Why does america spend so much money in military....

[NZStreetBaller]

But no free healthcare???

Last time i checked they had 611billion in military more than the next 10 countries combined yet no free healthcare. And apparently pharmaceutical items are hella expensive. Is this true??

Does this mean that the United states are more focused on protection or dominance then the standard of living of their own people??

Just curios

#berniesanders

[bdreason]

Because when the World Economy collapses, and eventually it will, the U.S. will be able to take whatever they want, from whomever they want. That's the benefit of having tactical nukes pointed at every Country in the World.

I'm not saying I agree with Military spending, but it's pretty obvious the U.S. is positioning itself for the next World War.

[Jameerthefear]

But no free healthcare???

Last time i checked they had 611billion in military more than the next 10 countries combined yet no free healthcare. And apparently pharmaceutical items are hella expensive. Is this true??

Does this mean that the United states are more focused on protection or dominance then the standard of living of their own people??

Just curios

#berniesanders
you do realize the u.s. military is one of the biggest providers of social welfare right?

[Hawker]

Because other countries want us to protect them. Australia and Singapore for example both promote US expansion in the Asia Pacific region to protect their assets, balance out China and provide economic stability.

Our pharmaceutical items are expensive and as a result the majority of funding for R&D for these items come from America and the rest of the world benefits. Why do we have to subsidize the rest of the world's healthcare and military?

Not all of us can be an all white population in the middle of nowhere (New Zealand) and claim that we take care of ourselves while clearly benefitting from what the US provides.

[Nick Young]

But no free healthcare???

Last time i checked they had 611billion in military more than the next 10 countries combined yet no free healthcare. And apparently pharmaceutical items are hella expensive. Is this true??

Does this mean that the United states are more focused on protection or dominance then the standard of living of their own people??

Just curios

#berniesanders
Free healthcare is unsustainable and and leads to laziness. Just look at the failing EU as an example as to why the US doesn't offer free healthcare.


The American standard of living would go down if we did not have a dominant military.

Here's an example how: In the US, the price of gas is like $3 a gallon.

In the UK, it's

[Nick Young]

Not all of us can be an all white population in the middle of nowhere (New Zealand) and claim that we take care of ourselves while clearly benefitting from what the US provides.
Exactly.

Without America protecting them, New Zealand would not have the standard of living that it does. Because New Zealand doesn't have to invest in military infrastructure, they are able to invest their meager GDP in improving the standards of living for its people instead (see also Canada).


OP, you guys would be like East Timor if America was not subsidizing your military and offering protection.

Be grateful for it.

[navy]

Free healthcare doesnt exist and let's be honest, the united states military budget is unsustainable. The funny thing is that we could cut our budget and still be just as strong.

[Patrick Chewing]

Free Healthcare isn't cheap.

[Hawker]

Exactly.

Without America protecting them, New Zealand would not have the standard of living that it does. Because New Zealand doesn't have to invest in military infrastructure, they are able to invest their meager GDP in improving the standards of living for its people instead (see also Canada).


OP, you guys would be like East Timor if America was not subsidizing your military and offering protection.

Be grateful for it.

US and New Zealand are actually no longer allies but friends due to New Zealand disallowing US ships holding nukes from entering their waters.

I believe it's steadily being renegotiated but they are not as close as Australia is and defending them isn't as automatic in a time of crisis.

[~primetime~]

We could benefit from moving 5%-10% military spending toward healthcare IMO.

[NZStreetBaller]

So new zealand australia and all those other countries have free healthcare but the richest country in the world doesnt??? Yet they can spend billions on weapons of mass destruction??

[Patrick Chewing]

So new zealand australia and all those other countries have free healthcare but the richest country in the world doesnt??? Yet they can spend billions on weapons of mass destruction??


How do you have this insider information? Are you a spy??

[NumberSix]

Health care is too important to let government fcuk it up.

[DeuceWallaces]

We could benefit from moving 5%-10% military spending toward healthcare IMO.

And then another 10% into public education.

I'll take another 5-10% for infrastructure.

[ALBballer]

You can hate Trump but he makes a good point that we are defending the rest of the world.

Germany, Japan, Italy, Denmark etc are spending 1-2% of their GDP on their military defense while the United States spends 3.5% of their GDP on military defense. Time to let the rest of the world fend for themselves especially these socialist European countries that are essentially receiving free protection allowing these countries to spend a larger portion of their GDP in terms of social services for their citizens.


And then another 10% into public education.

I'll take another 5-10% for infrastructure.

Infrastructure sure but we already are near the top in the world in terms of education per student and it hasn't gotten us much.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cmd-1.gif

Now I'm not sure what the answer is to improving education but I don't think throwing more money at the problem will fix the issue.

[longtime lurker]

Because in the good ole US of A killing foreigners is more important than saving Americans

[Nick Young]

Free healthcare doesnt exist and let's be honest, the united states military budget is unsustainable. The funny thing is that we could cut our budget and still be just as strong.
China is patient. The minute we do that, the very second we aren't able to stop them is when they will make all the moves they've been dying to make for decades now that the American military presence all over the world has prevented.

[Patrick Chewing]

Because in the good ole US of A killing foreigners is more important than saving Americans


Especially when those foreigners talk about blowing themselves up and innocent infidels.

The blood of all of those animals can fill the Grand Canyon. And the Canyon looks pretty empty to me.

[longtime lurker]

Especially when those foreigners talk about blowing themselves up and innocent infidels.

The blood of all of those animals can fill the Grand Canyon. And the Canyon looks pretty empty to me.

Does supporting other people kill foreigners make up for your failed John Rambo fantasies :lol

[chosen_one6]

Military industrial complex...look it up.

[DeuceWallaces]

You can hate Trump but he makes a good point that we are defending the rest of the world.

Germany, Japan, Italy, Denmark etc are spending 1-2% of their GDP on their military defense while the United States spends 3.5% of their GDP on military defense. Time to let the rest of the world fend for themselves especially these socialist European countries that are essentially receiving free protection allowing these countries to spend a larger portion of their GDP in terms of social services for their citizens.



Infrastructure sure but we already are near the top in the world in terms of education per student and it hasn't gotten us much.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cmd-1.gif

Now I'm not sure what the answer is to improving education but I don't think throwing more money at the problem will fix the issue.

There is no solution that doesn't include more money; at least in the short term. So yes, throwing more money will fix the issue.

[FillJackson]

You can hate Trump but he makes a good point that we are defending the rest of the world.
Trump doesn't understand that the United States hugely benefits from doing so.

It has very long term benefits to the US for both trade and security reasons.

Trump's idea of diplomacy is super short term and it's transactional, how much can I get out this now.....that is he thinks like a real estate developer in NYC.

[FrobeShaw]

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Free healthcare is unsustainable and and leads to laziness. Just look at the failing EU as an example as to why the US doesn't offer free healthcare.


The American standard of living would go down if we did not have a dominant military.

Here's an example how: In the US, the price of gas is like $3 a gallon.

In the UK, it's

[LootOP]

As for healthcare: it's all about managed competition
Read this: http://monthlyreview.org/2003/09/01/the-inhuman-state-of-u-s-health-care/

Business interests play the biggest role in determining the health care system the US (and now most of Western Europe as well) has. As long as trying to solve a problem would mean earning less money than maintaining a problem, it will be made sure that the solutions won't be found. Too much money being earned there. And I'm not talking about AIDS or Cancer perse. I'm talking about much bigger problems such as malnutrition, diabetes etc.

[shlver]

ACA already subsidizes healthcare, a transition into a full singleplayer system would probably cause a loss in jobs as the insurance industry creates close to a million jobs. Single payer competing with private insurance would be the best option creating competition and driving down costs.
Pressure EU to up military spending and scale back military a half percentage point of GDP and reallocate funds towards manufacturing and replacing our aging naval fleet, air force, and technologies. This would streamline our military and create domestic economic stimulus. I personally do not have a problem with the percentage of GDP spent on defense currently.
Focus heavily on infrastructure(roads, highways, pipes, etc) directing federal funds to state governments. Allocate more funds to the Small Business administration to finance small businesses as they have been hit hardest by the economic downturn. Focus heavily on nuclear power and start construction now so we can conserve oil for military operations and have economic leverage when peak oil hits. This is what I believe the US should do for the next couple of decades.

[Dresta]

Because America is a vast Empire pretending to be a country, and a powerful military is extremely important in preserving that. Also, American 'conservatives' (who were philosophically inclined not to support militarism and warmaking and the vested interests it creates), made the concession because of the overblown threat provided by the Soviet Union, a power that could not hold, and which would've collapsed in its own sweet time, without America completely destroying itself in the process.

Conservatives should have been the force of restraint in this aspect (and some few were), but large numbers became little more than shills for the military industrial complex, with disastrous long term consequences.

[Dresta]

There is no solution that doesn't include more money; at least in the short term. So yes, throwing more money will fix the issue.
:roll:

Didn't take a logic class on your way to that plant phd did you?

[UK2K]

Military industrial complex...look it up.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1693852/congress-again-spends-120-million-on-abrams-tanks-the-army-said-it-doesnt-want/

Cut out the tanks, you cut out a lot of jobs.

[BigNBAfan]

working in the US hospitals to hospital in antwerp i can tell you that free healthcare is garbage. In the US, atleast you get the best service possible barring payment. In belgium medical advances take ages to incorporate translationally because cost to the government is a big factor.

[UK2K]

working in the US hospitals to hospital in antwerp i can tell you that free healthcare is garbage. In the US, atleast you get the best service possible barring payment. In belgium medical advances take ages to incorporate translationally because cost to the government is a big factor.

Point me to ONE thing the government runs efficiently.

That's what I don't understand about the whole 'we want government to control every aspect of our lives' group here in the states. Like, why? What evidence have you seen to make you think that's a good idea?

I mean, really, I can't think of one single thing that the government runs well. We spent billions upon billions to make a ****ing website. Never mind the fact that many involved with its creation just so happened to be political backers who donate truck loads of cash to influential people.


Federal officials considered only one firm to design the Obamacare health insurance exchange website that has performed abysmally since its Oct. 1 debut.

Rather than open the contracting process to a competitive public solicitation with multiple bidders, officials in the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid accepted a sole bidder, CGI Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of a Canadian company with an uneven record of IT pricing and contract performance.

As the Examiner previously reported, CGI in Canada also suffered embarrassment in 2011 when it failed to deliver on time for Ontario province's flagship project a new online medical registry for diabetes patients and treatment providers.

Ontario government officials cancelled the $46.2 million contract after 14 months of delay in September 2012. Ontario officials currently refuse to pay any fees to CGI for the failed IT project.

What the ****? Its crazy to think the a random start up from Canada with less than stellar track record of creating health databases was in charge of creating... a health database for the US population. They couldn't even create one for Ontario, but yet, they were the only bid considered to create one for the entire US.

Nobody finds that odd?

Just goes to show how dumb the American people are, now, as a collective.

[DeuceWallaces]

:roll:

Didn't take a logic class on your way to that plant phd did you?

I know you like to pretend to be an intellect on the internet, but even a task force or committee set up for serious reform and lowering of our GDP/Student ratio will require a temporary increase in funding. Furthermore, you're obviously not familiar with public schools in the US, but it will require additional funds to attract better educators and improve facilities.

[NumberSix]

I know you like to pretend to be an intellect on the internet, but even a task force or committee set up for serious reform and lowering of our GDP/Student ratio will require a temporary increase in funding. Furthermore, you're obviously not familiar with public schools in the US, but it will require additional funds to attract better educators and improve facilities.
Or you could just eliminate the teachers union.

[UK2K]

Or you could just eliminate the teachers union.
It's a crazy idea, but what if.... now stay with me.... what if we gave increased salaries based on performance instead of whether or not you simply showed up to work?

But the truth is, in RI, the average salary for an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER is $67k/year. If they aren't satisfied with making more than a police officer/firefighter/paramedic to babysit 6 year old kids, I don't know what else to tell you.

http://teaching.monster.com/careers/articles/9484-5-highest-paying-states-for-teachers?page=6

[Dresta]

I know you like to pretend to be an intellect on the internet, but even a task force or committee set up for serious reform and lowering of our GDP/Student ratio will require a temporary increase in funding. Furthermore, you're obviously not familiar with public schools in the US, but it will require additional funds to attract better educators and improve facilities.
Don't get all salty because your logic doesn't make any sense:


There is no solution that doesn't include more money; at least in the short term. So yes, throwing more money will fix the issue.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, and that's even if one accepts the validity of your premise in the first place, which in itself is speculative conjecture.

Saying something can't "be fixed without more money" doesn't mean it will be fixed by "throwing money" at it.

As I said: basic logic.


edit: And historically, money is evidently a side issue. The US led the civilised world in education standards when there was almost no public funding (Mass had higher literacy rates in 1850 than it does today); the biggest problem with education is the dilution and enforced mediocrity foisted upon it by the egalitarian ethos of the age, which produces a self-sustaining cycle of declining standards, which cannot be broken out from simply by throwing more money at the problem. It is the approach to education that needs to be changed: something that, when it as any good, was always viewed as a form of cultural enrichment, rather than simple job training.

[Nanners]

ACA already subsidizes healthcare, a transition into a full singleplayer system would probably cause a loss in jobs as the insurance industry creates close to a million jobs. Single payer competing with private insurance would be the best option creating competition and driving down costs.


private insurance companies skimming healthcare money out of the system is one of the primary reasons we spend so much money on healthcare in the US compared to other nations. these health insurance companies provide zero value, they dont improve the quality of care, they are simply middlemen. the sooner we move away from private insurers, the better.

[NumberSix]

private insurance companies skimming healthcare money out of the system is one of the primary reasons we spend so much money on healthcare in the US compared to other nations. these health insurance companies provide zero value, they dont improve the quality of care, they are simply middlemen. the sooner we move away from private insurers, the better.
The single biggest reason for high healthcare costs is the amount of services that are never paid for. Current laws are that if somebody shows up at a hospital, they have to be taken care of. You'd be shocked to know the amount of these people that just never pay. A large amount of these people being illegals that often give fake names and information.

[DeuceWallaces]

Don't get all salty because your logic doesn't make any sense:



Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, and that's even if one accepts the validity of your premise in the first place, which in itself is speculative conjecture.

Saying something can't "be fixed without more money" doesn't mean it will be fixed by "throwing money" at it.

As I said: basic logic.


edit: And historically, money is evidently a side issue. The US led the civilised world in education standards when there was almost no public funding (Mass had higher literacy rates in 1850 than it does today); the biggest problem with education is the dilution and enforced mediocrity foisted upon it by the egalitarian ethos of the age, which produces a self-sustaining cycle of declining standards, which cannot be broken out from simply by throwing more money at the problem. It is the approach to education that needs to be changed: something that, when it as any good, was always viewed as a form of cultural enrichment, rather than simple job training.

The only way to improve US public education is with more funding. But go ahead, keep talking about mid-19th century education dynamics.

[Dresta]

What are these "dynamics" you speak of (love your vagueness and evasiveness)? In what ways have the "dynamics" of educating people changed, save how much easier it has become, and how many more tools are available to teacher and student to make the whole process far easier?

Isn't it an indictment on the great march of "progress" that they could educate people to a higher level when there was almost no public funding, books far less ubiquitous and more expensive, no computers, no vast centralised systems of administration, nor pedant run bureaucracies that care not one whit about education standards, but are of course obsessed with getting more "funding" and money for themselves? After all, literacy is the foundation stone of all further education, and it is truly an indictment on your ideas and your methods that we aren't capable of meeting the literacy standards of the 1850s with all the many extra advantages we have today. Evidently, money is not the problem; the problem is clearly structural and endemic, something for which no panacea exists.

Dat progress :bowdown:

Time for people like you to put away your quackery, and stop pretending such simple-minded (and oft tried) things are the solution, before the academy is completely enervated. Like all good politico-religious quacks, you will hear of nothing but your nostrum, which is all-powerful and all-healing, a panacea for all ills (and in your case that nostrum is money, usually other people's), and yet is contradicted by all the available historical evidence to the contrary.

edit: maybe you should start with trying to make teaching a respected profession again, instead of a lifeline for university failures; as if a system where those who can't learn, teach, could ever function effectively, regardless of the money involved! And I think you'll find that this cannot be done unless you create elite institutions and drop the egalitarian dogma. Take the old UK grammar school system, for example. This is simply a more efficient allocation of resources.

[shlver]

private insurance companies skimming healthcare money out of the system is one of the primary reasons we spend so much money on healthcare in the US compared to other nations. these health insurance companies provide zero value, they dont improve the quality of care, they are simply middlemen. the sooner we move away from private insurers, the better.
The issue is whether you trust the government or private insurance as your middleman. Historically, government programs are inefficient. Private entities seek to make a profit so minimizing waste is a part of the their business model. I think they can find a way to adapt and market themselves to patients and providers to compete with a standard bare bones public option. We both agree reform is needed, but the ACA was a step in the wrong direction completely

[Nanners]

The issue is whether you trust the government or private insurance as your middleman. Historically, government programs are inefficient. Private entities seek to make a profit so minimizing waste is a part of the their business model. I think they can find a way to adapt and market themselves to patients and providers to compete with a standard bare bones public option.
The ACA was a step in the wrong direction completely

We trust the government with law enforcement, the justice system, the millitary, education, transportation infrastructure, and countless other social services. If I can trust the government to protect me from foreign invaders I can trust them with my healthcare. Virtually every developed nation around the globe has a national healthcare system, and for the most part they perform very well.

The fact that private insurers have a profit incentive is problematic to me. A private insurer is incentivized to withold care whenever possible. Every time they dont have to pay for a treatment or medication it helps their bottom line. A government system doesnt have that profit incentive.

I am not trying to say we should abolish private insurerers. If private insurerers want to compete against the government, and if individuals want to pay out of pocket for a private insurance plan, thats fine with me. I just think there should be basic universal coverage available for everyone, and I think tax dollars shouldnt be used to subsidize private insurerers.

[UK2K]

We trust the government with law enforcement, the justice system, the millitary, education, transportation infrastructure, and countless other social services. If I can trust the government to protect me from foreign invaders I can trust them with my healthcare. Virtually every developed nation around the globe has a national healthcare system, and for the most part they perform very well.

The fact that private insurers have a profit incentive is problematic to me. A private insurer is incentivized to withold and refuse to provide care whenever possible. Every time they dont have to pay for a treatment or medication it helps their bottom line. A government system doesnt have that profit incentive.

I am not trying to say we should abolish private insurerers. If private insurerers want to compete against the government, and if individuals want to pay out of pocket for a private insurance plan, thats fine with me. I just think there should be basic universal coverage available for everyone.

You seen the southern border lately?

[DukeDelonte13]

People that think that universal healthcare is a failure are gullible fools. They are the same type of people that think voting for a direct benefit for a small minority is better than voting for a direct benefit for themselves.

Check the WHO's rankings of healthcare systems.

Not that it's the end all be all, but it puts things into a little bit of perspective.

[longtime lurker]

People that think that universal healthcare is a failure are gullible fools. They are the same type of people that think voting for a direct benefit for a small minority is better than voting for a direct benefit for themselves.

Check the WHO's rankings of healthcare systems.

Not that it's the end all be all, but it puts things into a little bit of perspective.

Who would want the United States to be on the level of those third world shit holes like Finland, Canada, Norway and France. Crazy thing is that the US pays the most per capita for healthcare for essentially worse output. But keep believing your system is perfect

[DeuceWallaces]

Or you could just eliminate the teachers union.

That's a terrible idea.

A good place to start would be incentives for 7-12th grade to achieve a M.S. in their subject. The two best teachers at my high school had M.S. degrees, but many districts, including the one I was at, were very resistant to that because it meant automatic raises they couldn't afford due to a lack of funding...

[LJJ]

You can hate Trump but he makes a good point that we are defending the rest of the world.

Germany, Japan, Italy, Denmark etc are spending 1-2% of their GDP on their military defense while the United States spends 3.5% of their GDP on military defense. Time to let the rest of the world fend for themselves especially these socialist European countries that are essentially receiving free protection allowing these countries to spend a larger portion of their GDP in terms of social services for their citizens.


One of the dumber things Trump says, and I'm no Trump hater. Actually not dumb, he's just a demagogue who knows much of the American public doesn't know any better.

"Yeahhhh! If Japan and Germany want US soldiers in their country they better pay us for it!"

Those US foreign military bases exist only as a courtesy to the US. (historical reasons aside) The US military desperately wants the real estate and global presence while most of those countries really could care less and are simply doing a favor to their long-time ally.

[DukeDelonte13]

The issue is whether you trust the government or private insurance as your middleman. Historically, government programs are inefficient. Private entities seek to make a profit so minimizing waste is a part of the their business model. I think they can find a way to adapt and market themselves to patients and providers to compete with a standard bare bones public option. We both agree reform is needed, but the ACA was a step in the wrong direction completely

I'd rather trust a non profit for my healthcare then somebody trying to make a dime off of me.

Do people critically think about the sh*t they say?

The whole purpose of medical insurance companies is to MAKE MONEY OF YOU, not to ensure you get healthcare. They do everything under their power NOT TO COVER YOU. Therein lies the problem. It's an inherently unfair system when the item being bargained for (healthcare coverage) is a necessity. The side selling that good has ultimate power. The consumer has little to none. That's why the ACA was passed, to try and level out the playing field a little bit.

[CP3PO]

We can cut the budget so much and help so many programs within the country, and still have the largest military budget in the world. How Republicans are ok with this socialist concept but not ones that help our country is beyond me.

[UK2K]

I'd rather trust a non profit for my healthcare then somebody trying to make a dime off of me.

Do people critically think about the sh*t they say?

The whole purpose of medical insurance companies is to MAKE MONEY OF YOU, not to ensure you get healthcare. They do everything under their power NOT TO COVER YOU. Therein lies the problem. It's an inherently unfair system when the item being bargained for (healthcare coverage) is a necessity. The side selling that good has ultimate power. The consumer has little to none. That's why the ACA was passed, to try and level out the playing field a little bit.

Wrong. If they did everything under their power to NOT cover people, how would they get money?

They do everything in their power to NOT cover someone who will, undoubtedly, cost the insurance company more than they'll ever actually pay.

Shame on them, yeah?

For all those people, they should have just been thrown into the same shitty healthcare system our veterans are in. I've suggested that since this debate began years ago, and although everyone tells me 'that's not fair', I've yet to hear a reason why its fair for our veterans but not for anyone else.

You want free healthcare? Awesome, go to the VA and wait in line. Hopefully it's nothing serious, because the wait is years. We can get rid of this mandatory tax at the same time.

I think that's pretty fair. Agree or disagree?

[Draz]

Power, control, authority, etc. It's a chain.

[Nick Young]

We are the best.

[Dresta]

Power, control, authority, etc. It's a chain.
Yes, but it would never have been permitted without the two world wars and the Cold War that followed; and the truth is, that once these things have become ingrained, they are very difficult to get rid of. There was an opportunity for a scale back at the end of the Cold War, but NATO is still here, and America continues to spend insane amounts of money on "defense," because too many Americans bought into the trope of humanitarian intervention, and the implicit belief that Americans should control the world and protect it from abuse (a policy pursued and backed by Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama).

The American tradition prior to the middle period of the 20th century was largely one of not getting involved in the squabbles and disputes of foreign powers; now it presents itself as a kind of celestial world police, rectifying injustices wherever they may be, and violating national sovereignty whenever they choose (something which far more often helps nefarious interests than humane ones).

Unsurprisingly, the loss of this tradition fitted pretty neatly with the changing of the Departments of War and Navy to the Department of Defense. Much less honest, and a clear sign a population has stopped thinking realistically, and started deluding itself (or being deluded by others).

[shlver]

I'd rather trust a non profit for my healthcare then somebody trying to make a dime off of me.

Do people critically think about the sh*t they say?

The whole purpose of medical insurance companies is to MAKE MONEY OF YOU, not to ensure you get healthcare. They do everything under their power NOT TO COVER YOU. Therein lies the problem. It's an inherently unfair system when the item being bargained for (healthcare coverage) is a necessity. The side selling that good has ultimate power. The consumer has little to none. That's why the ACA was passed, to try and level out the playing field a little bit.
Aren't you trying to make a dime? Aren't the doctors, surgeons, nurses all trying to make a living? Everyone that buys into this society is trying to make a living including the people the insurance companies employ. Do you think critically about what you say? It's nice to think in platitudes but again look at the track record of the federal government and its social programs. Look at them honestly. To think that because mistakes and abuses happen in this system, they will not happen in your proposed system is a logical fallacy. Billions of dollars are lost due to fraud and inefficiency in medicaid and medicare funds.
The real problem lies in big money's influence on shills in congress. Again, the middleman is the government or private insurance companies. When I look at government programs I see inefficiency and waste, insurance companies have built in profit incentives to minimize waste. Without money influence and government laws and regulations giving insurance companies all the leverage and a leg to stand on, legislation to stop the abuses you outline can make headway. Forbid insurance lobby contributions, repeal government legislation that create insurance monopolies, and form a public option that takes into account lifestyle choices which in turn affects a scaling tax rate. Some semblance of responsibility is important imo...:confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

the far left liberal kumbaya peace fgts don't realize the military is a key factor in being the strongest country in the world. economical influence unto itself doesn't make you shit. you need might to back it up otherwise a country that doesn't give a fukk about political correctness can go right in and tear your ass up, strongest economy or not. Japan is weak as fukk with no military might to back their interests up while China bullies everyone around them because of their military.

the reason we, the US, dictates is because we're by far the strongest militaristic country in the world. that is more key to our influence than us being the strongest economy.

look at europe getting bullied by Putin. they're helpless because they put all of their money into non military interests.

[Nanners]

Aren't you trying to make a dime? Aren't the doctors, surgeons, nurses all trying to make a living? Everyone that buys into this society is trying to make a living including the people the insurance companies employ. Do you think critically about what you say? It's nice to think in platitudes but again look at the track record of the federal government and its social programs. Look at them honestly. To think that because mistakes and abuses happen in this system, they will not happen in your proposed system is a logical fallacy. Billions of dollars are lost due to fraud and inefficiency in medicaid and medicare funds.

theres nothing wrong with making a dime, what matters is how you make it

doctors, surgeons and nurses are incentivized to provide healthcare. private insurers are incentivized to withhold care.

[Hawker]

One of the dumber things Trump says, and I'm no Trump hater. Actually not dumb, he's just a demagogue who knows much of the American public doesn't know any better.

"Yeahhhh! If Japan and Germany want US soldiers in their country they better pay us for it!"

Those US foreign military bases exist only as a courtesy to the US. (historical reasons aside) The US military desperately wants the real estate and global presence while most of those countries really could care less and are simply doing a favor to their long-time ally.

Are you saying this is for all bases or some? Because this is simply not true. Singapore's dictator, lee kuan yew, always supported a strong US prescence in asia-pacific and USA is obliged to give protection to Japan via a treaty and the Japanese support it.

USA and Australia struck a deal to establish a base in Australia for protection. It's simply not true that it's a courtesy - some countries do wants us there.

[ALBballer]

One of the dumber things Trump says, and I'm no Trump hater. Actually not dumb, he's just a demagogue who knows much of the American public doesn't know any better.

"Yeahhhh! If Japan and Germany want US soldiers in their country they better pay us for it!"

Those US foreign military bases exist only as a courtesy to the US. (historical reasons aside) The US military desperately wants the real estate and global presence while most of those countries really could care less and are simply doing a favor to their long-time ally.

I'm not saying the United States doesn't have their own interest for keeping military bases abroad because the reasons you cited are true aside from these countries not caring because they do benefit and even though they might object to some of these bases overall they would still prefer to have an American military presence than not have one.

I don't think we should be charging countries for military support all I'm saying is the United States should pull their bases out of these sovereign countries that can support themselves.

[LJJ]

Are you saying this is for all bases or some? Because this is simply not true. Singapore's dictator, lee kuan yew, always supported a strong US prescence in asia-pacific and USA is obliged to give protection to Japan via a treaty and the Japanese support it.

USA and Australia struck a deal to establish a base in Australia for protection. It's simply not true that it's a courtesy - some countries do wants us there.

Small states with limited power will gladly take US protection. Singapore and Taiwan are happy (even though US presence is very limited there) simply because it puts a check on China while they are powerless against their surroundings. I'm sure a country like Qatar is happy.

Big countries with powerful militaries? Japan? Australia? Korea? Germany? Etcetera. Even Australia. US Military presence exists there because the US very much wants to be there and strongly pushes for it. That's the US military-industrial complex and imperialism at work, not those countries asking and wanting to be defended. All of those countries would laugh if Trump comes with his bill for defending the country. "You invite yourself into my house and then expect me to pay you?". That's not the way the world works. If the US wants to save money they simply have to cease operations, and nobody would complain about that.

[KyrieTheFuture]

the far left liberal kumbaya peace fgts don't realize the military is a key factor in being the strongest country in the world. economical influence unto itself doesn't make you shit. you need might to back it up otherwise a country that doesn't give a fukk about political correctness can go right in and tear your ass up, strongest economy or not. Japan is weak as fukk with no military might to back their interests up while China bullies everyone around them because of their military.

the reason we, the US, dictates is because we're by far the strongest militaristic country in the world. that is more key to our influence than us being the strongest economy.

look at europe getting bullied by Putin. they're helpless because they put all of their money into non military interests.

Jesus shut the **** up. Is it possible to be more incorrect than you? Maybe LJJ but at least he writes a coherent sentence.

[Hawker]

Small states with limited power will gladly take US protection. Singapore and Taiwan are happy (even though US presence is very limited there) simply because it puts a check on China while they are powerless against their surroundings. I'm sure a country like Qatar is happy.

Big countries with powerful militaries? Japan? Australia? Korea? Germany? Etcetera. Even Australia. US Military presence exists there because the US very much wants to be there and strongly pushes for it. That's the US military-industrial complex and imperialism at work, not those countries asking and wanting to be defended. All of those countries would laugh if Trump comes with his bill for defending the country. "You invite yourself into my house and then expect me to pay you?". That's not the way the world works. If the US wants to save money they simply have to cease operations, and nobody would complain about that.

Australia isn't that powerful. They still need/want America's help. Same with Korea and Japan. I disagree it's all a one way street in some countries as there are indications (treaties, agreements from each countries' governments etc.) that allows this to happen.

[LJJ]

Australia isn't that powerful. They still need/want America's help. Same with Korea and Japan. I disagree it's all a one way street in some countries as there are indications (treaties, agreements from each countries' governments etc.) that allows this to happen.

They need American soldiers and military bases in their country for what? Simply being allies would be more than enough.

Korea has tons of military force in case of emergency, but at least they actually have a hostile threat on their border. There is some justification. I think they have more soldiers than even the US though. The treaty with Japan is just the one stemming from WW2, outdated and unnecessary. It's actually meant to keep Japan down in a military sense. Australia is under pressing threat from who, exactly?

America wants a global profile. They'll put a military base in any country that won't say no.

[Norcaliblunt]

The only solutions for healthcare are curing and preventing disease, and limiting catastrophic injuries.

[Norcaliblunt]

Through government funding and organization America was able to win a world war in 6 years, and put a man on the moon in 9, so I'd like to think we could tackle these issues regarding healthcare and infrastructure if there were actual diligence.

[BeastMode24]

and this is why we need Bernie Sanders as President.

[Norcaliblunt]

1. The Soviets "won" World War 2. The United States was the Robin to their Batman.

2. The United States (and the Soviets for that matter) only joined the war in 1941. Meaning they won it in four years not six.

So a socialist communist nation got the job done. Lol.

[Dresta]

And yet the cost of two world wars and the Cold War that followed is exactly what this thread is complaining about. Without these wars America isn't an imperial Empire, and it doesn't spend anything like as much on its military.

Once you let loose the monster you can't put it back. It's why Pandora's Box is such a remarkable piece of mythology, and attests to how much truth there is in such things.

[Norcaliblunt]

And yet the cost of two world wars and the Cold War that followed is exactly what this thread is complaining about. Without these wars America isn't an imperial Empire, and it doesn't spend anything like as much on its military.

Once you let loose the monster you can't put it back. It's why Pandora's Box is such a remarkable piece of mythology, and attests to how much truth there is in such things.

Do you think if America spent as much money, and effort on say curing a disease or advancing energy technology it could "conquer" it like they have conquered the world through it's military means? Or is that opening up Pandora's Box as well?

Also do you believe an overall solution to lowering healthcare costs would be to prevent and cure disease while advancing technologies that limit catastrophic injuries such as mag lev trains and driverless vehicles? If you do, then what would be the most efficient way to achieve this? Complete deregulation letting the private sector have total control and freedom to handle it, or public mass works projects organized like the Apollo Program and the war effort?

[greymatter]

China is patient. The minute we do that, the very second we aren't able to stop them is when they will make all the moves they've been dying to make for decades now that the American military presence all over the world has prevented.

Yeah, because they're looking to be the 2nd coming of the Mongol Empire.

Retard.

China's history is that of isolationism. Their military buildup is not one that is designed to be projected all over the world. They only care about controlling their own backyard. Any anti-western sentiment they still harbor today is the result of what happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when basically all of the Western powers were busy carving out what they could from China when the Qing Dynasty was in its death throes and their new republic was too weak and corrupt to do anything.

They saw what happened to the USSR. They see how retarded the N Koreans are for spending every penny they have on their military while their civilians starve. They saw how the US pissed away 2T dollars invading Iraq all for basically nothing.

In terms of land grabbing, the worst you'll see out of them is claiming uninhabited islands in the E and S China seas while telling Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, and Vietnam to go fcuk themselves.

[SexSymbol]

1. The Soviets "won" World War 2. The United States was the Robin to their Batman.

2. The United States (and the Soviets for that matter) only joined the war in 1941. Meaning they won it in four years not six.
USA wasn't even a robin in WW2, they did close to nothing

[IcanzIIravor]

1. The Soviets "won" World War 2. The United States was the Robin to their Batman.

2. The United States (and the Soviets for that matter) only joined the war in 1941. Meaning they won it in four years not six.

I disagree on this slightly. I'd say it was a tie with the Soviet Union and USA. You don't get the win without them both. Hitler's obsession with Russia and Russian obstinacy saved Britain long enough for the USA to get involved fully and Japan's fight for dominance of the Pacific with the USA fully kept them from helping Germany squeeze the Soviet Union from east to west. It took both to beat the Axis.

[UK2K]

No.

*80% of German soldiers were on the Eastern Front

*80% of German casualties came against the Soviets and 15% against the combined forces of the US, Britain and France.



German Losses

Eastern Front:
1.1m - Killed
1.0m - Missing or Captured
3.5m - Wounded or SICK

Russia didn't beat the Germans, their winter did. Fact. Period. End of story.

With the help fo $11 billion dollars worth of lend-lease aid from the US.


In total, the U.S. deliveries through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386[33] of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans);[34] 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)[35] and 1.75 million tons of food.[36]

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain sixty combat divisions in the line.[37][38]

We supplied them with as much shit as we supplied to our own military. Not to mention we gave Britain 4 times as much as that. More or less, the US was supplying every allied country with their own military.

[UK2K]

1. Your military didn't do sh(i)te except pick off the crumbs the Russians left behind.

You mean the crumbs the Russian winter left behind? I keep hearing Russian, but I think we mean Russian winter.


2. You're right that your financed the Allies. What you forget is that you also sold weapons to Mussolini's Italy and Hitlers Germany up until Pear Harbor (As well as Francos fascists during the Spanish Civil War). Great little money going scheme you had going. Yall were too scared to even enter Europe until 1944.......to busy fighting over coconuts with the Japanese and leaving the real fighting to the Russians.

Thankfully, Russia was able to secure a cease-fire with Japan so that they could focus on Germany alone, because had they not been able to transfer nearly all of their divisions from the East to the West (thus allowing Japan to concentrate solely on the US, which was Hitler's hope and plan all along), they'd have been ****ed.

Phew. Good move on their part. If they hadn't, they would have, without a doubt, lost Moscow.

[kurple]

Because when the World Economy collapses, and eventually it will, the U.S. will be able to take whatever they want, from whomever they want. That's the benefit of having tactical nukes pointed at every Country in the World.

I'm not saying I agree with Military spending, but it's pretty obvious the U.S. is positioning itself for the next World War.
Is this really what the American people believe?

Holy shit

[kurple]

Free healthcare doesnt exist and let's be honest, the united states military budget is unsustainable. The funny thing is that we could cut our budget and still be just as strong.
It exists in Norway

[kurple]

How do you have this insider information? Are you a spy??
Doesnt make it any less true.. You are naive as shit if you dont think America has weapons of mass destruction

[kurple]

You can hate Trump but he makes a good point that we are defending the rest of the world.

Germany, Japan, Italy, Denmark etc are spending 1-2% of their GDP on their military defense while the United States spends 3.5% of their GDP on military defense. Time to let the rest of the world fend for themselves especially these socialist European countries that are essentially receiving free protection allowing these countries to spend a larger portion of their GDP in terms of social services for their citizens.



Infrastructure sure but we already are near the top in the world in terms of education per student and it hasn't gotten us much.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cmd-1.gif

Now I'm not sure what the answer is to improving education but I don't think throwing more money at the problem will fix the issue.


What exactly are you protecting us from? The only european country that have needed military help the last 10 years is Ukraine. How did that work out?


Protecting Europe lol. America and their greed is the reason for the refugee crisis

[fiddy]

What exactly are you protecting us from? The only european country that have needed military help the last 10 years is Ukraine. How did that work out?


Protecting Europe lol. America and their greed is the reason for the refugee crisis
Im not sure if its greed or deliberate policy to divide Europe.

[UK2K]

It exists in Norway

No, it's not free. It comes at a price:


Cost of living. Norway is among the most expensive countries in the world, as reflected in the Big Mac Index and other indices. Historically, transportation costs and barriers to free trade had caused the disparity, but in recent years, Norwegian policy in labor relations, taxation, and other areas have contributed significantly.

The future of the welfare state. Since World War II, successive Norwegian governments have sought to broaden and extend public benefits to its citizens, in the form of sickness and disability benefits, minimum guaranteed pensions, heavily subsidized or free universal health care, unemployment insurance, and so on. Public policy still favors the provision of such benefits, but there is increasing debate on making them more equitable and needs-based.

The US has 'free' healthcare too, it's called the VA. The people the ACA was designed for should have been thrown into that mess instead of having the rest of the country mold their lives around them.

[UK2K]

America reminds me of Don Fanucci from The Godfather Part II

"Pay me for protection so I can protect you from myself" :oldlol: :oldlol:

Honestly, we should just pull out and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves.

Outside of the UK, Israel, Japan, and Australia, everyone else can go **** themselves.

[fiddy]

Honestly, we should just pull out and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves.

Outside of the UK, Israel, Japan, and Australia, everyone else can go **** themselves.
No, fuсk you for destroying Europe.

[UK2K]

No, fuсk you for destroying Europe.

http://www.madaboutmemes.com/uploads/memes/219.png

Does it matter who did what or when, for what reason?

At this point, not really.

God, that's a good line. I'm going to use that from now on.

[thefatmiral]

Look at the people who are profiting and there you will find your answer

[kurple]

http://www.madaboutmemes.com/uploads/memes/219.png

Does it matter who did what or when, for what reason?

At this point, not really.

God, that's a good line. I'm going to use that from now on.
But it does matter. Why doesnt it matter?