honestly interested in your suggestions)

And for the record, I don't support it either, most likely the bill will be watered down too much before it's even passed anyway, much like the cap and trade bill.

 

[dt3]

But you'd agree that doing nothing is worse?

To people who don't support this program, what would your alternative be? (I'm not trying to sound condescending there, i'm honestly interested in your suggestions)

Massively increasing the size of the federal government or the scope of it's powers is almost ALWAYS worse in my opinion.

I would much rather see each individual state tackle the problem at the local level. The smaller the level of government, the more responsive it tends to be to the people it governs.

The other advantage to this is if you don't like the way your state is handling it, you have 49 other options you can consider. What's going to happen if this new plan passes and you don't like the options? You pay penalties and taxes for not taking part. Brilliant way to coerce participation, but infringes on your personal choice imo.

I don't have all the answers, but I know that in it's current form, what they're proposing isn't the answer either.

 

[Accountable]

:nod::thumbup

 

[Guyzerr]

Maybe if Canada didn't have nationalized healthcare, they could afford to fight some wars too! :24: :fing27


*Disclaimer* This is not intended as a knock on the brave men and women who have given their lives serving in Canada's military. It's merely an observation by an American Right-Wing Warmonger.

We have you to protect us you big bruiser you. :24:

 

[Guyzerr]

It bothers me that people speak of a nation and equate what the citizens spend as what the government spends, then assumes it is up to the government to "fix" whatever perceived problem is inferred. I suppose that equation exists in many countries, so the misunderstanding is, well, understandable (an understandable misunderstanding, understand?), but it doesn't apply to healthcare in the USA.

That qualifies as the post of the day. Bravo :clap:clap:clap

 

[Guyzerr]

I don't have all the answers

Say it ain't so.... I'm crushed I tell ya.. fucking crushed.

 

[Peter Parka]

Our National Health service might not be as great as private health service but at least I dont have to worry about getting into thousands of pounds of debt just to stay alive.

 

[Accountable]

Do you think you'd live more responsibly if that threat was there?

 

[Peter Parka]

Do you think you'd live more responsibly if that threat was there?

Not really and I dont know of any evidence that indicates people take better care of their health when they have to pay for health care. All this does is cause worse health problems and spread shit like swine flu even more because people dont go to the hospital or the doctors when they should because they are worried about the cost.