Anti-personnel mines in strictly designated defensive fields are a barely tolerable necessity. Indiscriminate use elsewhere, not so much. But many of the newer mines can be remotely detonated by satellite, so the lingering dangers can be minimized.
As for "war-profiteering," it exists, but it's also a completely subjective term. Some might (and have) argue that the increased costs for the F-22 Raptor are an example of war profiteering. Others recognize that when you make an advance order of 700+ units, and Congress whittles that down to ~280 units, the per-unit cost will increase without any profiteering intended.
Also, high profits drive innovation. I'd prefer to continue to have the most advanced, capable, and well-equipped military on the planet.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Tim, you reached into the very heart of the dragon and exposed the dark core of what gives life to nearly all that is wrong with the world.
The result of ignoring Ike is that our system has become corrupt beyond redemption with defense contractors openly buying and selling elected officials, Duke Cunningham being only the latest and most blatant example.
The I/M complex has created an entire propaganda support system where lies and disinformation are commonplace, and often accepted without question by the people wholesale. it's inexplicable that every single issue brought before the public has equal support on both sides, powerful persuasive advocates lined always at the ready. somebody is getting paid to disseminate and you know where the money is.
Once in a while something should come up that the people can look at with open eyes and easily conclude is right or wrong -- until the spin-meisters get geared up. Witness the turn about on this very blog when the domestic spying terrorist surveillance program was reported. For about the first 12 hours, until the GOP/security apparatus' talking points were disseminated, very legitimate questions were asked by our hostess -- but the skepticism was set aside once the spin kicked in.
We're witnessing the same phenomenon with the Dubai port flack. It's self-evident this is another bad policy. You can trace the root of the defense of each of these, as well as so many other US policies (going back to Ike's successor, JKF) to the I/M complex. The UEA is a huge US arms customer and owns one of the few Persian Gulf ports where we can dock an aircraft carrier. To say the deal is in "our" interest depends on your definition of "us".
My point is that once in a while, there should be a "slam-dunk" decision, things we can all agree on and is free from spin. My only explanation is that there are very wealthy, powerful interests who are extremely effective in selling their wares, but whose loyalty is to the perpetuation and profit of the I/M complex and not the welfare of the people.
One of my favorite examples is the subject of the speech Condi Rice was about to give on 9/11 before all hell broke loose. It was about the "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." Not one mention about terrorists or spreading of democracy, but wholly in support of renewal of Reagan's Star-Wars missile shield. Raytheon and Lockheed are making Billions deploying this system (which still doesn't work) and selling it to anyone afraid of the nuclear threat we allowed to mature in North Korea. Japan, Taiwan, S.Korea, even Austrailia are lining up to buy Aegis cruisers from us as part of the scam.
One year after Condi's aborted speech, the sales pitch had completely switched to war in the Middle East, with Rumsfeld making this promise:
“You don't know if it's going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn't going to last two years.”
Even though the rhetorical focus changed, we didn't redirect our resources from SDI to Terror fighting. We just added on to an already bloated budget.
That's all well and good, let's be powerful and let's make some dough. Let's also do all we can to stop people from taking pot shots at us again like we saw on 9/11. I'm with that. But the consequesnce are bankrupting us, especially when the I/M takes advantage of the situation to over-inflate the threat and put us in a "damn-the-cost" mindset. Is it really any wonder that the only effective response to Katrina came from the military? When that's the only thing you fully-fund, that's the only thing you can count on.
Our military spending is equal to the rest of the world combined. "On-book" military expenditures is now over half a trillion bucks. Add another 100 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars. Per year, with no end contemplated.
The left/right argument can usually be boiled down to what do we cut, the military or social program "entitlements". One of the largest entitlements, almost as much as the yearly cost of the wars, is VA benefits. While Vets absolutely deserve everything they get, and deserve even more, but the government never includes this as "military". Neither do they attribute the interest paid on debts accumulated because of previous years military expenditures.
By switching previous years military expenses to future "debt" the government (dem administrations as well as GOP) is actively involved in the deception of just how much it really costs to be the world's only superpower. Most people's eyes just gloss over when they start talking numbers and the alternate reality of different ways to reach those numbers. But the simple fact is that more of our budget is dedicated to the military than any other item -- especially when you factor in just how much of our debt is attributable to past military over-expenditures.
There are legitimate arguments, patriotic ones wholly unrelated to any loyalty to Haliburton or McDonald-Douglas, why we must spend what we spend on the military. Today, not only do we want to be ready to fight wars in two separate theaters, but also we must be able to fight two different kinds of wars -- the pre-9/11 combat superiority battles, and the post-9/11 occupation and insurrection-control engagements.
But let me ask everybody a question. When is the last time that we put a social program on the nation's credit card like we do for the Pentagon year in and year out?
Mark, you can definately "handle the truth" while sadly, most Americans don't want to hear it concerning the I/M complex. "Hey, we've got to watch American Idol, support the troops, lower taxes, download a hot podcast, drink the latest mocha-latte-coconut smoothy, who has time to tackle serious issues."
Like you, I think this trend is probably irreversible...as Tom Petty sings, "....and I won't back down..." Until the big dog backs down, the little dogs will keep nipping at his heals, and if the big dog backs down, the puppies will more than likely attack in rapid and rabid fashion.
What exactly do you mean by 'world peace' please? Do you mean we're all under the thumb of a Mullah/Premier and thus no need for war as they've conqured everything in existance, or do you mean no standing armies, or do you mean all free nations (by free I mean DEMOCRATIC) that have no need or desire to wage war on their neighbors as they have no fear of invasion or opression from them? This goes to the very heart of the matter of the 'world peace' folks.
Do you mean that you would take a USSR world/Taliban world, or a US world? For there to be any form of 'world peace' something must loose, and that in turn means something must win. By winning or losing you imply a battle or game, which in turn dictates that currently standing armies and the threat of war is a permanent condition of the human experience.
Land mines serve a purpose. Not nice, not pretty but they are an effective deterent.
I'm talking about the "peace" that exists between the United States and Canada, the peace between U.S. states (Alabama, Mississippi etc.).
In other words, a US world (with european health care - another issue)
"Land mines serve a purpose. Not nice, not pretty but they are an effective deterent."
Although I know you're a realist on this issue, that type of thinking is part of the problem.
with european health careAnd our healthcare is better. Pish. Our system has its flaws, but Europe and Canada's systems are pyrmaid schemes waiting to collapse.
the peace between U.S. states Sure, let's have a Pax Americana. I'm all for it.
Besides, adding Mexico and Canada would sure make our electoral process interesting. Heh.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Isn't Canada already the US with European health care? IJS.
Pax Americana is the neocon dream, and you see how that's going. If there was a less militant way to get there, say by working together in consort with other nations, in fact, creating an international institution dedicated to that end, and honoring and building upon international accords, and not sending representatives to that organization who are on record desiring its destruction.
Mark, I'll freely admit that the U.S. has its flaws, but the United Nations is terminally ill. It probably can't be fixed, it will have to be replaced.
Isn't Canada already the US with European health care?
Well, the US plus gay marriage, plus legal (or mostly legal) pot, minus handguns, plus universal healthcare, plus beer with alcohol in it, minus all our comedians who have moved to the US, plus a lot of aging US draft dodgeres who ended up liking the place and staying, plus shopping carts you have to put money in.
Plus more colourful money, plus the letter "u" in more words.
If it wasn't for cold weather and Avril Lavigne, I'd consider moving to Canada. Oh, that, and I'd rather work within our system to change it rather than abandon it altogether. Don't get me wrong, I like Canada and Canadians too, but for me personally, I'd rather lived in a flawed United States than a perfect Europe or Canada as long as you let me visit from time to time.
And yes, the metric system is much better, more efficient and makes perfect sense, and that's EXACTLY why we won't switch...we're stubborn like that.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Hey. we got some of those coin-op shopping cart thingies, and, and . . . three-forths of Crosby, Still, Nash and Young . . . er, um, half? Okay, fine, we got better pot, illegal but better.
Tim I've been on the receiving end of European 'health care'. Thanks but NO thanks. When doctors and nurses won't wash their hands until confronted with a mouthyass US patient that says "wash your hands or you don't touch me" we have just one of a myrad of problems.
As for landmines, what is your suggested other method of defense against attack by an enemy on ground level? Short of hiriing more troops (which Congress has said NYET to yet again), what form of mechanical method do you suggest?
I prefer the Roman system of mesurement. Makes far better sense. Nice round, even numbers as breaking points. Too bad the damn British had to go all Celtic on our asses back when Rome left Britania...that's where the modern 'mile' comes from. The Roman one was 1000 Roman feet, not that freaky ass 5,280 feet.
Oh, and working from Metric to Standard really isn't that hard. I still hate the Metric system and don't support it taking over the US Standard system (not to be confused with the British Imperial system of measurements).
Canadian officials estimate that cannabis cultivation in British Columbia is a billion-dollar industry and that traffickers smuggle a significant portion of the Canadian harvest into the United States. Indoor Cannabis Cultivation Rises in Canada Canadian growers produce cannabis plants with powerful buds, often using sophisticated hydroponic cultivation techniques. While the term BC Bud literally refers to the bud of the female cannabis plant grown in British Columbia, the term has become synonymous in the popular media for high-potency Canadian-grown marijuana. Such marijuana has a THC 1 content ranging from 15 percent to as much as 25 percent, far more potent than the naturally grown cannabis plants of the 1970s, which had a THC content of only 2 percent. Marijuana traffickers in Canada employ the most current methods of growing cannabis. Growers isolate and clone selected female plants for sinsemilla production, and they use high-tech equipment to electronically regulate temperature, light, and nutrients in hydroponic greenhouses that enable them to grow up to six marijuana crops per year. According to the Canadian Government, a cannabis grower operating a 50-plant hydroponic operation that harvests three crops of 15-percent potency can realize an annual profit of Can$225,000. Canadian law enforcement officials estimate that cannabis cultivation in British Columbia now yields a billion-dollar annual profit. In Vancouver, where significant hydroponic cultivation first emerged, authorities recently estimated that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 hydroponic greenhouses in their jurisdiction alone. Sophisticated indoor cultivation has gradually expanded to other areas of Canada, including the Prairie Provinces, Ontario, and Quebec, where high-potency marijuana is marketed as Quebec Gold.
Vancouver also attracts cannabis-oriented tourists because of the reputation of its indigenous drug culture, high-strength hydroponically-grown marijuana, and non-restrictive policing of drug use. Some coffee shops in Vancouver, notably near Gastown in the Downtown Eastside, and on Commercial Drive, allow marijuana and hashish to be smoked inside their walls.
I was half joking but I think it's both hilarious and admirable that you feel compelled to defend the Canadian Cannibis. You are a true patriot!
Hey, it's part of our national identity. If you really want a laugh, there was a movement afoot a while back to make this beer commercial jingle our new national anthem.
I still get a patriotic shiver when I hear it. Or maybe that's the frosty beer talking.
Based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, I'm inclined to agree with ++ungood for once.
As for "pyramid scheme," since the entire health care structure is tax-based, eventually the overwhelming numbers of retirees with greater medical needs will overwhelm the taxable resources of the taxpaying younger generations. Bad things follow rather rapidly.
As for "pyramid scheme," since the entire health care structure is tax-based, eventually the overwhelming numbers of retirees with greater medical needs will overwhelm the taxable resources of the taxpaying younger generations.
How is that any different from a healthcare system that is not tax-based?
Ah, Windsor, the only part of Canada that lies south of the US. I don't think you're likely to find authentic BC Bud there, however. Most of it goes to our Cascadia fellow-citizens in Washington, Oregon, and California.
How is that any different from a healthcare system that is not tax-based?
You mean aside from a non-tax-based system being not a pyramid scheme? How about basic economics of supply and demand. If the government is guaranteeing the supply, at a set rate, what does it do when supply of medical professionals dwindles as demand increases? Draft people into med school? Granted, a doctor in Canada still makes a respectable income, but what do you do when your nurses, medical technicians, etc, have twice the workload for no higher pay, as has happened in France?
In a business environment, individual costs would go up, and the demand changes, more preference for emergency care and personal prevention. Not much prettier than the pre-collapse woes of a government system, but the difference being that it's cyclical, like the stock market. Also, socialist societies currently are experiencing aging populations at a greater rate than the U.S.
One of the things slowing, but not preventing, the damage to socialist systems is its dependence on the capitalist health care systems to do most of the innovating.
Some of the potential technologies being researched have the potential to change this dynamic, though. If they bear fruit, universal health care might become as much a public utility as sewer lines or roads. The question is whether or not the socialist systems will make it until then. . as I noted, France (foremost but not solely out of the European nations) is rapidly approaching collapse, with increased demand, dwindling supply, and government-mandated costs.
Well, maybe I'm slow, but that didn't clear it up. What exactly in a private-funded medical system will reduce the healthcare requirement costs of an aging population that is cheaper than a government system funded through taxation?
Your reply didn't make sense to me. For example, How about basic economics of supply and demand. If the government is guaranteeing the supply, at a set rate, what does it do when supply of medical professionals dwindles as demand increases?
Do you mean to imply that there are less medical staff available per capita under government-funded systems than private?
In a business environment, individual costs would go up, and the demand changes, more preference for emergency care and personal prevention. Not much prettier than the pre-collapse woes of a government system, but the difference being that it's cyclical, like the stock market.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. At all.
Also, socialist societies currently are experiencing aging populations at a greater rate than the U.S.
Do you mean that there are more people living to an old age under public healthcare than private? If so, wouldn't that indicate that those healthcare systems are doing a better job?
One of the things slowing, but not preventing, the damage to socialist systems is its dependence on the capitalist health care systems to do most of the innovating.
That will require a cite or two to back up the assertion. I know, for example, that government-funded initiatives in pharmaceuticals are doing wonders in some socialist countries, and that things like stem-cell research are going much faster by a magnitude in countires with socialized healthcare.
The question is whether or not the socialist systems will make it until then.
Again, I don't see anything different in the problem of aging populations and increasing healthcare costs in countries like France and the US. Except that the US pays far more for healthcare for a far smaller proportion of its population.
Do you mean to imply that there are less medical staff available per capita under government-funded systems than private?
Less incentive to go into the field. . . if your wages are controlled but the workload is visibly rising, younger people will avoid it.
Do you mean that there are more people living to an old age under public healthcare than private?
Um, no. There are less children being born to the socialist countries. Even the U.S. has a low birth rate, but its not as bad. But low birthrate plus increased lifespan equals an aging population, and its a fact that its more of a problem for the socialists.
I know, for example, that government-funded initiatives in pharmaceuticals are doing wonders in some socialist countries, and that things like stem-cell research are going much faster by a magnitude in countires with socialized healthcare.
Name one. One medical technique using stem-cell research from a foreign country that has had successful trials. Same goes with pharmaceuticals, one wonder drug developed solely through government health care systems.
Less incentive to go into the field. . . if your wages are controlled but the workload is visibly rising, younger people will avoid it.
Well, that's a theory that isn't supported by the fact. Canada and the US have fairly similar number of doctors per patient (2.7 per 1,000 in the US, 2.1 in Canada) and nurses (8.3 vs 7.6). And countries with socialized medicine like Sweden and Germany have far more than the US.
But low birthrate plus increased lifespan equals an aging population, and its a fact that its more of a problem for the socialists.
Unless their economies are generating enough wealth to support it...
Name one. One medical technique using stem-cell research from a foreign country that has had successful trials. Same goes with pharmaceuticals, one wonder drug developed solely through government health care systems.
There are no governments funding pharmaceutical development or stem cell research solely through their health care systems, unless you count Cuba's recent investments in that area. That isn't what I said. I did say that there are government-funded initiatives that aid development. And while stem cell treatments are still experimental, they hold a great deal of promise in a number of medical fields. Again, my point in bringing these up were examples of technologies that might refute your point that socialized medical systems depend on medicial technological development in countries that do not.
I think I understand your point regarding the increasing costs of healthcare due to aging, but I still think that this is general problem to all healthcare systems, not just socialized ones. But the biggest objection that I have to the "pyramid scheme about to collapse" assessment is that almost every socialized medicine system is producing decent healthcare to all citizens for dramatically less money than that of the US while US healthcare costs are increasing dramatically and a much smaller proportion of the population. That, to me, more closely resembles a system in danger of collapse.
Isn't it?
As for "war-profiteering," it exists, but it's also a completely subjective term. Some might (and have) argue that the increased costs for the F-22 Raptor are an example of war profiteering. Others recognize that when you make an advance order of 700+ units, and Congress whittles that down to ~280 units, the per-unit cost will increase without any profiteering intended.
Also, high profits drive innovation. I'd prefer to continue to have the most advanced, capable, and well-equipped military on the planet.
The result of ignoring Ike is that our system has become corrupt beyond redemption with defense contractors openly buying and selling elected officials, Duke Cunningham being only the latest and most blatant example.
The I/M complex has created an entire propaganda support system where lies and disinformation are commonplace, and often accepted without question by the people wholesale. it's inexplicable that every single issue brought before the public has equal support on both sides, powerful persuasive advocates lined always at the ready. somebody is getting paid to disseminate and you know where the money is.
Once in a while something should come up that the people can look at with open eyes and easily conclude is right or wrong -- until the spin-meisters get geared up. Witness the turn about on this very blog when the
domestic spyingterrorist surveillance program was reported. For about the first 12 hours, until the GOP/security apparatus' talking points were disseminated, very legitimate questions were asked by our hostess -- but the skepticism was set aside once the spin kicked in.We're witnessing the same phenomenon with the Dubai port flack. It's self-evident this is another bad policy. You can trace the root of the defense of each of these, as well as so many other US policies (going back to Ike's successor, JKF) to the I/M complex. The UEA is a huge US arms customer and owns one of the few Persian Gulf ports where we can dock an aircraft carrier. To say the deal is in "our" interest depends on your definition of "us".
My point is that once in a while, there should be a "slam-dunk" decision, things we can all agree on and is free from spin. My only explanation is that there are very wealthy, powerful interests who are extremely effective in selling their wares, but whose loyalty is to the perpetuation and profit of the I/M complex and not the welfare of the people.
One of my favorite examples is the subject of the speech Condi Rice was about to give on 9/11 before all hell broke loose. It was about the "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." Not one mention about terrorists or spreading of democracy, but wholly in support of renewal of Reagan's Star-Wars missile shield. Raytheon and Lockheed are making Billions deploying this system (which still doesn't work) and selling it to anyone afraid of the nuclear threat we allowed to mature in North Korea. Japan, Taiwan, S.Korea, even Austrailia are lining up to buy Aegis cruisers from us as part of the scam.
One year after Condi's aborted speech, the sales pitch had completely switched to war in the Middle East, with Rumsfeld making this promise:
Even though the rhetorical focus changed, we didn't redirect our resources from SDI to Terror fighting. We just added on to an already bloated budget.
That's all well and good, let's be powerful and let's make some dough. Let's also do all we can to stop people from taking pot shots at us again like we saw on 9/11. I'm with that. But the consequesnce are bankrupting us, especially when the I/M takes advantage of the situation to over-inflate the threat and put us in a "damn-the-cost" mindset. Is it really any wonder that the only effective response to Katrina came from the military? When that's the only thing you fully-fund, that's the only thing you can count on.
Our military spending is equal to the rest of the world combined. "On-book" military expenditures is now over half a trillion bucks. Add another 100 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars. Per year, with no end contemplated.
The left/right argument can usually be boiled down to what do we cut, the military or social program "entitlements". One of the largest entitlements, almost as much as the yearly cost of the wars, is VA benefits. While Vets absolutely deserve everything they get, and deserve even more, but the government never includes this as "military". Neither do they attribute the interest paid on debts accumulated because of previous years military expenditures.
By switching previous years military expenses to future "debt" the government (dem administrations as well as GOP) is actively involved in the deception of just how much it really costs to be the world's only superpower. Most people's eyes just gloss over when they start talking numbers and the alternate reality of different ways to reach those numbers. But the simple fact is that more of our budget is dedicated to the military than any other item -- especially when you factor in just how much of our debt is attributable to past military over-expenditures.
There are legitimate arguments, patriotic ones wholly unrelated to any loyalty to Haliburton or McDonald-Douglas, why we must spend what we spend on the military. Today, not only do we want to be ready to fight wars in two separate theaters, but also we must be able to fight two different kinds of wars -- the pre-9/11 combat superiority battles, and the post-9/11 occupation and insurrection-control engagements.
But let me ask everybody a question. When is the last time that we put a social program on the nation's credit card like we do for the Pentagon year in and year out?
Like you, I think this trend is probably irreversible...as Tom Petty sings, "....and I won't back down..." Until the big dog backs down, the little dogs will keep nipping at his heals, and if the big dog backs down, the puppies will more than likely attack in rapid and rabid fashion.
Do you mean that you would take a USSR world/Taliban world, or a US world? For there to be any form of 'world peace' something must loose, and that in turn means something must win. By winning or losing you imply a battle or game, which in turn dictates that currently standing armies and the threat of war is a permanent condition of the human experience.
Land mines serve a purpose. Not nice, not pretty but they are an effective deterent.
I'm talking about the "peace" that exists between the United States and Canada, the peace between U.S. states (Alabama, Mississippi etc.).
In other words, a US world (with european health care - another issue)
"Land mines serve a purpose. Not nice, not pretty but they are an effective deterent."
Although I know you're a realist on this issue, that type of thinking is part of the problem.
You mean, of course, a Canadian world. We're small in number, but we dream big. And our healthcare is better.
Pish. Our system has its flaws, but Europe and Canada's systems are pyrmaid schemes waiting to collapse.
the peace between U.S. states
Sure, let's have a Pax Americana. I'm all for it.
Besides, adding Mexico and Canada would sure make our electoral process interesting. Heh.
Pax Americana is the neocon dream, and you see how that's going. If there was a less militant way to get there, say by working together in consort with other nations, in fact, creating an international institution dedicated to that end, and honoring and building upon international accords, and not sending representatives to that organization who are on record desiring its destruction.
Dream on.
How so?
Well, the US plus gay marriage, plus legal (or mostly legal) pot, minus handguns, plus universal healthcare, plus beer with alcohol in it, minus all our comedians who have moved to the US, plus a lot of aging US draft dodgeres who ended up liking the place and staying, plus shopping carts you have to put money in.
Plus more colourful money, plus the letter "u" in more words.
And I think that's it.
And yes, the metric system is much better, more efficient and makes perfect sense, and that's EXACTLY why we won't switch...we're stubborn like that.
As for landmines, what is your suggested other method of defense against attack by an enemy on ground level? Short of hiriing more troops (which Congress has said NYET to yet again), what form of mechanical method do you suggest?
Oh, and working from Metric to Standard really isn't that hard. I still hate the Metric system and don't support it taking over the US Standard system (not to be confused with the British Imperial system of measurements).
You have got to be kidding. BC Bud.
From the DEA:And from Wikipedia's article on Vancouver:
I was half joking but I think it's both hilarious and admirable that you feel compelled to defend the Canadian Cannibis. You are a true patriot!
Hey, it's part of our national identity. If you really want a laugh, there was a movement afoot a while back to make this beer commercial jingle our new national anthem.
I still get a patriotic shiver when I hear it. Or maybe that's the frosty beer talking.
As for "pyramid scheme," since the entire health care structure is tax-based, eventually the overwhelming numbers of retirees with greater medical needs will overwhelm the taxable resources of the taxpaying younger generations. Bad things follow rather rapidly.
I feel the day is wasted if I don't. Thanks! Now just tell me how to get it over the border...
I'm only 20 minutes from Windsor. ;-)
How is that any different from a healthcare system that is not tax-based?
Ah, Windsor, the only part of Canada that lies south of the US. I don't think you're likely to find authentic BC Bud there, however. Most of it goes to our Cascadia fellow-citizens in Washington, Oregon, and California.
You mean aside from a non-tax-based system being not a pyramid scheme? How about basic economics of supply and demand. If the government is guaranteeing the supply, at a set rate, what does it do when supply of medical professionals dwindles as demand increases? Draft people into med school? Granted, a doctor in Canada still makes a respectable income, but what do you do when your nurses, medical technicians, etc, have twice the workload for no higher pay, as has happened in France?
In a business environment, individual costs would go up, and the demand changes, more preference for emergency care and personal prevention. Not much prettier than the pre-collapse woes of a government system, but the difference being that it's cyclical, like the stock market. Also, socialist societies currently are experiencing aging populations at a greater rate than the U.S.
One of the things slowing, but not preventing, the damage to socialist systems is its dependence on the capitalist health care systems to do most of the innovating.
Some of the potential technologies being researched have the potential to change this dynamic, though. If they bear fruit, universal health care might become as much a public utility as sewer lines or roads. The question is whether or not the socialist systems will make it until then. . as I noted, France (foremost but not solely out of the European nations) is rapidly approaching collapse, with increased demand, dwindling supply, and government-mandated costs.
Your reply didn't make sense to me. For example, How about basic economics of supply and demand. If the government is guaranteeing the supply, at a set rate, what does it do when supply of medical professionals dwindles as demand increases?
Do you mean to imply that there are less medical staff available per capita under government-funded systems than private?
In a business environment, individual costs would go up, and the demand changes, more preference for emergency care and personal prevention. Not much prettier than the pre-collapse woes of a government system, but the difference being that it's cyclical, like the stock market.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. At all.
Also, socialist societies currently are experiencing aging populations at a greater rate than the U.S.
Do you mean that there are more people living to an old age under public healthcare than private? If so, wouldn't that indicate that those healthcare systems are doing a better job?
One of the things slowing, but not preventing, the damage to socialist systems is its dependence on the capitalist health care systems to do most of the innovating.
That will require a cite or two to back up the assertion. I know, for example, that government-funded initiatives in pharmaceuticals are doing wonders in some socialist countries, and that things like stem-cell research are going much faster by a magnitude in countires with socialized healthcare.
The question is whether or not the socialist systems will make it until then.
Again, I don't see anything different in the problem of aging populations and increasing healthcare costs in countries like France and the US. Except that the US pays far more for healthcare for a far smaller proportion of its population.
Less incentive to go into the field. . . if your wages are controlled but the workload is visibly rising, younger people will avoid it.
Do you mean that there are more people living to an old age under public healthcare than private?
Um, no. There are less children being born to the socialist countries. Even the U.S. has a low birth rate, but its not as bad. But low birthrate plus increased lifespan equals an aging population, and its a fact that its more of a problem for the socialists.
I know, for example, that government-funded initiatives in pharmaceuticals are doing wonders in some socialist countries, and that things like stem-cell research are going much faster by a magnitude in countires with socialized healthcare.
Name one. One medical technique using stem-cell research from a foreign country that has had successful trials. Same goes with pharmaceuticals, one wonder drug developed solely through government health care systems.
Well, that's a theory that isn't supported by the fact. Canada and the US have fairly similar number of doctors per patient (2.7 per 1,000 in the US, 2.1 in Canada) and nurses (8.3 vs 7.6). And countries with socialized medicine like Sweden and Germany have far more than the US.
But low birthrate plus increased lifespan equals an aging population, and its a fact that its more of a problem for the socialists.
Unless their economies are generating enough wealth to support it...
Name one. One medical technique using stem-cell research from a foreign country that has had successful trials. Same goes with pharmaceuticals, one wonder drug developed solely through government health care systems.
There are no governments funding pharmaceutical development or stem cell research solely through their health care systems, unless you count Cuba's recent investments in that area. That isn't what I said. I did say that there are government-funded initiatives that aid development. And while stem cell treatments are still experimental, they hold a great deal of promise in a number of medical fields. Again, my point in bringing these up were examples of technologies that might refute your point that socialized medical systems depend on medicial technological development in countries that do not.
I think I understand your point regarding the increasing costs of healthcare due to aging, but I still think that this is general problem to all healthcare systems, not just socialized ones. But the biggest objection that I have to the "pyramid scheme about to collapse" assessment is that almost every socialized medicine system is producing decent healthcare to all citizens for dramatically less money than that of the US while US healthcare costs are increasing dramatically and a much smaller proportion of the population. That, to me, more closely resembles a system in danger of collapse.