one payer health care

[lofi]

As your list shows, there is a far wider than just American force there. It was the original posters 'yank in uniform' that saves our 'billion dollar defense expenditures' that rattled my cage. The death toll there is un-acceptable but alas also un-avoidable. The defense of democracy is not as you list shows the sole property of the USA but the joint responsibility of the words free nations. As a country your Nation bears a greater burden, but that doesn't give bragging rites. Let us honour the deaths and casualties of all nations with equal stature.

Iain

 

[ethervalve]

I know this sounds like rather morbid quibbling...
but those figures show that Canada's sacrifice is more more than twice that of the US in terms of per capita casualties. Remember, Canada's population is less than California's.

 

[lofi]

I didnt want to go in to the per capita bit as I am unsure of the numbers save the UK population is approximately 20% of the USA. Proportionate deaths all round then?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Quibble away.. all life is important. The Helmund region in Afghanistan seems to be the hottest area, but activity is up all around with the elections coming soon.

I get upset by the number of innocent civilian deaths caught in the crossfire and routinely used as human shields by the other side. Why aren't they on the lists? Are their lives worth less than ours? Even the bad guys will be missed by their mommas.  The human cost all around is significant. Wars suck.

My biggest concern for Afghanistan is how to get a strong enough economy to sustain a strong enough central government to control the entire country when their dominant industry seems to be growing opium. Pakistan barely controls their territory while they have made progress recently. Pakistan is dependent on international aid, and Afghanistan will be on the dole for decades. 

Without a robust and legal local economy, they will be back to warlord thuggery and lawlessness, about two days after the west withdraws.

If we (and I mean the entire free world by we) don't have a solution for their economic future, all these deaths will be in vain.  Not to mention we need to get our own economic house in order. At least drunk sailors only spend money they have.

JR

 

[lofi]

Quibble away.. all life is important.

Well said!!!

I get upset by the number of innocent civilian deaths caught in the crossfire and routinely used as human shields by the other side. Why aren't they on the lists? Are their lives worth less than ours? Even the bad guys will be missed by their mommas.  The human cost all around is significant. Wars suck.

Tis a sad sad world that we bring our children into :'(

If we (and I mean the entire free world by we) don't have a solution for their economic future, all these deaths will be in vain.  Not to mention we need to get our own economic house in order. At least drunk sailors only spend money they have.

JR

A solution that I worry is far beyond the gift or ken of our respective leaders

Iain

 

[sodderboy]

I am talking about how many freaking bases we STILL have all over Europe, and the comparatively massive inequality in defense spending between NATO members..  I am not talking about those who are dusty boots on the ground, locked and loaded.  I have many dear to my heart as well.
And can someone take the time to post how much CANADA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so low?
CUBA LIBRE!  I would not buy an aspirin in Cuba!  Maybe a penicillin shot, but no aspirin.
Mike

 

[Emperor-TK]

Great list, John!  Why are our rulers considering NONE of those points?
MIke

Agreed.  I wish I would hear more constructive ideas coming from the right instead of the "torpedo the president" approach that has been the norm the last couple of months.  As a nation, our collective panties (both red and blue) are in such a tight bunch that it has prevented all blood flow back to our brains.  This garbage has to stop already.  I'm way more scared of cultural disintegration than I am of a swing toward either socialism or laissez-faire.  Neither the New Deal economics nor Reganomics has had a more detrimental effect on my small reality than 24 hour cable news, the internet, or AM radio.  We used to be a proud, cohesive nation capable of weathering the small shifts in paradigms that would happen every 4-8 years.  I'll still find my own way under the influence of either Robber barons or Kennedys.  It takes more than big government or wanton corporations to ruin my day, it takes the din of a nation of 300 million crybabies. 

I say we lock Limbaugh and Olberman in a room with nothing but two forks and a bottle of whiskey.  I'm not sure what would happen, but I guarantee the world would be a better place after it was over.

-Chris

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am talking about how many freaking bases we STILL have all over Europe, and the comparatively massive inequality in defense spending between NATO members..  I am not talking about those who are dusty boots on the ground, locked and loaded.  I have many dear to my heart as well.
And can someone take the time to post how much CANADA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so low?
CUBA LIBRE!  I would not buy an aspirin in Cuba!  Maybe a penicillin shot, but no aspirin.
Mike

Living in our shadow is not considered a blessing by most Canadians or Mexicans and life is too short to convince them otherwise. 

I recall being in Germany on NATO maneuvers in the "70s  and believe it or not they didn't appreciate us there either...  Except for the occasional farmers who could put in claims when some errant tank driver trashed their field, but I digress. It was perhaps interesting that the maneuver I participated in was an airlift of an entire infantry division over there for 2 months worth of war games, to meet our annual commitment  to base a full division in Europe to balance out the Soviet divisions exerting their own influence across the border.  At the final party in Grafenwohr the soviets were doing the same things as us only a few klics away.

The other 10 months a year the entire division's worth of soldier's paychecks get spent at good old Ft Riley Kansas (or places like Danang).  The money we spend on too many bases and servicemen based all around the world is not inconsequential to all their local economies. I wouldn't mind spending less money, especially when it is so unappreciated, but that comes with the territory. 

Our military budget and medical spending are both about 20% of our GDP. Our medical spending is marginally higher than other countries. Our military spending is almost as much as the rest of the world combined. And some of this Iraq/Afghanistan spending is outside the normal military budget.  Both are major dollars and too much.

JR

 

[Mbira]

And can someone take the time to post how much CANADA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so low?

And can someone take the time to post how much USA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so high?

 

[Mbira]

I thought this was funny...I'm sure others will disagree.  ;D

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8140/leftvsconservatards.png

 

[JohnRoberts]

And can someone take the time to post how much CANADA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so low?

And can someone take the time to post how much USA spends for their national defense?  Why is it so high?

In case you completely miss the thrust of the complaint, it is that some other nations can spend less on defense precisely because we spend so much.

Doing some google research I found some more stats (lies, damn lies, and statistics).

Looking at spending as a percentage of GDP the US is on the list at 4% (a lot lower than my formerly cited 20% from another website) vs. Canada at 1.1 %. Using percent of GDP there are many nations paying a higher percentage than us , but another statistic helps bring it into better perspective. The United States spends 41% of the total world spending on defense. China comes in at a distant second with 6%.

The difference between Canadian and US defense spending is the product of the ratio to GDP (4x) times the ratio of GDPs (9x) so more like 35x.  Why is canada so low? One reason is because they can. Why is our spending so high, again because we can. This massive spending had a lot to do with us winning the cold war. The soviets didn't have the economic power to keep up with us.

We were supposed to realize a peace dividend after the Berlin wall fell, but the world is far from the benign garden party some people think. China (#2 with a bullet, in military spending) is pedaling as fast as they can to extend their military presence, presumably to protect their economic interests (like oil in Sudan). 

I really believe the world has seen progress compared to former decades, but there are bad actors who benefit from chaos and instability so we are far from being beyond needing a defensive capability.  I feel like the west's economic entanglement with China is a good thing. If they were to destroy us, who would buy their crap?

JR

PS: Opinions vary, I found the cartoon mean spirited. Even worse some people believe that crap. Personal attack (ad hominum) is what politicians use when they are on the wrong side of a factual argument.  It is distressing how little of the public discussion surrounding healthcare is about fundamental issues. Both sides are trying to manipulate the other with inflammatory, scary, absurd over-simplifications.  This (healthcare) is a complex issue that requires us all working together thoughtfully.

 

[Mbira]

This (healthcare) is a complex issue that requires us all working together thoughtfully.

Sounds like what Obama just said in his radio address.

I agree.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This (healthcare) is a complex issue that requires us all working together thoughtfully.

Sounds like what Obama just said in his radio address.

I agree.

I obviously agree with the sentiment  ;D

I would wholeheartedly appreciate them changing their approach and be more bipartisan.  Stranger things have happened in politics but I will wait to see how they act. Words are cheap.

In all fairness the right has not been pure as the driven snow, but both sides are playing hardball, so not responding in kind is being the bigger fool (fool me once, etc).

IMO 90% of the public debate is not about the the actual topic. I try to avoid speculation about (bad) motives so lets just say I find them well intentioned but misinformed about human behavior.  One thing I really hate about politics is how the public debate gets reduced to over simplified talking points and nowadays "twits" or whatever. Too many people think Iraq was "only" about the WMD. Not, that was just the talking point that resonated with the public (unfortunately). The real constructive debate goes on in chambers (we are not a simple democracy thank god). When the supposedly thoughtful debate breaks down or doesn't happen because of lopsided partisan power, the debate gets public, and louder, and dumber....  :

Interesting times.



JR

 

[sodderboy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6049107/Over-45000-NHS-staff-call-in-sick-each-day.html
Most telling the half more sick days taken by all gov workers compared to the private sector.
I think that scales well to government costs vs private sector. Efficiency is more like double. And mind that our health system is hardly in control of a free market. There are hundreds of legeslative puppet strings on the "invisible hand"!

Mike 

 

[JohnRoberts]

The more i learn the angrier I get.

6 or 7 health industry lobbyists per legislator...  1000 page + bill written by lawyers in legal-sleeze so congressmen and public can't decipher but other lawyers can then run with it.

The only crisis we are in is a crisis of judgement in electing these guys who aren't even in charge of their own law making process.

We need laws that are shorter in simple language... The constitution is a remarkable example of clean legal writing.

JR

 

[ethervalve]

This is an excellent article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html

The writer's conclusions jibe with the voluminous data I have seen on the topic. And dig how each country's system adapts to cultural idiosyncrasies.
Free market fundamentalists tend to be just as crazy (and hypocritical--see:'Buy American" protectionist laws and farm subsidies) as any religious fundamentalists.

 

[bruno2000]

Great list, John!  Why are our rulers considering NONE of those points?
MIke

Agreed.  I wish I would hear more constructive ideas coming from the right instead of the "torpedo the president" approach that has been the norm the last couple of months. 

I say we lock Limbaugh and Olberman in a room with nothing but two forks and a bottle of whiskey.  I'm not sure what would happen, but I guarantee the world would be a better place after it was over.

-Chris

The reason for "torpedoing the president" is that the left is taking an "all or nothing" stance.  There have been several attempts to moderate this bill (3200) but they have all been killed with no discussion.  Lets talk about the absence of any tort reform.
Bruno2000

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is an excellent article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html

The writer's conclusions jibe with the voluminous data I have seen on the topic. And dig how each country's system adapts to cultural idiosyncrasies.
Free market fundamentalists tend to be just as crazy (and hypocritical--see:'Buy American" protectionist laws and farm subsidies) as any religious fundamentalists.

Opinions vary.. that article was full of (5) "straw men" (false arguments set up to be easily knocked down.)

I am one of those free market funnymen...  The free market should consist of the customer (you and me) dealing directly with the doctors to manage costs. The current government fix is to replace the insurance company middle man, with a government middle man.

The problem now is that the customer, the insurance companies actually serve, is not us but the employers who pays for health insurance.  Until we remove all the middlemen distorting the pure economic transactions this will be inefficient and less effective.

We don't need this administration taking over another 20% of our GDP. They haven't impressed me with their job on AMTRAK and the post office.

This is a recipe for disaster.....

I expect some may disagree.

JR

BTW RIP for Teddy.

 

[ENS Audio]

Sadly...so many lives either lost or wrecked for what?  They all died in vain for a bunch of ingrates (No they didnt want anyone there..off key for a moment....does "Lawrence of Arabia ring a bell?" and now the greater Persia will be resurrected }


Can anyone say the word "blowback"??


Im so tired of this "bias" kind of thinking thats been going on and just to make a statement in the next elections I will vote for ANY independant to whom has the OPPOSITE points of view and I encourage others that are equally as fed up with the whole dog and pony show.  Both parties at this point benefit off of each other (GOP, winners take all in 2010 and 2012) I cannot be the only flaming Leftie that is aware of this.

Also in regards to the free market debate...are we saying that we should go back to the appalling work conditions that existed during the turn of the Industrial Revolution?  Before many evil communist "union thugs" put their lives on the line to make shure society wouldnt go back to serfdom??  Let's ask all those drug dealing migrant workers how much more wonderful life was before people such as Ceasar Chavez spoke out against the horrid work conditions...yes another evil communist.

Sure I do enjoy debating the issues of politics with you folks on this forum for the conversations never devolve into name calling and slinging horse dunn...I just have my views  and am set in certain ways on them, but one particular question I have thats itching and really looking forward to what answer I'll get is this...

Are there union groups established in the more "high tech/skilled labor" industries??  Correct me if i'm wrong but you will probably have a very difficult time trying find any union employees working for Google, Yahoo, or Altium, e.t.c


It seems that if in industries to where there are plenty of union groups that if from the beginning company employers would of started out being paying workers honestly for what they're worth.. these labor unions wouldnt have the influence they have today, mind you living in a "right to work" state my whole life this is just an observation based on BOTH sides of that argument and yes I do apologize if my bias is a bit Left leaning....


I'd like to hear from those to whom are from places like Germany as well so they can tell us if what some of us elsewhere percieve as a "workers utopia" is somewhat accurate or just a bunch of hype





Oh and in regards to Iraqistan, let's not forget http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg
(dont mind the sarcasm and actually I do love Left Wing hypocrisy  more than the hypocrisy that comes from the right incase anyone gives a damn! )

 

[sodderboy]

Aaaah, there is always some common ground among the logical!
No one can disagree that unions played an important role at their beginning- not protecting workers' jobs but their hands, feet and lives. 
Now though, unions are just as bad as the "evil corporations" with which they do battle.  I personally witness what the teamsters are doing in the NY metro area with newspaper delivery men- not helping their members get real and think about delivering something else besides dwindling bundles of printed pulp, but just trying to shuffle 50 peas around a diminishing 35 shells rotating around the 5 boroughs.  Is this logical?  And these unions have just as many lobbyists as the evil corps.  I find it ironic that a union relies on delivering copies of the dying New York Times to stay in business!  Guess what, "workers", a company does not exist to give you a job!  And workers, you do not exist to to give labor to a company.  This should be a private agreement that instead, when scaled into the hundreds and thousands, gets heavily distorted.  Good companies need talented people to fulfill their goal- the auto industry has gone far from this model with the help of labor unions and stupid capitulating management. 

So I have been pondering it- how do the different systems scale-up?  Either laizzez-faire capitalism or communism leads to a totalitarian state with the people serving a gentry, living in a polluted hell-hole, especially when scaled from thousands to millions.  I think that currently there is too much legislation on all three or four layers of our personal governmental spheres that has screwed the whole system.  Each layer mandates down and taxes up and down to first absorb distributive costs and then follow the kilo-pages of mandates.  We got a letter from our County Legislator proclaiming that it would be the last printed newsletter to save county taxes.  He, the only representative I can reach by phone, explained that they would not be lowering our sales taxes to reflect the savings because there were State mandates that had to be covered.  Trent Shott said similar-"I don't know why they did not build a fence on the border!  We passed the mandate, but the House did not appropriate the funds!"  All levels blame the others and they are all a part of a huge Charlie-Foxtrot.

I see that with the present ideas for "healthcare" now "health insurance" reform that it only benefits those in power, and those who paid for the power.  Instead, layers of legislative duct tape need to be removed from the system to make it more flexible.  I have already stated that there is hardly any free market action in the health care industry.

The "invisible hand" is wrapped in Gorilla Tape- how can more layers of tape and and some more tape on the "invisible arm" mean anything but more of a bad thing?  Like, you cannot get a reliable digital examination with an invisible finger wrapped in duct tape.
Mike
PS: interesting, with just the swinging of the pendulum, another 50 million or so will be on Medicare by default in the next 20 years.  BOOM!