Is Peace profitable? Is sickness prevention profitable?

Originally posted by Gandar: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by Attalus: Actually, the only way that Britain and the other countries that have socialized medicine can afford it is that the USA has to maintain the only decent armed forces that maintain order, keep the sea lanes open, etc. We simply cannot afford socialized medicine. Nice for those of you that do.

Totally untrue.[/QUOTE]Could you possibly give some examples to back up your opinion? Inquiring minds want to know.
[/QUOTE]Look, guys, a lot of intelligent things are said on these boards, but I don't think you can support the notion that health care in England is paid for by military cuts dependent on American military might. There are at least TWO nearly-impossible cause-and-effect connections to make in this assertion (English health care budget to English military budget, and military budget cut in England to military speding in America). It was either said in haste and as hyperbole, which is understandable, or in ignorance, which is also understandable. But it is completely untennable.

England largely supports health care programs with a 17% sales tax, from what I understand BTW. Or, that is in theory. Like in the US, often taxes are just collected and aggregated and then spent, without a particular notion of "this penny I'm giving the government right now will go to X, Y, and Z."[/QUOTE]I believe the point they are trying to make is that if England is freed of the burden of patrolling thir seaways, the money they would have had to spend doing that can be re-allocated to thier own subsidised health-care system. This may or may not be true in this case, but it is very plausible.[/QUOTE]Basically, It goes a little like this:

Low Taxes make Rich people happy, and Middle class people happy and Govermetns who can’t see beyond the next election want to make people happy in order to get them to vote for them.
The government has to generate more revenue somehow (after making tax custs) So It brings in things like VAT, Poll Tax etc And of course by cutting spending on public services (Since the effects aren’t noticed immediately)
However after 10 years or so, you get sudden Crisis, Like the teacher recruitment crisis in Britain now, Since Teachers have been given raises that are below the rate of inflation for years (in effect cutting their wages) no one wants to be one.
So Overall quality of life is lowered for everyone except those who are rich and can afford private education and healthcare.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Yorick: This "keeping the sea lanes open" argument is the wierdest stuff I've heard. It's also reeks of imperialist arrogance and an inflated sense of importance in the world. Australia patrols it's own shoreline for starters, and I'm sure Norway and Spain patrols theirs. America is not the only protector of the worlds oceans...

Patroling your shorlines is not keeping the sealanes open. That's part of the job of a "Bluewater Navy"

[Gandar]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: This "keeping the sea lanes open" argument is the wierdest stuff I've heard. It's also reeks of imperialist arrogance and an inflated sense of importance in the world. Australia patrols it's own shoreline for starters, and I'm sure Norway and Spain patrols theirs. America is not the only protector of the worlds oceans...

Patroling your shorlines is not keeping the sealanes open. That's part of the job of a "Bluewater Navy" [/QUOTE]He probably doesn't know what a bluewater navy is. But I'll bet he would like to disarm it and make it run on pedal power!

[Timber Loftis]

Boy, folks, regardless of how astute you are as to your facts, this whole Navy thing is really off the beaten path. As I pointed out a few posts above, the connection to this discussion and the proof the 'sea lanes' debate began as an effort to prove are both waaaayyy too attenuated to relate to the topic here or to the accusation that other countries can have free services because America foots the bill. It's silly, really, to go there.

And doesn't the Navy know you shouldn't play in the blue water?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Boy, folks, regardless of how astute you are as to your facts, this whole Navy thing is really off the beaten path. As I pointed out a few posts above, the connection to this discussion and the proof the 'sea lanes' debate began as an effort to prove are both waaaayyy too attenuated to relate to the topic here or to the accusation that other countries can have free services because America foots the bill. It's silly, really, to go there. And doesn't the Navy know you shouldn't play in the blue water?

Daniel Boone was a trail blazer, it's part of our heritage Sides that counselor this ain't a court of law, it's a board for the free flow of ideas, and all that kinda stuff.

I thunked it was yellow snow you wern't supposed to play with

[Gandar]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Boy, folks, regardless of how astute you are as to your facts, this whole Navy thing is really off the beaten path. As I pointed out a few posts above, the connection to this discussion and the proof the 'sea lanes' debate began as an effort to prove are both waaaayyy too attenuated to relate to the topic here or to the accusation that other countries can have free services because America foots the bill. It's silly, really, to go there. And doesn't the Navy know you shouldn't play in the blue water?

Touche' ! But I think alot of this stems from the fact that Yoric is so damn critical of the U.S. in practically every one of his posts, and the fact that he seems to think the answer to all of the worlds problems is government control and entitlements. What the government funds, it controls, and I don't want the gov't to decide what doctor I see, or what treatment I can have.

As far as the debate about U.s. military funding possibly allowing other countries to fund domestic programs, this was just one example of many things the U.S. provides for its allies. Another example would be that the U.S. foots 75% of the bill for everything the U.N. does world-wide. And in case nobody has noticed, almost everything the U.N. gets involved in mainly benefits countries other than the U.S. And regardless of the countries size, thier vote carries just as much weight as the U.S. vote. So it really isn't as silly as you think. Sad, yes. Silly, no.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Gandar: What the government funds, it controls, and I don't want the gov't to decide what doctor I see, or what treatment I can have.

With socialized medicine you still decide what doctor you want to see and the doctor still decides what treatment is best for you. It does not mean that physicians are govt. agents.

[ 10-25-2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Lord of Alcohol]

I agree completely with everyone

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Paying attention to what people REALLY say is basic courtesy.

very good backhanded insult after an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] good form there.

"Oh, and MagiK, we had to wait for a socialist government"

This is exactly what you said. You said you had a socialist government, which is not true. You have a Republic with a socialist PARTY that is or was in power. Before you got nasty there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since English may not be your first language so I didn't want to pick on your phraseology. But since you made such a big stink about it.... I interpreted your words in an acceptable way and retract my apology. I will beg your pardon instead, for attempting to be gracious.[/QUOTE]So now I'm being 'nasty', eh ? In saying that paying attention to what people really say is basic courtesy. As you reminded me I am not a native English speaker, I had a look for the meaning of that word. So you are telling me that I am awful, bad-tempered, beastly, bitchy, cheerless, critical, dangerous, dirty, disagreeable, disgusting, distasteful, filthy, foul, grievous, grim, gross, hurtful, impure, indecent, lascivious, lewd, loathsome, mean, mortifying, nauseating, objectionable, offensive, repellent, revolting, smutty, spiteful, tight, ugly, unclean, uncomfortable, unpleasant, unsavory, unsavoury, vicious, vile, vulgar, wicked and wounding.

Well well. Have I discovered stuff about myself today !

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Paying attention to what people REALLY say is basic courtesy.

very good backhanded insult after an apology [img]smile.gif[/img] good form there.

"Oh, and MagiK, we had to wait for a socialist government"

This is exactly what you said. You said you had a socialist government, which is not true. You have a Republic with a socialist PARTY that is or was in power. Before you got nasty there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since English may not be your first language so I didn't want to pick on your phraseology. But since you made such a big stink about it.... I interpreted your words in an acceptable way and retract my apology. I will beg your pardon instead, for attempting to be gracious.[/QUOTE]So now I'm being 'nasty', eh ? In saying that paying attention to what people really say is basic courtesy. As you reminded me I am not a native English speaker, I had a look for the meaning of that word. So you are telling me that I am awful, bad-tempered, beastly, bitchy, cheerless, critical, dangerous, dirty, disagreeable, disgusting, distasteful, filthy, foul, grievous, grim, gross, hurtful, impure, indecent, lascivious, lewd, loathsome, mean, mortifying, nauseating, objectionable, offensive, repellent, revolting, smutty, spiteful, tight, ugly, unclean, uncomfortable, unpleasant, unsavory, unsavoury, vicious, vile, vulgar, wicked and wounding.

Well well. Have I discovered stuff about myself today ! [/QUOTE]And of course completely ignored what the post actually said. Either not reading the whole thing or just selectively isolating a small portion perhaps to feel that you took the moral highground.

(PS. Usually only ONE definition of a word is assumed when it is applied, not EVERY single possible definition)

[ 10-27-2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]