So whats your take on this?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

That's my point exactly sir, and thank you for your input.

More government involvement in such cases does not reduce the cost of Healthcare for the nation as a whole.

Which is exactly why I oppose any sort of government run universal Healthcare.

Perhaps you didn't look at the charts.

In Canada it costs $5,418 per person per year for healthcare.
In the US it costs $10,966 per person per year for healthcare.

Every single country with universal healthcare has a lower cost per person than the US.
The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world.

So maybe it is our government that is the problem.
Maybe the idea of universal healthcare isn't the problem.



Note: Canada is on those charts.


Please note that the US already provides universal healthcare to many in the US... think teachers, policeman, firefighters, Senators, Reps, Presidents, etc...

[Hughinn]

Perhaps you didn't look at the charts.

In Canada it costs $5,418 per person per year for healthcare.
In the US it costs $10,966 per person per year for healthcare.

Every single country with universal healthcare has a lower cost per person than the US.
The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world.

So maybe it is our government that is the problem.
Maybe the idea of universal healthcare isn't the problem.



Note: Canada is on those charts.


Please note that the US already provides universal healthcare to many in the US... think teachers, policeman, firefighters, Senators, Reps, Presidents, etc...

I seen the charts.

But the guys who live in Canada, also mostly say they'd trade their Healthcare for ours so....

My point was that a solid argument can be made,, that over regulation, and government restrictions and mandates on insurance and Healthcare providers are exactly what made it so expensive to begin with. Just look at all horsecrap one has to go through in America for what is a simple procedure anywhere else. Just look at the obamacare effect. Insurance companies got exponentially richer, Healthcare got more expensive and the quality got worse.

Accordingly, it's my opinion that less government involvement is a much more practical way to lower the cost. Rather than more involvement, which has already had a detrimental effect. On that point we agree. Our government is the problem with Healthcare. Not the idea of universal health care. I actually do see some sense in certain universal aspects of Healthcare.

Why put them in total control? They haven't shown themselves capable of so much as fixing potholes efficiently.

That just doesn't make sense to me. But, thats just my opinion based on what I can see. I'm just a simple minded mfer that when I see lightning and hear thunder, intake it as part of the same storm.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I seen the charts.

But the guys One guy... not multiple guys. who live in Canada, also mostly say they'd trade their Healthcare for ours so.... Said he would trade for our healthcare and our lower taxes. Not sure why he is staying in Canada. I am not sure why the tax rate is high in Canada. But I do know it isn't only because of healthcare because their healthcare is half the cost of ours...

My point was that a solid argument can be made,, that over regulation, and government restrictions and mandates on insurance and Healthcare providers are exactly what made it so expensive to begin with. Agreed but I am sure there are other factors such as legal costs. Just look at all horsecrap one has to go through in America for what is a simple procedure anywhere else.

Accordingly, it's my opinion that less government involvement is a much more practical way to lower the cost. Rather than more involvement, which has already had a detrimental effect. On that point we agree. Our government is the problem with Healthcare. Not the idea of universal health care

Why put them in total control? I have never said to put them in total control. Let them pay for universal healthcare with a private option. If Joe Blow wants fancier/quicker/better treatment than pay for it. If some poor kid needs a check-up, then it should be free. They government can pay for the check-up which he receives at a private doctor. They haven't shown themselves capable of so much as fixing potholes efficiently.

That just doesn't make sense to me. But, thats just my opinion based on what I can see. I'm just a simple minded mfer that when I see lightning and hear thunder, intake it as part of the same storm.

I hate the government in many the same ways you do.
The government is run by people. People can be corrupt.
My thoughts aren't to get rid of government as much as get rid of the corruption. (I do realize that will never fully happen.)

And I do understand people who have the view of having a smaller government simply because it is corrupt.
But, the private industry is also corrupt. Less government doesn't equal less corruption. It just shifts it elsewhere.

[wango]

Just to address a couple of points above as I have friends in these fields. As a teacher, this friend does not get his healthcare completely paid for.

About the cost of healthcare, paying off massive student loans after extended post secondary education would require increased salaries to compensate. That could contribute.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

Just to address a couple of points above as I have friends in these fields. As a teacher, this friend does not get his healthcare completely paid for.

About the cost of healthcare, paying off massive student loans after extended post secondary education would require increased salaries to compensate. That could contribute.

Just googled it... The site I came across sys that retired teachers pay for 1/3 of the cost. (unless they opt for premium coverage. In that case they pay 1/3 plus the extra premium.

I have no problem with teachers receiving retirement perks for their service.

I do have a problem with how long they have to work before they receive full retirement.

In many states a teacher can start work at 21 and retire at 51 with full benefits.
Surely if they are too burnt out from the demands of teaching they can still provide some benefit to schools via the library or cafeteria work or secretarial work or something.
I would love to retire at 51 with full benefits.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012...ive%20teachers.

https://getthefactsout.org/blog/how-...055%20and%2060.

Hell, firefighters get full benefits after 20yrs.
Must be nice retiring at 40.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits...es-to-57/9846/

Surely these brave men must be capable of some sort of work after 40 that would further help our nation.

Fuck municipal garbage men can retire after 20-25 years of service.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/f...-Benefits-.PDF

It is funny how people scream about socialism in the US but they don't realize how many socialist programs they actively support.
Take social security or medicare and medicaid.

[wango]

I think regarding age of retirement, I’ll let other folks debate that. Personally, I think the police, fire-fighters and those in the armed forces should have as many perks & advantages as possible. Teachers don’t have it too bad retiring after 35 years of service, and most at my friends school and those that he knows, wait that long. So looking at mid-late 50’s; not too unreasonable to me honestly.

It’s a little tougher retiring if you came to teaching from another profession. You work to a later age, have less years of service meaning less pension and depending on your state, lose a significant portion of the social security that you had deducted from your non-teaching days.

[Gallowmere]

Just googled it... The site I came across sys that retired teachers pay for 1/3 of the cost. (unless they opt for premium coverage. In that case they pay 1/3 plus the extra premium.

I have no problem with teachers receiving retirement perks for their service.

I do have a problem with how long they have to work before they receive full retirement.

In many states a teacher can start work at 21 and retire at 51 with full benefits.
Surely if they are too burnt out from the demands of teaching they can still provide some benefit to schools via the library or cafeteria work or secretarial work or something.
I would love to retire at 51 with full benefits.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012...ive%20teachers.

https://getthefactsout.org/blog/how-...055%20and%2060.

Hell, firefighters get full benefits after 20yrs.
Must be nice retiring at 40.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits...es-to-57/9846/

Surely these brave men must be capable of some sort of work after 40 that would further help our nation.

Fuck municipal garbage men can retire after 20-25 years of service.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/f...-Benefits-.PDF

It is funny how people scream about socialism in the US but they don't realize how many socialist programs they actively support.
Take social security or medicare and medicaid.

The hypocrisy borders on hilarious, but they always lean back on the “but dey paid fer der benefits” nonsense.
SS and Medicaid were dumpster fires in the red from day one, because everyone over a certain age started getting checks and coverage and hadn’t paid in anything. We’re not paying for our benefits; we’re paying for our parents, and them their parents, etc.
I’m personally of the “fuck it, people live too long now anyway, so yeah, stop propping them up on future generations dime”, but that’s a sentiment that doesn’t ring with most people if they’re actually pinned down on the argument. They can try to scapegoat and handwave it away all they want, but people like myself, who are truly in the “yes, fucking let grandma die” camp are the oddball rarity.

[Hughinn]

The hypocrisy borders on hilarious, but they always lean back on the “but dey paid fer der benefits” nonsense.
SS and Medicaid were dumpster fires in the red from day one, because everyone over a certain age started getting checks and coverage and hadn’t paid in anything. We’re not paying for our benefits; we’re paying for our parents, and them their parents, etc.
I’m personally of the “fuck it, people live too long now anyway, so yeah, stop propping them up on future generations dime”, but that’s a sentiment that doesn’t ring with most people if they’re actually pinned down on the argument. They can try to scapegoat and handwave it away all they want, but people like myself, who are truly in the “yes, fucking let grandma die” camp are the oddball rarity.

I hate the government in many the same ways you do.
The government is run by people. People can be corrupt.
My thoughts aren't to get rid of government as much as get rid of the corruption. (I do realize that will never fully happen.)

And I do understand people who have the view of having a smaller government simply because it is corrupt.
But, the private industry is also corrupt. Less government doesn't equal less corruption. It just shifts it elsewhere.

I've personally heard all these arguments before. And they don't make any sense to me.

Knowing government is corrupt and incompetent, why give them more responsibility over your health and livelihood? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think the problem with Healthcare is solely based around what it costs either. I think an equally important issue is peoples ability to pay for Healthcare. Costs are relative to place. Saying its cheaper in x or y country is meaningless, because costs of services of all types vary greatly from place to place. Just like real estate. It's people difficulties paying for it thats the problem.

Wages for working Americans have stagnated for decades, affecting everything else including the ability to pay for Healthcare, which keeps rising, while most peoples ability to pay doesn't.

We seen some small gains the past few years, unfortunately with the incoming administration it'll likely stagnate again.

Lastly, I don't agree with "free Healthcare" because it's not free. Someone has to pay for it. And the government cannot give someone anything for free, that it doesn't first take from someone who earned it.

I'd rather make people able to pay for thier own Healthcare, rather than give it free, but at a cost to someone else. And I'd rather pay for my own, than ask someone else to pay for me.

[almostgone]

I've personally heard all these arguments before. And they don't make any sense to me.

Knowing government is corrupt and incompetent, why give them more responsibility over your health and livelihood? It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think the problem with Healthcare is solely based around what it costs either. I think an equally important issue is peoples ability to pay for Healthcare. Costs are relative to place. Saying its cheaper in x or y country is meaningless, because costs of services of all types vary greatly from place to place. Just like real estate. It's people difficulties paying for it thats the problem.

Wages for working Americans have stagnated for decades, affecting everything else including the ability to pay for Healthcare, which keeps rising, while most peoples ability to pay doesn't.

We seen some small gains the past few years, unfortunately with the incoming administration it'll likely stagnate again.

Lastly, I don't agree with "free Healthcare" because it's not free. Someone has to pay for it. And the government cannot give someone anything for free, that it doesn't first take from someone who earned it.


I'd rather make people able to pay for thier own Healthcare, rather than give it free, but at a cost to someone else. And I'd rather pay for my own, than ask someone else to pay for me.

In bold above. Exactly. I'm all for everyone having access to healthcare, but as posted it isn't free. Somewhere, someone is kicking in money unless we continue to print money at every opportunity, which has its own set of problems.

You can call it socialized medicine or subsided medicine, but it isn't "free".

Again, I'm all for everyone having access to healthcare, but I don't have the perfect answer. Lord knows, I wish I did.

Edit: I definitely think our government needs to look at the countries that provide healthcare for their citizens and try to learn from their mistakes and successes.

Also, I think they should do the same with education. It's a shame at the curriculum that passes for education, but that's a different topic for a different time.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

I fully understand that nothing is free.

So should we get rid of public schools and public roads and public libraries and public broadcasting and public parks and national monuments and public service announcements and public radio and policeman and armies or any of the other public services offered by our government?
None of these things come free.

Not attacking.
I fully respect your opinion.

I just personally find it a weird place to draw a line in the sand.
Let's pay for a public library so everyone can get a book (if they are in proximity of said library).
But...
Let's not pay for medicine for a sick one year old child.

We provide welfare and food stamps.
We let the local toll town hall secretary retire after 25 grueling years working 9-3.
We let our Congressmen (sorry Congresspeoplethingies, gotta be PC and all) retire with full pensions...

But little Tommy's mom can't afford Zpac so let little Tommy's fever burn.

I am all for paying extra for the benefit of the American people.
I understand you view the cost as outweighing the benefit.

Not saying I am right... just voicing my opinion without burning a gas station or storming a Capitol.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

The hypocrisy borders on hilarious, but they always lean back on the “but dey paid fer der benefits” nonsense.
SS and Medicaid were dumpster fires in the red from day one, because everyone over a certain age started getting checks and coverage and hadn’t paid in anything. We’re not paying for our benefits; we’re paying for our parents, and them their parents, etc.
I’m personally of the “fuck it, people live too long now anyway, so yeah, stop propping them up on future generations dime”, but that’s a sentiment that doesn’t ring with most people if they’re actually pinned down on the argument. They can try to scapegoat and handwave it away all they want, but people like myself, who are truly in the “yes, fucking let grandma die” camp are the oddball rarity.

Gallowmere,

While I am wholeheartedly disagree with some of your views...

I admire your honesty.

[almostgone]

I fully understand that nothing is free.

So should we get rid of public schools and public roads and public libraries and public broadcasting and public parks and national monuments and public service announcements and public radio and policeman and armies or any of the other public services offered by our government?
None of these things come free.

Not attacking.
I fully respect your opinion.

I just personally find it a weird place to draw a line in the sand.
Let's pay for a public library so everyone can get a book (if they are in proximity of said library).
But...
Let's not pay for medicine for a sick one year old child.

We provide welfare and food stamps.
We let the local toll town hall secretary retire after 25 grueling years working 9-3.
We let our Congressmen (sorry Congresspeoplethingies, gotta be PC and all) retire with full pensions...

But little Tommy's mom can't afford Zpac so let little Tommy's fever burn.

I am all for paying extra for the benefit of the American people.
I understand you view the cost as outweighing the benefit.

Not saying I am right... just voicing my opinion without burning a gas station or storming a Capitol.

Maybe I misworded my post. I'm all for healthcare for everyone, but dislike the term "free". It costs something, I just feel we need to ditch the phrase free and realize healthcare for everyone is needed and bite the bullet/ pay the piper.

Applying the label "free" is misleading and cheapens the worth of a much needed service. Does it cost....yes. Is it necessary....IMHO... absolutely.

I do think we need to look at the countries that provide....let's call it "universal healthcare". Lets learn what we can from their mistakes and implement a system that will hopefully be more effective. Healthcare for all is great, but if there's a ridiculously long lead time for an appointment, it greatly reduces the effectiveness.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

Maybe I misworded my post. I'm all for healthcare for everyone, but dislike the term "free". It costs something, I just feel we need to ditch the phrase free and realize healthcare for everyone is needed and bite the bullet/ pay the piper.

Applying the label "free" is misleading and cheapens the worth of a much needed service. Does it cost....yes. Is it necessary....IMHO... absolutely.

I do think we need to look at the countries that provide....let's call it "universal healthcare". Lets learn what we can from their mistakes and implement a system that will hopefully be more effective. Healthcare for all is great, but if there's a ridiculously long lead time for an appointment, it greatly reduces the effectiveness.

Dammit you win again...
Just reread your post.

Read it the first time while stretching at the gym... so I was more focused on yoga pants.

Big session today...
30 minutes of stretching and some very light adductor/abductor machines and some rotator cuff rehab.

[almostgone]

Dammit you win again...
Just reread your post.

Read it the first time while stretching at the gym... so I was more focused on yoga pants.

Big session today...
30 minutes of stretching and some very light adductor/abductor machines and some rotator cuff rehab.

LOL, just an exchange of ideas, my friend. Never shooting to "win" the conversation.
I feel you on the shoulder problems. I'm still fighting the nerve damage. I literally healed quicker from my cardiac issues in the past than I am with the shoulder problems.

[Hughinn]

I fully understand that nothing is free.

So should we get rid of public schools and public roads and public libraries and public broadcasting and public parks and national monuments and public service announcements and public radio and policeman and armies or any of the other public services offered by our government?
None of these things come free.

Not attacking.
I fully respect your opinion.

I just personally find it a weird place to draw a line in the sand.
Let's pay for a public library so everyone can get a book (if they are in proximity of said library).
But...
Let's not pay for medicine for a sick one year old child.

We provide welfare and food stamps.
We let the local toll town hall secretary retire after 25 grueling years working 9-3.
We let our Congressmen (sorry Congresspeoplethingies, gotta be PC and all) retire with full pensions...

But little Tommy's mom can't afford Zpac so let little Tommy's fever burn.

I am all for paying extra for the benefit of the American people.
I understand you view the cost as outweighing the benefit.

Not saying I am right... just voicing my opinion without burning a gas station or storming a Capitol.

That's my whole point basically.

I don't think anybody disagrees that our Healthcare system is a mess. We all agree on it, down to the last man. Reasons aside.

But opinions on solutions are where we don't agree. Not one damn single one of those (socialized)systems you mentioned have been managed responsibly. And you know it.

I don't want to see a massive ,government run system full of the same fleecing, siphoning and poor management everything else our government touches turns into.

It's like the reverse midas touch, it can be gold, but once they get ahold of it, it turns to shit. Time and time again.

Needless to say, such a system would increase the size of the government exponentially. And all that comes with it.

It doesn't make sense to me, to start a train down a track sure to hit a dead end.

[wango]

The Health care system can be improved, but it most definitely is not a mess.

From experience, you put a nation’s healthcare in private hands exclusively with little to no government oversight, costs will get catastrophic.

If you want everyone to have some degree of healthcare, everyone is going to have to pay, so it’s not free (as has been said above). The government should be able to work with private health maintenance organizations to come up with a few tiers of guaranteed services. The individual will have to contribute to some degree, but the government will contribute. Bottom line though, services provided will not be limitless. There is going to have to be services, surgeries and medication that won’t be covered. Thus the tiers, the more the individual contributes, the more they get guaranteed. It can be done, but there is that nasty word - taxes.

If the government handles our security, safety & education, they should be able to handle this. Hell, if it were that much safer, secure or that much better educationally to our children in another country, then obviously folks would be moving there. Seems like folks want to move here instead, so we must not be that horrible. Of course, that doesn’t mean improvements don’t need to be made.

My take on education next . . .

[Gallowmere]

Gallowmere,

While I am wholeheartedly disagree with some of your views...

I admire your honesty.

When one is a social Darwinist to the point of often being accused of supporting Eugenics (largely by people who have no fucking clue what either ideology actually entails), there’s generally little point in trying to hide it.

[XnavyHMCS]

For right now, I'm just going to address the China involvement. China is bleeding us dry of scientific advancements, technological innovation, and money.

The Chinese aren't stupid by any means and just from a machine tool standpoint, their equipment has matured at a extremely rapid rate over the past few decades. They have benefitted greatly from stolen technology, process innovation, etc. Quite a lot of companies now no longer have their latest and greatest generation of products produced in China simply because they know proprietary information will get "appropriated".

Just as an example, look at how rapidly they have upgraded their military, particularly their Air Force and their Navy...almost to a near peer level.

Makes you wonder how deeply they're entrenched into our economy.

Ugh...???

Developed their navy "almost to a peer level."....??? With who? I certainly hope that you do not mean the USA...???

If you believe (and I doubt that you do) that the Chinese navy is on a par with the US navy; you have been terribly misinformed.

Aside from that, I would have to agree with you about the advances which the nation has made, no matter how nefarious the means of procurement were, the country has moved forward.

Today there are many players on the field, so to speak. The USA is no longer the sole actor on the world stage.

[XnavyHMCS]

On second thought, leave some for Iran & North Korea. Then clear our boys out and level Afghanistan as well. Should make Joe’s job a tad better.

Distal, very well put...!!!

Hit me up with an email, if you still have my address.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

You know how in the film 300, when a baby is born weak or misshapen, they discard it. Well that's how we Europeans looks at America. You Americans are ruthless.

In the UK, health care is free (we don't pay to see a doctor and we don't pay for prescribed medication), and I think 3rd level education is somewhere between $2,500 - $5,000 per year.

It seems in America you pretty much pay for everything.... and if you haven't got the money then you're like that baby in 300 that gets fucked off the cliff:

[Gallowmere]

You know how in the film 300, when a baby is born weak or misshapen, they discard it. Well that's how we Europeans looks at America. You Americans are ruthless.

In the UK, health care is free (we don't pay to see a doctor and we don't pay for prescribed medication), and I think 3rd level education is somewhere between $2,500 - $5,000 per year.

It seems in America you pretty much pay for everything.... and if you haven't got the money then you're like that baby in 300 that gets fucked off the cliff:

If that were reality, we wouldn’t be facing the fiscal crises we are at this point.
Perceive away, but the reality is that we still prop up the useless to our own detriment, our systems are just inefficient as hell and plagued by special interest nonsense.

[warchild]

Hell, firefighters get full benefits after 20yrs.
Must be nice retiring at 40.


Let me educate you here...this just isn't true. The pension I am in I can retire after 20 years and receive 50% of my highest year. Full benefits? We're firemen, not politicians. In fact most guys stay longer because they cant afford benefits when they retire, especially if they have a family. On top of that, do you really want a bunch of 50 to 70 year old guys on a fire truck? Fire dept's actually end up paying more in medical retirements because some guys just don't wanna retire when they should and they end up getting injured. Look it's a young mans game both physically and mentally. The benefits are not even close to where they were when I started almost 20 years ago. Throw in PTSD and cancer on top of the lower pay. The new guys have to at least do 25 years before they can draw a smaller pension. I could go on but I think you're seeing my point. And that article is 20 years old. Majority of firefighters are NOT federal, they're local and municipal. Additionally any federal job offers better benefits regardless of position. A friend of mine works for the Feds, not as a firefighter, and he receives benefits after 10 years on the job if he retired.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

Hell, firefighters get full benefits after 20yrs.
Must be nice retiring at 40.


Let me educate you here...this just isn't true. The pension I am in I can retire after 20 years and receive 50% of my highest year. Full benefits? We're firemen, not politicians. In fact most guys stay longer because they cant afford benefits when they retire, especially if they have a family. On top of that, do you really want a bunch of 50 to 70 year old guys on a fire truck? Fire dept's actually end up paying more in medical retirements because some guys just don't wanna retire when they should and they end up getting injured. Look it's a young mans game both physically and mentally. The benefits are not even close to where they were when I started almost 20 years ago. Throw in PTSD and cancer on top of the lower pay. The new guys have to at least do 25 years before they can draw a smaller pension. I could go on but I think you're seeing my point.

Just saw that the post I linked was from 2001.
I didn't mean to spread misinformation.

I respect firefighters.
I myself am not brave enough to do your job.

That being said...
Even if you can't retire for 30yrs...
I don't see why we can't find jobs that fireman can do at 50yrs old.

Yes, you don't want a 50-70yr old fireman on a truck (most 50yr olds) but they could do a service to our community in other ways if we are creative.
Think desk jobs, fire inspections, training, etc..

I know of fireman and policeman who do side jobs after they retire. Oftentimes those side jobs are in construction.
If they are fit enough to work then I don't see why they should retire at 50.

Obviously if they are disabled mentally or physically then we should damn well compensate them (and their spouses) for life.

People live to 75yrs old and well beyond nowadays.

Paying people for 30 years of work and 30yrs of retirement is expensive.

And again, I apologize for not being more diligent in my google search.
I didn't mean to spread misinformation.

[warchild]

Its cool. No hard feelings at all. I don't mind explaining the realities of public safety. Yes there are definitely desk jobs, but not for all of us. I know when I retire, I am done with public safety and running calls, especially after this last year. Anyways holler if you have and questions. It's a great career, but I wouldn't even want my kids to get into now days. I am glad I choose it and would probably do it all over again.

[wango]

You know how in the film 300, when a baby is born weak or misshapen, they discard it. Well that's how we Europeans looks at America. You Americans are ruthless.

In the UK, health care is free (we don't pay to see a doctor and we don't pay for prescribed medication), and I think 3rd level education is somewhere between $2,500 - $5,000 per year.

It seems in America you pretty much pay for everything.... and if you haven't got the money then you're like that baby in 300 that gets fucked off the cliff:

FK, we are a new & improved country. Prior to and after WW1 we were the forerunners in sterilizing those not “fit” for society Our legislature was also biased against different races. We were so good, we kind of served as a model that created the Holocaust and WW2. We are a different country now.

[kelkel]

I am self-employed.
I spend $25,000 on healthcare insurance a year plus a $5000-6000 deductible.

Let's say my family makes $200,000/yr and let's say after taxes that is $150,000.
That means I spend 20% of my after tax income on healthcare.

Holy crap DD. That just stinks.

[kelkel]

Read it the first time while stretching at the gym... so I was more focused on yoga pants.

We're all hoping they weren't "your" yoga pants?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

We're all hoping they weren't "your" yoga pants?

So I just found out what I call yoga pants are actually leggings.

Yoga pants have loose bottoms...

[Fluidic Kimbo]

20% of your annual income spent on healthcare = 3rd world developing country.

The United States of America is a 3rd world developing country. Most disgusting was your "welfare to work" programme.

[Hughinn]

20% of your annual income spent on healthcare = 3rd world developing country.

The United States of America is a 3rd world developing country. Most disgusting was your "welfare to work" programme.

Right, because who would want people on welfare to go back to work right?

How disgusting.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Right, because who would want people on welfare to go back to work right?

How disgusting.

In the documentary 'Bowling for Columbine', there was a lady who took two buses to get to work, 90 minutes to work and 90 minutes home, just trying to feed her kids. I think she was working two jobs as well.

There's a long spectrum between 'making unemployment easey peasey', and 'making people feel the pinch', and 'torturing people into employment'. You can't go with either extreme. You don't want to create a situation whereby people don't seek employment because they have it so easy collecting benefits and playing video games all day. But also you don't want to turn life into a living hell for good honest decent folk who just want to feed their kids.

Ask any European though, the USA is a developing country.

[almostgone]

Ugh...???

Developed their navy "almost to a peer level."....??? With who? I certainly hope that you do not mean the USA...???

If you believe (and I doubt that you do) that the Chinese navy is on a par with the US navy; you have been terribly misinformed.

Aside from that, I would have to agree with you about the advances which the nation has made, no matter how nefarious the means of procurement were, the country has moved forward.

Today there are many players on the field, so to speak. The USA is no longer the sole actor on the world stage.

First off, I'm not hacking on our military. I'm prior service myself, but I do follow these things...a lot, and what's happening saddens me . With that said......

Sorry, Chief, but I'm not wrong and it is happening as far as materiel. Their personnel may be lagging, but their R&D ( probably mainly derived from technology stolen from us) is on an exponential path and their production level is rapidly accelerating. Notice, I said approaching near peer level and they are. Tonnage wise, I believe they are still lagging, but in technology and R&D, we're having our ass handed to us....again probably with our technology.

Now are they a global force yet?....not quite. But when we're in their backyard and on the end of the supply chain, it ain't promising by any means.

Note Adm. Richard's comments below regarding the 2 legs of the nuclear triad they've already accomplished.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News...ommander-says/

China is on a trajectory to be a strategic peer to us by the end of the decade. So for the first time ever, the U.S. is going to face two peer-capable nuclear competitors," Richard said, adding that Russia is the other peer. "We have never faced that situation before."

China is in the process of completely building out its own nuclear triad, with the strategic bomber being the last part to be put into place, he said. The other two legs of the triad — intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines — are already operational.



Check out the .PDF below from the Congressional Research Service/Federation of American Scientists.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1611073529394

China’s navy is, by far, the largest of any country in East Asia, and within the past few years it has surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships (meaning the types of ships that count toward the quoted size of the U.S. Navy), making China’s navy the numerically largest in the world. Some U.S. observers are expressing concern or alarm regarding the pace of China’s naval shipbuilding effort, particularly for building larger surface ships, and resulting trend lines regarding the relative sizes China’s navy and the U.S. Navy. ONI states that at the end of 2020, China’s will have 360 battle force ships, compared with a projected total of 297 for the U.S. Navy at the end of FY2020. ONI projects that China will have 400 battle force ships by 2025, and 425 by 2030.9

China’s naval ships, aircraft, and weapons are now much more modern and capable than they were at the start of the 1990s, and are now comparable in many respects to those of Western navies. ONI states that “Chinese naval ship design and material quality is in many cases comparable to [that of] USN [U.S. Navy] ships, and China is quickly closing the gap in any areas of deficiency.”10


Also:https://fas.org/irp/agency/oni/plan-trends.pdf



Edit: Adding info presented to the ONI w/ the last link.

DD, sorry for the brief sidetrack, but I really feel it is imperative that people become cognizant that China is eating our lunch on a constant basis.

[Gallowmere]

In the documentary 'Bowling for Columbine', there was a lady who took two buses to get to work, 90 minutes to work and 90 minutes home, just trying to feed her kids. I think she was working two jobs as well.

There's a long spectrum between 'making unemployment easey peasey', and 'making people feel the pinch', and 'torturing people into employment'. You can't go with either extreme. You don't want to create a situation whereby people don't seek employment because they have it so easy collecting benefits and playing video games all day. But also you don't want to turn life into a living hell for good honest decent folk who just want to feed their kids.

Ask any European though, the USA is a developing country.

What you just described is easily solved by, ya’ know, not being a slovenly piece of shit and riding a bike to work. People in MANY European and Asian nations, in many different lines of work do this every day. I’m very willing to bet that her commute time would be more than halved with this method, as public transit here is horribly inefficient, even in areas that aren’t heavily plagued by sprawl.
Now, if you have a suggestion as to how to actively improve that efficiency otherwise, feel free to do a mass write-in to some of our transit authorities, because I’m pretty sure their routes are actually designed by plastic hammer wielding monkeys that spend the majority of their day flinging their own poo around the offices.

[The Deadlifting Dog]

What you just described is easily solved by, ya’ know, not being a slovenly piece of shit and riding a bike to work. People in MANY European and Asian nations, in many different lines of work do this every day. I’m very willing to bet that her commute time would be more than halved with this method, as public transit here is horribly inefficient, even in areas that aren’t heavily plagued by sprawl.
Now, if you have a suggestion as to how to actively improve that efficiency otherwise, feel free to do a mass write-in to some of our transit authorities, because I’m pretty sure their routes are actually designed by plastic hammer wielding monkeys that spend the majority of their day flinging their own poo around the offices.

At least we are smart enough to only give them plastic hammers.

Imagine the horror if they were steel hammers!!!

[Fluidic Kimbo]

What you just described is easily solved by, ya’ know, not being a slovenly piece of shit and riding a bike to work. People in MANY European and Asian nations, in many different lines of work do this every day. I’m very willing to bet that her commute time would be more than halved with this method, as public transit here is horribly inefficient, even in areas that aren’t heavily plagued by sprawl.
Now, if you have a suggestion as to how to actively improve that efficiency otherwise, feel free to do a mass write-in to some of our transit authorities, because I’m pretty sure their routes are actually designed by plastic hammer wielding monkeys that spend the majority of their day flinging their own poo around the offices.

Even if you were to get Japan to install an underground bullet train for you, there would still be the issue of the cruelty of making a mother work two jobs 50 - 100 miles away as well as take care of her infant children.

There is something deeply and basically wrong with having demands of people that make their life not worth living.

[Gallowmere]

Even if you were to get Japan to install an underground bullet train for you, there would still be the issue of the cruelty of making a mother work two jobs 50 - 100 miles away as well as take care of her infant children.

There is something deeply and basically wrong with having demands of people that make their life not worth living.

So, because she can’t afford to live closer (or there are no jobs closer to where she lives) we should effectively subsidize her family’s existence? This is a problem of geography, not politics.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

So, because she can’t afford to live closer (or there are no jobs closer to where she lives) we should effectively subsidize her family’s existence? .

Yes. And we should be enthused to do so.

[Gallowmere]

Yes. And we should be enthused to do so.

Yeah, no, not so much. Keep in mind, I am a social Darwinist. Adapt or fuck off and die. Sounds like she’s doing just fine adapting, so perhaps the ones who should fuck off and die are those using her as a tear farm implement.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Yeah, no, not so much. Keep in mind, I am a social Darwinist. Adapt or fuck off and die. Sounds like she’s doing just fine adapting, so perhaps the ones who should fuck off and die are those using her as a tear farm implement.

You need Jesus.

[Gallowmere]

You need Jesus.

No, what I need is for people to find a way to provide some kind of tangible value to either society at large, or a single benefactor to the point where they are willing to pay or support their needs.
In case you hadn’t noticed, breathing and breeding aren’t exactly high demand skills anymore.