Will National Healthcare hurt recruiting/retention?

[Joker76]

Lets face it, ALOT of people stay in the military due to the free medical..they have a couple of kids...a pregnant wife...not to mention the free medical for life if you retire...and its not even remotely good medical care..I'm sure one day i'll be on my death bed while the USAF feed's me motrin.

With free national healthcare, regardless of the quality (will still be no worse if not better than military medical care)...what is going to keep people in? The Pay :rolleyes: the Half of my BASE pay retirement plan :rolleyes:

I'm thinking to compensate...we get housing..free..forever. we still get base pay..but we also have the option to stay in base housing..free..forever. Seems fair..

Just a thought.....i'll be back after I put in my application at McDonalds.


Thoughts?

[smarg]

Obama's welfare spendathon continues...

[Joker76]

Odumbo's welfare spendathon continues...


Thats Commander In Chief Odumbo to you

Seriously..republicans...you lost...let it go

(oh I see you decided it was a bad idea to mock our Boss's name..classy move Smarg..class move)

[smarg]

you lost...let it go

Goin' down swingin, baybee. :D

[technomage1]

I don't imagine this will have much of an impact. Our retirement system, for example, is still a big pull.

In fact, I think this should save the AF money for other things, so if it did have an impact they could pay more reup bonuses and the like.

[VFFSSGT]

Thats Commander In Chief Odumbo to you

Seriously..republicans...you lost...let it go

(oh I see you decided it was a bad idea to mock our Boss's name..classy move Smarg..class move)

Just because someone opposes the President's, Pelosi's, & Reid's policies, it does not automatically make them a Republican... :rolleyes:

It could just have something to do with common sense and anyone with such knows this policy, among others, is not sustainable. Many of the same people that are screaming foul now were screaming foul then.

[Calmo70]

I don't imagine this will have much of an impact. Our retirement system, for example, is still a big pull.

In fact, I think this should save the AF money for other things, so if it did have an impact they could pay more reup bonuses and the like.

It could if one of the proposals they are pushing is passed. That is, taxing health care benefits. If they try to tax active military and retired health benefits - then you will have a major impact on retention and the 'big pull" of the retirement system benefit.

[garhkal]

Being born and raised in england i can say with certainty how fraked up our National Health care system is. Waiting lines, doc's telling you what you can and cannot have done, being told you need to stop X or lose your benefits. Taxed out the wazoo. Paying x in while you are healthy, but the unhealthy ones are also paying the same in..

[Parn]

Being born and raised in england i can say with certainty how fraked up our National Health care system is. Waiting lines, doc's telling you what you can and cannot have done, being told you need to stop X or lose your benefits. Taxed out the wazoo. Paying x in while you are healthy, but the unhealthy ones are also paying the same in..
I still do not understand this fear that a national health care system for folks who can't afford it will somehow mean the complete annihilation of private insurers and the health care standards we currently have. I mean, if you need an appointment TODAY!!!!!!!, you'll still be able to get one. Meanwhile, the folks who can't afford to buy health insurance will get something, which is infinitely better than nothing, making your above point pretty moot.

Addressing health care costs on the other hand with regard to national health care, is a discussion worth having.

[Gigglendorf]

I still do not understand this fear that a national health care system for folks who can't afford it will somehow mean the complete annihilation of private insurers and the health care standards we currently have. I mean, if you need an appointment TODAY!!!!!!!, you'll still be able to get one. Meanwhile, the folks who can't afford to buy health insurance will get something, which is infinitely better than nothing, making your above point pretty moot.

Addressing health care costs on the other hand with regard to national health care, is a discussion worth having.

If you "need an appointment TODAY!!!!!!!", you don't need an appointment, you need emergency or urgent care. Both are availble through walk-in service locations all around most of us.

Those who can't (or choose not to) get insurance will not be refused emergency care for actual emergencies. There's a difference between having no care avaialble and having only emergency care available.

The perception that private health insurers will fold and vanish, leavign everythign nationalized is based on a whole series of things, including the lack of a soceity in the world today that has univeral health care and private insurance.

My wife has a WHOLE bunch of medical porblems. She's bi-polar, has arthritis, a degenerating bicuspid aortic valve, a fusi-form aortic aneurysm, needs both knees replaced, the docs are starting to talk about needing to replace one of her hips and one of her shoulders, and there's quite a bit more wrong with her. She's only 44, BTW. When the aortic aneurysm get bad enough, they will have to crack her chest open the old fashioned way, so that three surgical teams can work in her chest at the same time, each performing a distinct surgery in parallel with the others. That one surgery (which could be this year, actually) will blow through the lifetime benefit cap on pretty much every insurance policy I've heard about . . ..

No private insurance company that can fill in a balance sheet, let alone perform a risk analysis, is going to sign up to cover her bills at this point, not without setting premiums at a high enough point that they expect to receive more money than the lifetime cap they will provide in benefits. At that point I can save the same money just as quickly, right?

Under the concept of private universal health care, our government would FORCE any company that wants to provide medical insurance to cover people like my wife, without instituting a lifetime benefits cap, and without allowing them to charge her enough premiums to cover the GIVEN losses that will be incurred.

Either these companies will charge EVERYONE a gross premium (which is going to be limited by our government, too), or they will lose money.

Companies run their business at a loss on purpose only if they are creating a tax shelter for a parent company.

If I was looking at being in the health insurance business in this country, the current discussion about government intervention and government mandates would do far more to keep me out of the business than anything else could even pretend to.

The government is going to have to fill the void that will be created when it destroys the business model that allows health insurance operations to be profitable.

Unless you have an idea how to FORCE the private insurers to suffer the losses that our politicians have been promising are coming their way, you should expect that they will change industries or fold rather than suffer those losses.

Think I'm wrong? Discuss how a private insurer can survive while dealing with no cap on benefits paid out to people like my wife while they are explicitly capped on how much they can charge for premiums, AND they are nto allowed to selectively refuse coverage to people like my wife.

[VFFSSGT]

I still do not understand this fear that a national health care system for folks who can't afford it will somehow mean the complete annihilation of private insurers and the health care standards we currently have. I mean, if you need an appointment TODAY!!!!!!!, you'll still be able to get one. Meanwhile, the folks who can't afford to buy health insurance will get something, which is infinitely better than nothing, making your above point pretty moot.

Addressing health care costs on the other hand with regard to national health care, is a discussion worth having.

Then you do not understand how government works... Any public option will soon become the sole option; it is about control and belief in the "daddy" state. Research on Hawaii’s or Massachusetts' "Universal Care" would do you well, in addition to that of Canada and Europe. HI was designed for those without care but people dropped their care for the public option and it failed; just as MA failed b/c it was too high of a burden.

Government is not the answer; it is the problem. In NY the state said a Doctor who was charging a low monthly flat rate for routine care was breaking the law and he had to charge at a minimum for each visit his overhead cost, which jacked up the cost of care even more.

Of the 47 uninsured they like to quote in their propaganda, like 60% of them are NOT American citizens, another good portion are eligible for other government programs but choose to not partake, and another good portion make more than $75K/year and could afford a plan if they needed or wanted one... The number is flawed just as the job numbers were all guessed wrong as Biden has recently admitted to.

The Federal Income Tax was initially designed to only tax the top 1% of Americans in the early 20th Century when it was implemented. Now look at it today.

[Parn]

including the lack of a soceity in the world today that has univeral health care and private insurance.
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Germany) says hi. There's other examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands), too. Might want to take a look around, a bit. Just sayin'. Kind of makes a lot of your post pointless since it was all written under the pretense that the sentence I quoted above is true.




Then you do not understand how government works... Any public option will soon become the sole option; it is about control and belief in the "daddy" state.
Quit presuming my lack of understanding government, no it won't as evidenced by other countries, and no it isn't.


Research on Hawaii’s or Massachusetts' "Universal Care" would do you well, in addition to that of Canada and Europe. HI was designed for those without care but people dropped their care for the public option and it failed; just as MA failed b/c it was too high of a burden.
You're going to have to be more specific regarding Europe. For every person who claims how bad health care is in Europe, I can name European friends who are happy with theirs. Anecdotal evidence is fantastic as we can go back and forth with "my friend says" and "I know a person who lives there and he says" all day long, but let's look at the numbers... Germany as an example, spends a little over 10% of their GDP on health care, and covers everyone through private and public avenues. We spend over 16% of our GDP on health care and do not cover everyone. So I ask myself, "self, why do we spend a higher percentage of our gross domestic product on health care compared to any other nation, yet do not cover everyone like a civilized nation should?"

Naming a few examples of failure does not equate to impossibility for success.


Government is not the answer; it is the problem. In NY the state said a Doctor who was charging a low monthly flat rate for routine care was breaking the law and he had to charge at a minimum for each visit his overhead cost, which jacked up the cost of care even more.
Not familiar with this, mind posting some reference material for me to read? Also, I'll address your "government is the problem" bit momentarily.


Of the 47 uninsured they like to quote in their propaganda, like 60% of them are NOT American citizens, another good portion are eligible for other government programs but choose to not partake, and another good portion make more than $75K/year and could afford a plan if they needed or wanted one... The number is flawed just as the job numbers were all guessed wrong as Biden has recently admitted to.
I'd like to see the reference material where you're pulling these statistics, if you don't mind.


The Federal Income Tax was initially designed to only tax the top 1% of Americans in the early 20th Century when it was implemented. Now look at it today.
I like how we can take one negative aspect of an organization or system, then claim that all of it is the problem.

HEY GUYS THE PT PROGRAM IN THE AIR FORCE ISN'T WORKING OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE AIR FORCE IS THE PROBLEM LET'S GET RID OF IT

For every negative comment about government, I can name something positive that has come of it. For example, I like the fact that our drinking water standards are some of the best in the world. I happen to like the fact that our electromagnetic spectrum is managed so that various wireless devices and comm systems don't conflict with one another. The list goes on.

[VFFSSGT]

It will take me a little while to find references (when I get to it) because my information does not come from a single source or a few sources, it comes from many and it is hard to keep up with what comes from where. You look to question my challenge of the claim on the 47 Million but have you challenged the politicians on their accuracy in the number or their accuracy in jobs saved with the stimulus bill? You seemingly trust government too much.

Oh yeah, lets not forget to look at Social Security and how much it is bankrupted. And Medicaid is not doing any better.

My dad raised me just fine without health insurance and was able to afford doctor's visits on a measly $7-8/hr. Continual increase of government regulation and bureaucracy continually increases the price where it is not affordable.

On the note of immediate care... I have a chronic health issue. Because of a delay of receiving immediate acceptable medication per doctors orders, my condition worsened and resulted in a trip to the ER thanks to the bureaucracy of TRICARE and express scripts. They delayed me receiving the proper medication for several weeks. The Off-Base Doctor had to continually issue me samples until the bureaucracy ended and I was able to get the medicine I needed. All of this resulted from the government's attempt to save money and in the end it cost them more.

Now do you believe a public option would be any more efficient than TRICARE, which is tied to MEDICARE? If anything it would be the same if not worst.

Because water and the wireless spectrum are the most important things in this world... How did civilization ever survive without government water standards... :rolleyes:

[BlueDevilRN]

I still do not understand this fear that a national health care system for folks who can't afford it will somehow mean the complete annihilation of private insurers and the health care standards we currently have. I mean, if you need an appointment TODAY!!!!!!!, you'll still be able to get one. Meanwhile, the folks who can't afford to buy health insurance will get something, which is infinitely better than nothing, making your above point pretty moot.

Addressing health care costs on the other hand with regard to national health care, is a discussion worth having.

Speaking as a nurse, I completely agree.

Even universal PRIMARY care would be lovely - I can't begin to think how many conditions could be nipped in the bud BEFORE they grew into emergency proportions if people weren't reduced to using ED's for doctor's offices.

And before folks go there, I know there are those who abuse it, but there's those without a choice as well.

[BlueDevilRN]

Because water and the wireless spectrum are the most important things in this world... How did civilization ever survive without government water standards... :rolleyes:

Ask all the people who died of cholera in Victorian England about the importance of water standards.

[Parn]

Oh yeah, lets not forget to look at Social Security and how much it is bankrupted. And Medicaid is not doing any better.
Well, it probably doesn't help that people who shouldn't be drawing money from Social Security, are. Clearly, the solution is to address the issue of removing the leeches. As for Medicaid, this goes back to my earlier question of how we can spend a higher percentage of our GDP as a nation on health care compared to everyone else, yet not cover everyone.


My dad raised me just fine without health insurance and was able to afford doctor's visits on a measly $7-8/hr. Continual increase of government regulation and bureaucracy continually increases the price.
Regulations are instituted after the private sector's failures, not before.


On the note of immediate care... I have a chronic health issue. Because of a delay of receiving immediate acceptable medication per doctors orders, my condition worsened and resulted in a trip to the ER thanks to the bureaucracy of TRICARE and express scripts. They delayed me receiving the proper medication for several weeks. The Off-Base Doctor had to continually issue me samples until the bureaucracy ended and I was able to get the medicine I needed. All of this resulted from the government's attempt to save money and in the end it cost them more.

Now do you believe a public option would be any more efficient than TRICARE, which is tied to MEDICARE? If anything it would be the same if not worst.
You're likely right, it'd probably be around the same, or perhaps worse. But given the option of no health care versus mediocre health care as a poor citizen, I would gladly take mediocre health care.

This approach with regard to your argument is pointless anyways, because once again, we can still have private and public health insurance, because it's being done overseas. Addressing your situation that you've shared with me directly, and I do not mean any disrespect, but I can't help but ask: as someone who champions private health insurance, why did you choose to rely on Tricare to begin with? For all your posturing on how bad government is, it seems strange that you would rely on it for your health care, all the while stating how inefficient and unreliable it is when you could have gone the private sector route.

[VFFSSGT]

These are not my initial sources but here you go...


But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx



A Hawaii state official said that families were "dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan," according to the Associated Press.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/17/cnn-glosses-over-failure-universal-health-care


New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/06/11/massachusetts-health-care-failure-mandatory-insurance/

By the way, the attack on MA's failures is an attack on a (R) for any liberals listening...Yes, conservatives (Constitutionalists) attack Republicans contrary to popular belief.

Lets not forget about the lie on the weapons in Mexico now while we are at it...


What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

The traced weapons are those sent to the US government from Mexico. Mexico does not send all weapons back!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

You can attempt to attack the sources or information on any basis; however, you should do the same for the politicians proclaimed stats and figures that are well known to be overly inflated for political gain.

[VFFSSGT]

Well, it probably doesn't help that people who shouldn't be drawing money from Social Security, are. Clearly, the solution is to address the issue of removing the leeches. As for Medicaid, this goes back to my earlier question of how we can spend a higher percentage of our GDP as a nation on health care compared to everyone else, yet not cover everyone.

The problem is both have more being paid out than paid in and the government continually borrows the Social Security money for other expenditures. The Baby Boomers will be the final straw on Social Security and it has been a well known fact for sometime. I believe the current estimate is 10 years.

The problem is a government ran retirement plan, it should not be running to begin with.

You seemingly trust the government too much.



You're likely right, it'd probably be around the same, or perhaps worse. But given the option of no health care versus mediocre health care as a poor citizen, I would gladly take mediocre health care.


I would rather have the government stay out of it and the private sector run the private sector. Then, healthcare would be much more affordable for all. Tort reform would be another step in the right direction too for reducing healthcare costs.

[VFFSSGT]

Speaking as a nurse, I completely agree.

Even universal PRIMARY care would be lovely - I can't begin to think how many conditions could be nipped in the bud BEFORE they grew into emergency proportions if people weren't reduced to using ED's for doctor's offices.

And before folks go there, I know there are those who abuse it, but there's those without a choice as well.

I would argue those without a choice are the minority and exception, not the norm. As a first responder, have responded to many of your referenced cases and most of them just need to be told to get over themselves take some Acetaminophen and/or Dextromethorphan, drink plenty of water not alcohol, and get plenty of rest. But we can't do this, just as the ER cannot turn people away that have no business being there... Then there are those just looking for a free ride to town because they have no intentions of paying for the ambulance. The cases can go on and on...

People need to be taught to take care of themselves versus rely on the state as our public education seemingly more and more teaches along with our pop culture and media....

[Parn]

These are not my initial sources but here you go...
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
Looked at the article, and the numbers seemed solid enough. However, I take issue with one particular segment:

"Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population."

While the numbers are far smaller than what bleeding-hearts were claiming, the problem still remains: 20 million people are uninsured. That's still a lot of people. This shouldn't be the case, and that 7 percent of the population are doing jobs that are important to society. Just because the janitor did lousy in school and never aspired to be better doesn't mean his job isn't important... someone has to keep the bathrooms clean. I happen to enjoy not sitting in urine and feces when I sit on the toilet in restrooms.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/17/cnn-glosses-over-failure-universal-health-care
Problem with this article: the solution is simple... write better policy. If you can afford private insurance, then you aren't allowed to enroll for public insurance. This really isn't difficult to solve.



http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/06/11/massachusetts-health-care-failure-mandatory-insurance/
Can't view the third link, I'll take a look at it tonight.



The problem is a government ran retirement plan, it should not be running to begin with.
But the question I must pose is, why did Social Security get started in the first place?



I would rather have the government stay out of it and the private sector run the private sector. Then, healthcare would be much more affordable for all.
Again, regulations and government intervention occurs after the failures of the private sector, not before. If the private sector had been doing so good, we wouldn't be having this debate.

By the way, you dodged the question I posed with regard to Tricare. I'll ask again: why didn't you use private health insurance?

[VFFSSGT]

But the question I must pose is, why did Social Security get started in the first place?

Haven't done much research on the topic specifically, but I do know it was thanks to FDR and the beginnings of the progressive movement... and unconstitutional I might add. Many suggest it is the largest Ponzi scheme ever to occur, although it is okay since it is the government doing it. :rolleyes:


Again, regulations and government intervention occurs after the failures of the private sector, not before. If the private sector had been doing so good, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Wrong. Many policies are implemented due to special interest and political expediency; this occurs from R's and D's alike. Obama's Chief of Staff even said never waste a crisis because you can get legislation passed that you normally couldn't. [paraphrased] The so called stimulus bill and omnibus bill would be the latest best example of that. Then there is also a bulk of politicians that truly believe Americans are too ignorant to figure things out on their own. They truly believe they are protecting us from some big monster. [figuratively speaking]


By the way, you dodged the question I posed with regard to Tricare. I'll ask again: why didn't you use private health insurance?

Didn't intentionally dodge it, just slipped by trying to answer everything else. Because I am active duty and that is what they give us when we cannot be seen on base for conditions. I was going to pay for the medicine out of pocket at a big $160/month except my off base provider said they could supply me with samples for the time being.

Here is a good example of what a politician who has never ran a business or be known to have worked a real job EVER and has became worth around $1M on the taxpayer's dime has to say about how a business should be ran. It also demonstrates his tolerance for the utilization of the 1st Amendment and what he does when challenged.... Barney Frank at his finest... :rolleyes:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1149068722&play=1

Wonder when they will start restricting Congressional and Executive pay and benefits... :rolleyes: Hypocrisy at its finest!

[Parn]

Haven't done much research on the topic specifically, but I do know it was thanks to FDR and the beginnings of the progressive movement... and unconstitutional I might add. Many suggest it is the largest Ponzi scheme ever to occur, although it is okay since it is the government doing it. :rolleyes:
Your lack of understanding of why social security was started speaks volumes. Allow me to elaborate.

In the 1800's, the United States began its shift from an agriculture based economy to an industrialized one. With this shift began the urbanization of the populace, and extended families began to go away. As the shift progressed, more and more people became dependant upon salaries and/or wages in order to buy food, as opposed to growing it themselves.

Then came the Great Depression. Jobs disappeared, banks failed, businesses disappeared, so on and so forth. Suddenly, people were left to fend for themselves, and it wasn't like they weren't working hard at their jobs. They did what any honest citizen would, and now they were screwed. The elderly and children were even more hosed. Americans have always taken pride in themselves on their independent nature and self-reliance, but that meant jack and squat in harsh times like those.

Social security was designed to be a system based on contributions while employed, to effectively play the role of financial security in the event of hard times and/or retirement. It is abused and manipulated, but it is correctable like anything else.




Wrong. Many policies are implemented due to special interest and political expediency; this occurs from R's and D's alike. Obama's Chief of Staff even said never waste a crisis because you can get legislation passed that you normally couldn't. [paraphrased] The so called stimulus bill and omnibus bill would be the latest best example of that. Then there is also a bulk of politicians that truly believe Americans are too ignorant to figure things out on their own. They truly believe they are protecting us from some big monster. [figuratively speaking]
Most Americans ARE too ignorant to figure things out on their own. Most people say they hate politics, yet they couldn't name their district's representative, much less their state Senators. The majority of Americans don't really pay attention to what's going on, and that's why our system is so full of holes. For all the crying and whining about bad politicians, well... where do you think they come from? They come from the same places we all do. We all have the power to put them where they are, or remove them. Most Americans choose to ignore this, make blanket statements like "politicians suck HURRRR" and then resume voting for the next American Idol.




Didn't intentionally dodge it, just slipped by trying to answer everything else. Because I am active duty and that is what they give us when we cannot be seen on base for conditions. I was going to pay for the medicine out of pocket at a big $160/month except my off base provider said they could supply me with samples for the time being.
So, despite all your posturing on how bad government is, and how a national health care system would be as bad, or worse than Tricare, you chose to use Tricare. Interesting logic.




Here is a good example of what a politician who has never ran a business or be known to have worked a real job EVER and has became worth around $1M on the taxpayer's dime has to say about how a business should be ran. It also demonstrates his tolerance for the utilization of the 1st Amendment and what he does when challenged.... Barney Frank at his finest... :rolleyes:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1149068722&play=1

Wonder when they will start restricting Congressional and Executive pay and benefits... :rolleyes: Hypocrisy at its finest!
Um, OK? This was kind of a random tangent. It's funny that you speak of hypocrisy, considering you hate the concept of government-run healthcare, yet rely on Tricare.

[VFFSSGT]

Your lack of understanding of why social security was started speaks volumes. Allow me to elaborate.

Social Security came about as part of the progressive movement and the nanny or daddy state. Believe what excuses are out there that have duped people into believing otherwise, if you want. I think this is the third time, you are too trusting of centralized government and something has been successful in teaching you this. However, it is far from anything the founding fathers intended for this nation because they knew where it would lead.


Most Americans ARE too ignorant to figure things out on their own. Most people say they hate politics, yet they couldn't name their district's representative, much less their state Senators. The majority of Americans don't really pay attention to what's going on, and that's why our system is so full of holes. For all the crying and whining about bad politicians, well... where do you think they come from? They come from the same places we all do. We all have the power to put them where they are, or remove them. Most Americans choose to ignore this, make blanket statements like "politicians suck HURRRR" and then resume voting for the next American Idol.

Most post are sick of politics because they feel powerless due to the games and system that has been set up by career politicians. They choose to not care; they are not by default ignorant as some politicians believe.


So, despite all your posturing on how bad government is, and how a national health care system would be as bad, or worse than Tricare, you chose to use Tricare. Interesting logic.

Um, OK? This was kind of a random tangent. It's funny that you speak of hypocrisy, considering you hate the concept of government-run healthcare, yet rely on Tricare.

It is not hypocrisy, I work for the government and this is what they provide. It’s not like I have a choice where I get my health care when I go overseas to a deployed environment. It is government care or no care. They have pay options for TRICARE, which results in better care, but active duty military members are not eligible to partake.

However, it is not the government's place to impose this crappy system on all Americans. Glenn Beck played a great video segment of clips yesterday from many politicians including Obama and Clinton among others who at some point have stated their end goal is a one payer (government ran) system; however, they have backed away from this stance because it is politically unpopular. Hopefully they upload it to You Tube and I will post the link if/when they do.

It is the governments right to impose what they deem appropriate on me because I signed up to serve this nation.

[Deebelle369]

Well, one doesn't have to look very far to see government healthcare in action.
Two words - Walter Reid.

[garhkal]

Think I'm wrong? Discuss how a private insurer can survive while dealing with no cap on benefits paid out to people like my wife while they are explicitly capped on how much they can charge for premiums, AND they are nto allowed to selectively refuse coverage to people like my wife.

Plus with the govt running said health care, they can dictate to you what is and is not covered, what you will do to keep said coverage and run lines so long in some cases by the time you DO get seen to, it is already too late. Just like those in england with the NHS.


Of the 47 uninsured they like to quote in their propaganda, like 60% of them are NOT American citizens, another good portion are eligible for other government programs but choose to not partake, and another good portion make more than $75K/year and could afford a plan if they needed or wanted one... The number is flawed just as the job numbers were all guessed wrong as Biden has recently admitted to.


Very good point. I know 2 people (one down the street from me, and another i game with) who makes MORE than enough to get their own health insurance, or go on the companies, but would rather save/spend it all, and worry about it if and when they get ill. And if we DO get a universal/govt mandaded health care, you will see more and more doing that, cause they would be of the mindset "why should i do for myself when the govt is going to provide for me.


For every person who claims how bad health care is in Europe, I can name European friends who are happy with theirs.

Then hows about we have those who have had to live with it? I spent 15 yrs of my life in england growing up and saw first hand (as well as felt) the frakas that is the NHS.


yet do not cover everyone like a civilized nation should?"

That is your first mistake. I do not think in any way shape or form it SHOULD be the govt's responsibility to provide health care for everyone.


I like how we can take one negative aspect of an organization or system, then claim that all of it is the problem.

Ok. Hows about their running of the postal service/amtrack? Both started out relatively healthy, and both are now sucky. I would rather use UPS or Fedex than the postal service for anything more than a letter. And amtrack is so unreliable, i would rather drive myself than ride them.


Well, it probably doesn't help that people who shouldn't be drawing money from Social Security, are. Clearly, the solution is to address the issue of removing the leeches.

And the same goes for welfare and the health system. But since we DON'T as it is not PC, how do you expect it to work with a universal health care system?


For all your posturing on how bad government is, it seems strange that you would rely on it for your health care, all the while stating how inefficient and unreliable it is when you could have gone the private sector route.


I will give you that one Parn. It does make one wonder.


Tort reform would be another step in the right direction too for reducing healthcare costs.

Darn skippy. That and paying up to cover the uninsured imo are 2 of the biggest reasons our health care costs so much. If we removed the capacity of uninsured to get treatment, and lawsuits, our health care (IMO) would be cheap enough that anyone should now be able to afford to pay for it.


People need to be taught to take care of themselves versus rely on the state as our public education seemingly more and more teaches along with our pop culture and media....

But yet some here are talking about relying MORE and MORE on the govt... not less.


It is abused and manipulated, but it is correctable like anything else

If it is so easily correctable, why has it not been done?


Most Americans ARE too ignorant to figure things out on their own.

WTF??? are you seriously saying we are too dumb to know what is best for ourselfs??


It is not hypocrisy, I work for the government and this is what they provide. It’s not like I have a choice where I get my health care when I go overseas to a deployed environment. It is government care or no care. They have pay options for TRICARE, which results in better care, but active duty military members are not eligible to partake.

Good point. I asked a wbile back, if i was to get my own health care on my own dime, could i use that as well as what the navy provides. I was flat out told i could not get outside health care while active duty. Admittedly i never checked out why, or by what resources they used to get that conclusion.

[VFFSSGT]

Good point. I asked a wbile back, if i was to get my own health care on my own dime, could i use that as well as what the navy provides. I was flat out told i could not get outside health care while active duty. Admittedly i never checked out why, or by what resources they used to get that conclusion.

I believe it has something to do with the fact we are property of the federal government by our own choice to sign up, take an oath, and serve the nation... They invest a lot of money into us and they want to make sure you are well taken care of according to their standard.

[VFFSSGT]

Doctors boo Obama after comments on allowing lawsuits

President Barack Obama took his case for an extensive overhaul of healthcare to one of his most skeptical audiences — doctors — and was met with scattered boos when he told them bluntly that he wants to continue allowing patients to sue for and win unlimited amounts in malpractice cases.

Doctors say it drives up their malpractice insurance premiums to exorbitant levels and thus drives up the costs of healthcare.


http://www.star-telegram.com/health/story/1435215.html

Keep in mind who is the primary beneficiary of civil lawsuits... It is not the portrayed "victim," it is the lawyers... :rolleyes:

[Parn]

Social Security came about as part of the progressive movement and the nanny or daddy state. Believe what excuses are out there that have duped people into believing otherwise, if you want. I think this is the third time, you are too trusting of centralized government and something has been successful in teaching you this.
Excuses? Duped people into believing? Are you suggesting that the events that unfolded that lead to mass suffering during the Great Depression didn't happen? Take a look at this:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm

...and then tell me that those people were doing just fine. Since you seem to think my information is false, mind refuting those bits and pieces line by line with some information of your own, instead of parroting more variations of "government is bad"?



However, it is far from anything the founding fathers intended for this nation because they knew where it would lead.
Really. Pray tell, what did the founding fathers intend?



Most post are sick of politics because they feel powerless due to the games and system that has been set up by career politicians. They choose to not care; they are not by default ignorant as some politicians believe.
Barack Obama, a political nobody from just barely over two years ago, is President of the United States. He beat the two most powerful political machines in American politics: the conservative right, and the Clintons. The "system" can be beat if people put forth their best effort, because it just happened. The "games" can be overcome if we hold politicians' feet to the fire.

Be honest with yourself: when's the last time you wrote a letter to your Senator?




It is not hypocrisy, I work for the government and this is what they provide. It’s not like I have a choice where I get my health care when I go overseas to a deployed environment. It is government care or no care. They have pay options for TRICARE, which results in better care, but active duty military members are not eligible to partake.
I work for the government too, and while Tricare Prime is mandatory for active duty, what is stopping you from enrolling in a private health insurance company? You can use any health insurance company you want. The private health insurance would become your primary insurance, and Tricare would be secondary.

You think private health care is the way to go, so put your money where your mouth is.



However, it is not the government's place to impose this crappy system on all Americans. Glenn Beck played a great video segment of clips yesterday from many politicians including Obama and Clinton among others who at some point have stated their end goal is a one payer (government ran) system; however, they have backed away from this stance because it is politically unpopular. Hopefully they upload it to You Tube and I will post the link if/when they do.
It is politically unpopular because the American people don't support a single-payer system, hence it is pointless to worry about American health care going in that direction. Why is this even being discussed?

[Gigglendorf]

TriCare is NOT a Government Health Insurance Plan.

TriCare is a set of contracts the government let out to private companies to implement and manage.

As for the statement that the rest of my post depended on the quoted statement being true, you didn;t bother to actually read it, did you? You just wanted to dismiss an opposing viewpoint, so you took the low hanging fruit and declared yourself victor.

Good for the ego, not so good for testing your own beliefs and thoughts. Those tests are required NOT ONLY to help change a position, but also to strengthen the quality of support held for a position that actually wins the tests.

[Parn]

Plus with the govt running said health care, they can dictate to you what is and is not covered, what you will do to keep said coverage and run lines so long in some cases by the time you DO get seen to, it is already too late. Just like those in england with the NHS.
This argument assumes that there are only two options available: all government-run health care, or all private-run health care. There are countries that are running a third option, so this argument is moot.



Very good point. I know 2 people (one down the street from me, and another i game with) who makes MORE than enough to get their own health insurance, or go on the companies, but would rather save/spend it all, and worry about it if and when they get ill. And if we DO get a universal/govt mandaded health care, you will see more and more doing that, cause they would be of the mindset "why should i do for myself when the govt is going to provide for me.
And this is why you write policy that dictates who is eligible and who isn't. If you legitimately can't afford health care, then you're eligible. If you can afford it, you're not. This is oversimplifying of course, but this is something that can be addressed.



That is your first mistake. I do not think in any way shape or form it SHOULD be the govt's responsibility to provide health care for everyone.
Then we simply disagree.



Ok. Hows about their running of the postal service/amtrack? Both started out relatively healthy, and both are now sucky. I would rather use UPS or Fedex than the postal service for anything more than a letter. And amtrack is so unreliable, i would rather drive myself than ride them.
And all the same, I'm glad we have the FDA, which while imperfect, helps maintain healthy food standards across the US. If the Peanut Corporation is any indication, private sector companies can't manage themselves and do something as simple as repairing a roof on a factory so that rainwater contaminated with salmonella from bird droppings doesn't get into batches of peanut butter. Deja vu here, but again, government gets involved after the private sector's failure.



And the same goes for welfare and the health system. But since we DON'T as it is not PC, how do you expect it to work with a universal health care system?
We did reform the welfare system in the 90s. It wasn't enough, but it was a step in the right direction. So don't tell me it can't be done.



Darn skippy. That and paying up to cover the uninsured imo are 2 of the biggest reasons our health care costs so much. If we removed the capacity of uninsured to get treatment, and lawsuits, our health care (IMO) would be cheap enough that anyone should now be able to afford to pay for it.
I would agree on the issue of lawsuits, for the most part. A large chunk of malpractice lawsuits are absurd at the astronomical figures hospitals are sued for.



If it is so easily correctable, why has it not been done?
Because most people choose not to get involved in politics, don't write to their senators or representatives, so on and so forth.



WTF??? are you seriously saying we are too dumb to know what is best for ourselfs??
Considering how much debt the average person has and how this economic crisis we're in came to be, for the most part, yes. The average person is fiscally irresponsible, doesn't understand the basic processes of our three branches of government, and knows more television trivia than they know of world history.



Good point. I asked a wbile back, if i was to get my own health care on my own dime, could i use that as well as what the navy provides. I was flat out told i could not get outside health care while active duty. Admittedly i never checked out why, or by what resources they used to get that conclusion.
And you were told incorrectly.




Doctors boo Obama after comments on allowing lawsuits

http://www.star-telegram.com/health/story/1435215.html

Keep in mind who is the primary beneficiary of civil lawsuits... It is not the portrayed "victim," it is the lawyers... :rolleyes:
And this is where we would agree... I think malpractice lawsuits are out of control and must be reigned in to help reduce health care costs.

[Gigglendorf]

I work for the government too, and while Tricare Prime is mandatory for active duty, what is stopping you from enrolling in a private health insurance company? You can use any health insurance company you want. The private health insurance would become your primary insurance, and Tricare would be secondary.

You think private health care is the way to go, so put your money where your mouth is.

Are you active duty military?

The "source" of our insurance is, honestly, irrelevant. How can I say that?

We are required to seek care at the locations specified by the military, using the medical professionals we are directed to see.

We are not authorized to seek non-emergency care outside of said system without having THAT SYSTEM approve our getting the care.

The care provided to active duty military, retirees, and their dependents, is explicitly part of the compensation package offered to the military. Offered is a misleading word, though, since unlike a civilian employee, the active duty military member is not allowed to opt for different care for himself. He can choose to opt for different care for his dependents.

There's also the issue that when I enlisted, TriCare didn't exist. It was tacked onto the system without me being provided the opportunity to provide any meaningful feedback about the alteration in my compnesation pacakge. Or, how about my parents and grandparents, who were promised FREE CARE FOR LIFE as part of the compensation package and are now paying premiums and co-pays. Do you think they were consulted?

Heck, when TriCare was being implemented, we were promised that nothing about the care our dependents received was going to functionally change. Care to guess how well THAT went? I doubt anybody involved THOUGHT they were lying, but once the private companies were trying to make a profit instead of the government trying to fulfill the promises it had made, care became harder to get.

Given the history of how well our Federal Government has kept the promises it has made about providing health care, why do you expect the pormises being made today while they attempt to get a system implemented will actually be kept?

[VFFSSGT]

Considering how much debt the average person has and how this economic crisis we're in came to be, for the most part, yes. The average person is fiscally irresponsible, doesn't understand the basic processes of our three branches of government, and knows more television trivia than they know of world history.


But you seemingly are not concerned about government's $10 Trillion plus debt, Obama doubling the annual deficit to a record near $2 Trillion, and the CBO's estimate of it costing at least $1 Trillion to insure I believe they said 16 million Americans for 10 years.

So, who is ignorant again for having high debts that they are unable to pay for? You claim ignorance based on individual debt levels, how do you think the government is going to pay for this? ...With more debt.

We obviously have 2 completely different philosophical views on government. You trust government and want big government; I like the founding fathers, do not trust government nor want big government.

Who would want to learn history in our school system when it has been politically skewed and nothing taught but select bits and pieces along with useless and pointless dates?

[Parn]

As for the statement that the rest of my post depended on the quoted statement being true, you didn;t bother to actually read it, did you? You just wanted to dismiss an opposing viewpoint, so you took the low hanging fruit and declared yourself victor.

Good for the ego, not so good for testing your own beliefs and thoughts. Those tests are required NOT ONLY to help change a position, but also to strengthen the quality of support held for a position that actually wins the tests.
You made a statement that amounted to "X doesn't exist", followed by supplemental data stating an apparent unsolvable problem that apparently isn't a problem in foreign nations where X does indeed, exist. I felt it unnecessary to progress things any further. *shrug*


Are you active duty military?

The "source" of our insurance is, honestly, irrelevant. How can I say that?

We are required to seek care at the locations specified by the military, using the medical professionals we are directed to see.

We are not authorized to seek non-emergency care outside of said system without having THAT SYSTEM approve our getting the care.

The care provided to active duty military, retirees, and their dependents, is explicitly part of the compensation package offered to the military. Offered is a misleading word, though, since unlike a civilian employee, the active duty military member is not allowed to opt for different care for himself. He can choose to opt for different care for his dependents.
It seems I am going to have to read up on some Tricare documentation then, because I have been told differently. If you have some reference material for me to look at, I'd appreciate it. I already know about the dependants, but my understanding was that by my choice, I can choose a private insurance company as I see fit.


There's also the issue that when I enlisted, TriCare didn't exist. It was tacked onto the system without me being provided the opportunity to provide any meaningful feedback about the alteration in my compnesation pacakge. Or, how about my parents and grandparents, who were promised FREE CARE FOR LIFE as part of the compensation package and are now paying premiums and co-pays. Do you think they were consulted?

Heck, when TriCare was being implemented, we were promised that nothing about the care our dependents received was going to functionally change. Care to guess how well THAT went? I doubt anybody involved THOUGHT they were lying, but once the private companies were trying to make a profit instead of the government trying to fulfill the promises it had made, care became harder to get.

Given the history of how well our Federal Government has kept the promises it has made about providing health care, why do you expect the pormises being made today while they attempt to get a system implemented will actually be kept?
Point taken on how the government can reverse course. But then, if the government chooses to stop providing government-run health care out of the blue, we'd be right back to where we are now. *shrug*

[VFFSSGT]

Excuses? Duped people into believing? Are you suggesting that the events that unfolded that lead to mass suffering during the Great Depression didn't happen? Take a look at this:

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm

...and then tell me that those people were doing just fine. Since you seem to think my information is false, mind refuting those bits and pieces line by line with some information of your own, instead of parroting more variations of "government is bad"?

I did not refute or deny the events of the Great Depression but the government did prolong the problem just as they are prolonging this recession.



Really. Pray tell, what did the founding fathers intend?
Are you serious? The Constitution restricts the government, not the people for a reason. The Federalist Papers might be a good read for you.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
--Thomas Jefferson


One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. --George Washington


Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. --James Madison


All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. --James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice


Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few. --John Adams




Barack Obama, a political nobody from just barely over two years ago, is President of the United States. He beat the two most powerful political machines in American politics: the conservative right, and the Clintons. The "system" can be beat if people put forth their best effort, because it just happened. The "games" can be overcome if we hold politicians' feet to the fire.

The games can be overcome with Obama? Are you kidding me... His policies are one game after another. Take a look at the firing of the Americorps IG who Obama violated the law in firing.


Be honest with yourself: when's the last time you wrote a letter to your Senator?

About 1-2 weeks ago I do believe.


I work for the government too, and while Tricare Prime is mandatory for active duty, what is stopping you from enrolling in a private health insurance company? You can use any health insurance company you want. The private health insurance would become your primary insurance, and Tricare would be secondary.

You think private health care is the way to go, so put your money where your mouth is.

G addressed quite well...

[Gigglendorf]

It seems I am going to have to read up on some Tricare documentation then, because I have been told differently. If you have some reference material for me to look at, I'd appreciate it. I already know about the dependants, but my understanding was that by my choice, I can choose a private insurance company as I see fit.

Careful, because you're crossing topics.

Yes, an active duty member can choose to purchase and pay for private health insurance if the member chooses to do so.

No, the active duty member will not be able to seek non-emergency care outside of the military health care system regardless of what insurance is held, without permission from the military health care system.

If the member chooses, they can pay the premiums to the insurance company of their choice, but with VERY FEW exceptions, that company and the local TriCare contractor are the only ones who will profit by said choice, because the member's legal options for care will not be changed by holding said policy.

Your local TriCare contractor would LOVE to have a thid party company they can charge for the care being provided by the military health care system to active duty members. That turns into basically pure profit for them.

And, no, I don't know where in the AFIs the mandate is for active duty to seek care within the military health care system. It is simply one of those things we start teaching Airmen at BMT. To me it as common and basic a truth as Newton's Laws of Motion. Neither are worth the time or effort to argue about.

[Gigglendorf]

Hey! I stumbled upon a set fo serch terms for Google which endedup being pretty productive in this regard . . ..

"AFI active duty seek medical care"

The first link on the result page was: http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/idc/groups/public/documents/afms/ctb_083796.pdf

Which is a sample form letter . . ..

It contains the following statements:


In accordance with AFI 44-102, Medical Care Management, Chapter 6,
Paragraph 6.2, Active Duty personnel must have written approval of the member’s
squadron commander and the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) commander prior to
any non-refundable deposits (surgery, airline tickets, etc) being made.
In accordance with AFI 41-210, Patient Administrations Functions, Chapter 3,
Paragraph 3.9, I must notify my servicing Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) within
three (3) days of treatment when receiving civilian medical care at my own expense.

Even that first reference is only a partial reference, though . . ..

[VFFSSGT]

It is amazing what one can learn and realize off a quick Google search among other easy self-education methods like reading; however, many, such as this guy seemingly do not do self research but seem to challenge everything we say. At the same time, seemingly not challenge any of the propaganda put out by the government. A recent study even demonstrates Conservatives are more likely to read opposing viewpoints than Liberals on a routine basis. If you never read the other side and investigate the facts on your own, of course one will always believe what they have been duped into believing. Many seem to just go with what makes them "feel" good....

[VFFSSGT]

Here is another good one for you...


The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership] are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional. --Samuel Adams

[Parn]

I did not refute or deny the events of the Great Depression but the government did prolong the problem just as they are prolonging this recession.
Please, enlighten me in your own words.



Are you serious? The Constitution restricts the government, not the people for a reason. The Federalist Papers might be a good read for you.
You'll need to be a little more specific than "go read the Federalist Papers". Quite frankly, the most memorable part of those papers were that they were against the Bill of Rights being put into the Constitution. I want you to tell me, specifically, why Social Security violates what the founding fathers intended. You made a statement, and it is up to you to support it with reasoning and information, not me. Make me understand your point of view, instead of this kind of approach:

Teacher:1 + 1 = 2

Kindergarten Student: Why?

Teacher: HERE READ THIS MATH BOOK AND FIGURE IT OUT ON YOUR OWN



The games can be overcome with Obama? Are you kidding me... His policies are one game after another. Take a look at the firing of the Americorps IG who Obama violated the law in firing.
Quit it with the strawman tactics. I said the "games" can be overcome if we hold politicians' feet to the fire, nothing more.



It is amazing what one can learn and realize off a quick Google search among other easy self-education methods like reading; however, many, such as this guy seemingly do not do self research but seem to challenge everything we say.
Gigglendorf provided the reference material I desired, and I learned something. You however, have done little more than paraphrase my being brainwashed by liberal propaganda over and over. You also seem to have short-term memory, because on the previous page you stated that you only had the option of government care, or no care. You were wrong. As Gigglendorf has clarified for everyone reading, we all have the option of civilian health care care and private health insurance, you just have to get approval if you're going to get an operation done.


At the same time, seemingly not challenge any of the propaganda put out by the government. A recent study even demonstrates Conservatives are more likely to read opposing viewpoints than Liberals on a routine basis. If you never read the other side and investigate the facts on your own, of course one will always believe what they have been duped into believing. Many seem to just go with what makes them "feel" good....
Your belief that I am just another schmoe that only listens to one side of the story is irritating, a conclusion made purely on the basis that I disagree with you. How presumptuous of you.

By the way, there was more to that study than just "conservatives are more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals". The actual statement was:

People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.
It's worth noting that the Ohio State study comprised of 156 students that were given five minutes each reading online magazine articles about four controversial issues. This is hardly what I'd consider capable of producing conclusive results, which you attempted to paint them as without any specifics.

[VFFSSGT]

Please, enlighten me in your own words.

You are the one that does not understand the other side of the debate, according to your own words. If one does not understand something, they often research it... I cannot change your understanding of history that I have learned over several years in a few posts on this blog. I have tried to give you some advice to help you understand. I hate it for you if you cannot catch on. As I have already noted, we obviously have two different philosophical viewpoints. It is unlikely that anything I say on here will change this.

If you only challenged the propaganda put out by the government and politicians as much as you challenge everything said on here and realize that they ALL generally act with self-interest and political expediency rather than in the best interest of the nation and liberty, you would have a better understanding of the other side of the debate. Basically, instead of everyone doing everything for you, as is in line with your philosophical view of the government taking care of you, you should try doing something for yourself. It comes with the idea of personal and individual responsibility and liberty...


You'll need to be a little more specific than "go read the Federalist Papers". Quite frankly, the most memorable part of those papers were that they were against the Bill of Rights being put into the Constitution. I want you to tell me, specifically, why Social Security violates what the founding fathers intended. You made a statement, and it is up to you to support it with reasoning and information, not me.

I said it was a starting point... And the debate between having the Bill of Rights and not having the Bill of Rights was BOTH sides were making their argument with the intent of doing the best possible thing to PREVENT the federal government from becoming a strong centralized government. Some thought the Bill of Rights was necessary to prevent the federal government from becoming too strong, other thought the Bill of Rights would eventually lead to the federal government becoming too strong.

I have provided you a few quotes from our founding fathers in an attempt to give you some understanding. Social Security is redistribution of wealth, the founders were against this and it was far from their desires.


By the way, there was more to that study than just "conservatives are more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals". The actual statement was:

It's worth noting that the Ohio State study comprised of 156 students that were given five minutes each reading online magazine articles about four controversial issues. This is hardly what I'd consider capable of producing conclusive results, which you attempted to paint them as without any specifics.

If you are going to attempt to counter what I said based on actual quote in attempt to suggest I took something out of context, put it all out there...

It also said:


"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.

The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090608/sc_livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2009060/sc_livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews)

Anyways, this has moved way off topic... Back on the topic of health care...

A portion of the recent CBO report...



The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care.
...
Significant savings seem possible because the available evidence implies that a substantial share of spending on health care contributes little if anything to the overall health of the nation. Therefore, experts generally agree that changes in government policy have the potential to produce substantial savings in both national and federal spending on health care without harming health. However, turning that potential into reality in a sector that accounts for one-sixth of the U.S. economy is likely to be a prolonged and difficult process.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10311&type=1

I don't disagree that reform needs to occur, but it needs to start with tort reform and reductions in current policies and regulations that increase cost. Healthcare use to be much more affordable; however, thanks to uncontrolled lawsuits and government regulations, the cost has gone through the roof. If we made it more affordable, more people would be able to take care of themselves rather than the federal government continue down a widely accepted path of unsustainable spending.

[VFFSSGT]

Some truths behind public healthcare plans... Obama and other Democrats are the stars...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryKGqF28d34

[Yggdrasil]

Lets face it, ALOT of people stay in the military due to the free medical..they have a couple of kids...a pregnant wife...not to mention the free medical for life if you retire...and its not even remotely good medical care..I'm sure one day i'll be on my death bed while the USAF feed's me motrin.

With free national healthcare, regardless of the quality (will still be no worse if not better than military medical care)...what is going to keep people in? The Pay :rolleyes: the Half of my BASE pay retirement plan :rolleyes:

I'm thinking to compensate...we get housing..free..forever. we still get base pay..but we also have the option to stay in base housing..free..forever. Seems fair..

Just a thought.....i'll be back after I put in my application at McDonalds.


Thoughts?

I'm going to answer this original question.

I think it's interesting how there are a bunch of so-called "anti-socialists" on this site, when... the military is socialist itself. I mean, all you have to do is show up for work and you're guaranteed a paycheck on the 1st and 15th every month, the amount being based on rank and time in service - regardless of numbers and/or levels of skills or performance; you're provided food, shelter, running water, and electricity - OR extra money to get those things; you're provided health care for you and your family at no cost....

...And you know what the funny thing is? Most of us joined or reenlisted in the military FOR those reasons. And these SAME people bash socialism? These self-deluded people have been in the military their whole adult lives, and many wouldn't know how to surive capitalism.

[VFFSSGT]

You can call it what it is, except we signed up for this job and receive the benefits the job offers. Americans did not sign up to support those who would and will not work...

Believe it or not, some people signed up to serve their country. I agree in that some could not survive on the outside, just like politicians.

You and your family at no cost is not true; health care for family does cost money.

[Yggdrasil]

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about socialism. If we weren't working, it would be welfare. But we are, so it's socialism - for the reasons that I stated in the above post.

By the way, you only have co-pays if you use Tricare Standard, not Prime.

[VFFSSGT]

I pay a small monthly fee for family prime and dental, pay for glasses for dependents, co-pay on some drugs that have to be gotten off base, and significant co-pays for dental. There are even some drugs that the base does not stock that even active duty has to pay for off base because TRICARE doesn't cover them. Not that I am complaining, but your statement was incorrect.

If you want to consider it socialism so be it, but we signed up to serve our country and we get what we get. Everyday Americans did not sign up to serve the nation in this capacity and they do not want government running every aspect of their lives, they believe in this crazy idea of liberty the Constitution, which we are suppose to defend along with the President, affords them.

[Gigglendorf]

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about socialism. If we weren't working, it would be welfare. But we are, so it's socialism - for the reasons that I stated in the above post.

By the way, you only have co-pays if you use Tricare Standard, not Prime.

By the way: If it was socialism, it would apply to everyone in the nation, not only to people who are serving as military members (or retired).

Heck, it doesn't even apply to everyone who works for the DoD!

This particular program is a defined compensation provided for people who agree to accept specific employment and conditions on said employment.

If it was a socialist program, it would apply to everybody, without regard for them signing a contract with the DoD submitting themselves to the capricious desires of our elected officials.

[Parn]

Basically, instead of everyone doing everything for you, as is in line with your philosophical view of the government taking care of you, you should try doing something for yourself. It comes with the idea of personal and individual responsibility and liberty...
And I most certainly do take care of myself. I have 10% of my base pay going into the L2040 fund in TSP, another $250/month going toward my Roth IRA through USAA, as well as money thrown directly into the stock market (PHO to be specific). I have no intention on relying on social security for my retirement years. I have only two more car payments to make, and I will be officially debt free. I'm way ahead of the curve as far as fiscal responsibility goes, considering the average American. I can cook, clean, sew, repair electronic equipment, can do basic construction work, the list goes on. I'm about as independent as one can be.

Yet, I also believe that there are those that are underprivileged who need help. I cannot ignore someone who is drowning and tell them to just swim for themselves. It is not in my nature. Can I help every person who is drowning? Unlikely. But I can at least make the effort. This is where we simply disagree.

But don't dare presume that I'm some mooch who sits back, waiting to get every social benefit I can get from the government that doesn't understand individual responsibility.



I said it was a starting point... And the debate between having the Bill of Rights and not having the Bill of Rights was BOTH sides were making their argument with the intent of doing the best possible thing to PREVENT the federal government from becoming a strong centralized government. Some thought the Bill of Rights was necessary to prevent the federal government from becoming too strong, other thought the Bill of Rights would eventually lead to the federal government becoming too strong.

I have provided you a few quotes from our founding fathers in an attempt to give you some understanding. Social Security is redistribution of wealth, the founders were against this and it was far from their desires.
1. Only some of the founding fathers made any commentary with regard to redistribution of wealth.
2. Taxation in America as a whole is redistribution of wealth. After all, taxes go toward the construction of public works, roads, so on and so forth, and the rich pay a larger share.
3. If we remove social security, what would you propose people do without the system in place? Granted, it's going to go bankrupt in a decade unless someone does something about it, but let's assume for a moment that it won't. What should we do with the elderly who depend on it, since they paid into it for all these years?



If you are going to attempt to counter what I said based on actual quote in attempt to suggest I took something out of context, put it all out there...
Putting it all out there doesn't change the situation. Again, the survey was based on a small sample number of college students (the majority of which tend to be in their early 20s and NOT politically active), reading articles in a very short timeframe (5 minutes). The study is hardly something I would consider reliable.



I don't disagree that reform needs to occur, but it needs to start with tort reform and reductions in current policies and regulations that increase cost. Healthcare use to be much more affordable; however, thanks to uncontrolled lawsuits and government regulations, the cost has gone through the roof. If we made it more affordable, more people would be able to take care of themselves rather than the federal government continue down a widely accepted path of unsustainable spending.
Controlling lawsuits, I can agree with completely. Malpractice lawsuits are out of control. Removing regulations on health care? I think not. Again, regulations come into play after the failure of the private sector. Regulations are reactionary... we put them into place because something went wrong, and measures are put into effect to prevent that situation from happening again.

[Calmo70]

And I most certainly do take care of myself. I have 10% of my base pay going into the L2040 fund in TSP, another $250/month going toward my Roth IRA through USAA, as well as money thrown directly into the stock market (PHO to be specific). I have no intention on relying on social security for my retirement years. I have only two more car payments to make, and I will be officially debt free. I'm way ahead of the curve as far as fiscal responsibility goes, considering the average American. I can cook, clean, sew, repair electronic equipment, can do basic construction work, the list goes on. I'm about as independent as one can be.

Yet, I also believe that there are those that are underprivileged who need help. I cannot ignore someone who is drowning and tell them to just swim for themselves. It is not in my nature. Can I help every person who is drowning? Unlikely. But I can at least make the effort. This is where we simply disagree.
.

Two Questions: If you're active duty are you willing to have the value of your health care taxed?

If you're civil service - same question?

[Yggdrasil]

By the way: If it was socialism, it would apply to everyone in the nation, not only to people who are serving as military members (or retired).

Heck, it doesn't even apply to everyone who works for the DoD!

This particular program is a defined compensation provided for people who agree to accept specific employment and conditions on said employment.

If it was a socialist program, it would apply to everybody, without regard for them signing a contract with the DoD submitting themselves to the capricious desires of our elected officials.

That's not what I'm talking about. And the military is not merely "employment" - when you join the military, you're entering completely different society, with different laws that apply to you. I'm not saying that we live in a socialist NATION - but those of us in the military do live in a socialist SOCIETY. And most people in the military joined BECAUSE of it.

But let's talk about the nation for a second - for the socialism bashers. What if everyone in the nation was guaranteed the things that we are guaranteed? You guys would freak out over it? Why? Is socialism is such a great and precious thing, that only people who sign the dotted line are worthy of receiving it?

[VFFSSGT]

That's not what I'm talking about. And the military is not merely "employment" - when you join the military, you're entering completely different society, with different laws that apply to you. I'm not saying that we live in a socialist NATION - but those of us in the military do live in a socialist SOCIETY. And most people in the military joined BECAUSE of it.

But let's talk about the nation for a second - for the socialism bashers. What if everyone in the nation was guaranteed the things that we are guaranteed? You guys would freak out over it? Why? Is socialism is such a great and precious thing, that only people who sign the dotted line are worthy of receiving it?

Socialism is not a great thing as has been repeatedly proven in history and people do not join the military for it. And there is this little thing called the Constitution we are suppose to defend... The government provides incentives for people to stay because people do not find responsibility or honor in serving their country anymore because they are taught everything should be handed to them among other reasons.

If everything is handed to everyone, eventually no one is going to work - then who is going to pay for everything? What is the motivation to work going to be? People work today for the pursuit of hapiness; there is no hapiness in one's money being taken and given to those who will not work.

On what authority does the government take my money and give it to someone who will not work? On nothing more that someone's opinion in believing in is the right thing to do based on political expediency so said politician may be re-elected and live quite a luxurious life with power, money, and really answer to no one, which goes against the Constitution and what the founders established and what made this nation a great nation in the first place.
 

[Yggdrasil]

Socialism is not a great thing as has been repeatedly proven in history and people do not join the military for it. And there is this little thing called the Constitution we are suppose to defend... The government provides incentives for people to stay because people do not find responsibility or honor in serving their country anymore because they are taught everything should be handed to them among other reasons.  

WRONG! You see, that's why this thread was started in the first place. Because if civilians got what we got, there'd be little incentive to join the military. Why do you think there's all of these news articles talking about how recruiting and retention goes up when the economy goes bad?


If everything is handed to everyone, eventually no one is going to work - then who is going to pay for everything? What is the motivation to work going to be? People work today for the pursuit of hapiness; there is no hapiness in one's money being taken and given to those who will not work.

PRECISELY! You yourself have complained many times here about how many lazy people you have working for you or with you. You're not alone - there's a bunch of lazy people in the military who don't pull their weight. Afterall - why should they? They know that as long as they don't do anything to get an Article 15/Captain's Mast/Office Hours, they can skate/sham out of work - and still get that paycheck on the 1st and 15th, and they know that they're going to keep that job for whatever length of time that their contract is for.


On what authority does the government take my money and give it to someone who will not work?
On nothing more that someone's opinion in believing in is the right thing to do based on political expediency so said politician may be re-elected and live quite a luxurious life with power, money, and really answer to no one, which goes against the Constitution and what the founders established and what made this nation a great nation in the first place.
 

The 16th Amendment. Of course, I expect this to "semanticked" to death...

[Calmo70]

And still - no one has answered the question - are you willing to have your current health benefits taxed to support Universal Healthcare?

And my answer is - Hell No!!!

[Yggdrasil]

And still - no one has answered the question - are you willing to have your current health benefits taxed to support Universal Healthcare?

And my answer is - Hell No!!!

It's amazing how many people here think that they're rich enough to be affected by such a tax, just because they "work".

[VFFSSGT]

WRONG! You see, that's why this thread was started in the first place. Because if civilians got what we got, there'd be little incentive to join the military. Why do you think there's all of these news articles talking about how recruiting and retention goes up when the economy goes bad?

PRECISELY! You yourself have complained many times here about how many lazy people you have working for you or with you. You're not alone - there's a bunch of lazy people in the military who don't pull their weight. Afterall - why should they? They know that as long as they don't do anything to get an Article 15/Captain's Mast/Office Hours, they can skate/sham out of work - and still get that paycheck on the 1st and 15th, and they know that they're going to keep that job for whatever length of time that their contract is for.

The 16th Amendment. Of course, I expect this to "semanticked" to death...

Your ignorant of our history and history in general. You have been duped by the progressive/liberal agenda.

[Yggdrasil]

Your ignorant of our history and history in general.

Oh, PLEASE, son! What, you think that you have to be conservative to know history? Just because you don't like what I say, I MUST be ignorant? Hell, I wasn't even TALKING about history!

But since you want to, I'll tell you this: I'm not only versed in US history, but world history as well - and not just modern European history; I'm versed in ancient and medieval history (medieval being my main specialty) and history of languages, arts, religions of the world as well.

But nice try with that little "hit and run" tactic. Looks like you ran out of fuel and couldn't hang.


You have been duped by the progressive/liberal agenda.

Dude, put that to a REST, will ya? Man, if I had a nickel for every time you bitched about some "liberal" media.

Look, let me tell you something: I've been in the military almost ten years. Just like you (aside from any way you might want to twist that). You know as well as I do that if you walk into any exchange mall, any bookstore on a military installation, etc - there's nothing but conservative propaganda everywhere; yet I can rarely, if ever, find anything from the other side. I've watched liberals join the military and become conservative all of a sudden, due to this. And the fact that the majority of our military bases are in "red states" even adds more conservative influence on us.

That said, maybe it's YOU that has been duped. Don't put your problems on me, man. I'm actually able to brush all of that influence off and think for myself.

[Parn]

And still - no one has answered the question - are you willing to have your current health benefits taxed to support Universal Healthcare?

And my answer is - Hell No!!!
My answer: yes.

That was pretty simple.

[Yggdrasil]

My answer: yes.

That was pretty simple.

I would as well. But like I said earlier, I probably wouldn't be affected by such a tax anyway. Unlike some people, I'm not going to fight for rich people who don't give two shits about me to keep money in their pockets.

You know one image I see far too often, that just doesn't make any sense? Some dude with oil-stained jeans, sleeveless t-shirt, a mullet, a mustache that looks like Hulk Hogan's, driving some old rusted beat up pickup truck; who does some unskilled manual labor job for a living - with bumper stickers talking about how he's paying taxes for people on welfare, etc - as if this guy thinks he's rich, as if this guy has to pay anything when tax season comes around, as if this guy doesn't get EIC every year, as if this guy doesn't benefit from graduated taxes. See, I suppose it's human nature - we all want to think that we're better than someone; that we have more "status" than someone else. This is the one desire that conservatives play on - meanwhile, in his desire to be better than someone else, this redneck forgets that he does not benefit from conservative fiscal policies that rich folks benefit from. In fact, he's hurt by it. And while someone on welfare may have lost a benefit due to conservative fiscal policy, this redneck didn't see another dime in his paycheck because of it. But hey, if it makes him feel better, he still gets to look down on people on welfare, and kick them while they down, right?:rolleyes:

Reminds me of the regular Joe Schmoe in high school that gets his ass kicked by a jock, then finds some five foot 100 pound guy to beat up on - because he thinks it will make him more accepted by the jocks by doing that.

[Parn]

I'm still waiting for him to respond to me from the previous page. I'm sure it'll be something along the lines of "YOU NEED TO STOP GETTING BRAINWASHED BY THE LIB-RUL MEE-DEE-UH AND WATCH NON-PARTISAN COMMENTATORS LIKE GLENN BECK AND BILL O'REILLY OKAY", but maybe I'll be surprised.

[Calmo70]

I'm still waiting for him to respond to me from the previous page. I'm sure it'll be something along the lines of "YOU NEED TO STOP GETTING BRAINWASHED BY THE LIB-RUL MEE-DEE-UH AND WATCH NON-PARTISAN COMMENTATORS LIKE GLENN BECK AND BILL O'REILLY OKAY", but maybe I'll be surprised.

I'm not sure who "him" is. But, for the record - I'm not the overblown conservative stereotype your describe. I'm an atheist, have no problem with Gay Marriage, am against DADT, and am pro-choice. I think O'Reilly, Rush, Beck, et al can be lumped into the same category as Maddow, Obermann, Matthews, et al. All are a bunch of blow-hards that are so far away from true journalism they lose all creditability.

But, I am an NRA member, fiscal conservative, and anti-welfare/socialism. Have no problems with Medicaid for the TRULY needy - but have real problems with people who are perfectly capable of working living life on the dole (and I have two sisters/brother-in-laws who do that).

So, try putting your stereotypes into the same bag with all other crap lines.

But, I am not ready to have the health benefits I've earned become taxable in order to provide health care to types like my sisters and their husbands. I'm sure they are really glad their are people like you that are.

[Calmo70]

I would as well. But like I said earlier, I probably wouldn't be affected by such a tax anyway. Unlike some people, I'm not going to fight for rich people who don't give two shits about me to keep money in their pockets.

Oh, I see - you're willing to say you're willing to be taxed - but because you don't feel you will be?

And as far as you tag line, add one more thing:

"Have volunteered to give up your life for your country."

Those military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm sure were there because they were so enthused about their great military benefits/life style.

[Yggdrasil]

Oh, I see - you're willing to say you're willing to be taxed - but because you don't feel you will be?

Oh, even if I have to give up some change - so what? I'm an E6 -so how much would I have to pay more if they make healthcare universal - a whole buck, if that? What was I going to do with that buck, buy a cheeseburger at Wendy's?


And as far as you tag line, add one more thing:

"Have volunteered to give up your life for your country."

Those military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm sure were there because they were so enthused about their great military benefits/life style.

And how many people sign up for the benefits, and bitch and whine about having to go, and do whatever they can to get out of it? How many deserters do we have because of this war, how many are in Canada right now?

The fact that you can be sent to war doesn't change the fact that the military is a socialist society.

[Gigglendorf]

The fact that you can be sent to war doesn't change the fact that the military is a socialist society.

The fact that you can't join the military without meeting a WHOLE BUNCH of specific special conditions, the fact the military compensation system is imposed by a body external to the system, and the fact that nobody in the military is expected to create the materials consumed by the military are all solid examples of reasons why the military is NOT a socialist society

Let's see. Socialism: –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(Dictionary.com, first of 5 listings, of course)

What means of production or control of capital does the military have, and how do they impose that upon the dependents who are part of the military society? Are you claiming that the military states that no military member has any private possessions, but everything belongs to the military instead?

Does the military society provide you and yours with everything you need? My children go to the local public schools, I live in private quarters off base, the military neither provides me civilian clothes nor demands that I wear nothing except uniforms.

Does military society even make the financial decisions themselves, or are those decisions imposed upon the military society by an external organization which is not part of that society?

Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the military is not a socialist society.

[Parn]

I'm not sure who "him" is.

*snip*

So, try putting your stereotypes into the same bag with all other crap lines.
In one breath, you aren't sure who I'm referring to, and then in the next, you get all defensive and assume that I was talking about you.

Well, if you had simply gone back a page and saw my latest reply to VFFSSGT, of whom I've been having a debate with for several pages now, you would have realized that I wasn't referring to you at all. So congratulations for getting on my case over nothing.

Oh, and...


But, I am not ready to have the health benefits I've earned become taxable in order to provide health care to types like my sisters and their husbands. I'm sure they are really glad their are people like you that are.
I am so sick and tired of being accused of wanting to support welfare bums. You may as well be accusing me of wanting to give health care to pedophiles, because a small percentage of uninsured Americans are possibly pedophiles. It's a ridiculous, extreme, not to mention idiotic attack vector.

We can take steps to minimize abuse of a system put into place, but to forsake millions of people because some people will abuse it, is pretty dumb. Some people join the military just to collect a paycheck, then when called to deploy, end up going AWOL or taking steps to get out of it. Should we scrap the military for their abuse of the system?

[Yggdrasil]

The fact that you can't join the military without meeting a WHOLE BUNCH of specific special conditions,

Doesn't matter.


the fact the military compensation system is imposed by a body external to the system,

Not true.


and the fact that nobody in the military is expected to create the materials consumed by the military

Tell that to the cooks, and virtually anyone else in a customer service-based MOS/rating/AFSC.

Let's see. Socialism: –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(Dictionary.com, first of 5 listings, of course)


What means of production or control of capital does the military have, and how do they impose that upon the dependents who are part of the military society?

Karl Marx once said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That should answer your question.


Are you claiming that the military states that no military member has any private possessions, but everything belongs to the military instead?

Military members don't even own THEMSELVES, so what are you getting at?


Does the military society provide you and yours with everything you need?

Yes.


My children go to the local public schools

Because you live in an area where they are available. If you didn't, the military would provide it.


I live in private quarters off base

The military gave you money outside of your base pay that was meant for that.


the military neither provides me civilian clothes nor demands that I wear nothing except uniforms.

Key word here is "need." All you "need" as far clothing goes are your dress/service uniforms. They were good enough for pre-Vietnam era military members to wear everywhere they went off base.


Does military society even make the financial decisions themselves, or are those decisions imposed upon the military society by an external organization which is not part of that society?

Why don't we look at the former Warsaw Pact countries and their relation to the USSR, and apply the same principle here. Are you telling me that these countries were not socialist/communist still?


Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the military is not a socialist society.

No, despite the facts I'm giving you, you have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that you benefit from a socialist society.

[Seasons]

Tell that to the cooks, and virtually anyone else in a customer service-based MOS/rating/AFSC.


Do they make their own beef? Slaughter their own cows? Forge their own bullets? Build their own guns?

The military is semi-self-sustainable, as its intended to be in case a national emergency cuts off basic supplies. However, our raw materials are not gathered or transformed into equipment by us.

[Gigglendorf]

Instead of spending the time required to play the formatting games I would need to to include my original comments and your replies, I'm just going to multi quote my comment, and then address your replies.


The fact that you can't join the military without meeting a WHOLE BUNCH of specific special conditions, the fact the military compensation system is imposed by a body external to the system, and the fact that nobody in the military is expected to create the materials consumed by the military are all solid examples of reasons why the military is NOT a socialist society

Let's see. Socialism: –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(Dictionary.com, first of 5 listings, of course)

What means of production or control of capital does the military have, and how do they impose that upon the dependents who are part of the military society? Are you claiming that the military states that no military member has any private possessions, but everything belongs to the military instead?

Does the military society provide you and yours with everything you need? My children go to the local public schools, I live in private quarters off base, the military neither provides me civilian clothes nor demands that I wear nothing except uniforms.

Does military society even make the financial decisions themselves, or are those decisions imposed upon the military society by an external organization which is not part of that society?

Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the military is not a socialist society.


Doesn't matter.

Nice dismissal. Care to justify it, or are you going to claim that if I need you to justify your dismissal of my points that I am an insufficient intellectual opponent? Support for the position is where learning happens, remember.


Not true.

Congress, who passes the laws detailing not only our compensation package, but our size, our budget, the Manual for Courts Martial, the source law upon which DADT is based, and more is NOT external to military society? So, everybody who has ever complained that their elected representative has no military experience was wrong?

Or were you trying to say something different?


Tell that to the cooks, and virtually anyone else in a customer service-based MOS/rating/AFSC.

Okay, what member of the military society builds tanks, planes, ammunition, uniforms, grows the food, refines the fuel, etc.? We do not produce what we consume. Your closet cases of people who perform the final finishing touches on said production is not even close to fulfilling that mandatory aspect of any society.


Let's see. Socialism: –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

(Dictionary.com, first of 5 listings, of course)

Didn't _I_ provide that material?


Karl Marx once said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That should answer your question.

How, exactly, does that address anything about socialism? ESPECIALLY given that Marxist theory notes that socialism is (what did that say in the Dictionary.com quote again?) "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles". So, in other words, you are trying to use Marxist theory to make a point about a topic that Marxist theory says is not actually part of that theory.

Try something relevant instead.

You have not even begun to address how MY PAY is capital controlled by the military state. What is the difference between my pay and the money my wife earns in the local community? It is usable interchangeably, and nobody especially cares what money is used where. How does this provide an example of the military controlling all capital inside military society?


Military members don't even own THEMSELVES, so what are you getting at?

Oh, little things like the Airmen who work for me who have 5 computers in their dorm rooms. The guys who have built up the personal collection of soft porn magazines. The guys who take the money they are paid, and invest it, whether in bonds, stocks, or real estate.

In a socialist society, none of them could do any of that, because neither the capital nor what they have chosen to purchase with it would actually be theirs. How many SNCOs and FGOs with rental properties do you think would agree with you that the profits from their PERSONAL PROPERTY belong to the military society as they would were the military truly socialist?

Don't like that angle, how about this one: Why are people who take things out of other people's dorm rooms prosecuted under the UCMJ for theft of personal property if military members do not own anything, as is a mandatory aspect of a socialist society?


Yes.

Military society provides you and yours with everything they need? Interesting. Where do you get the clothing, gear, and accessories that your boys (should you have any) need to participate in Boy Scouting properly? The BX doesn't sell the right material, so I know you don't get it from AAFES. Oh, now you're going to comment that you pay for it with the money you from your pay check? Okay, again, how is the money from my pay check any different then the money my son makes working at a civilian theater downtown? Why is the money sitting in my private civilian bank account (and the interest that I receive on it) the property of military society? If it is not the property of military society, then military society is not socialist.


Because you live in an area where they are available. If you didn't, the military would provide it.

Oh, so the military does NOT provide everything my family needs.


The military gave you money outside of your base pay that was meant for that.

The military provides me the compensation package for my service that they are forced to provide under public law. There is no choice made by anyone in the chain of command about what I am paid. There is no opportunity for them to decide that I need more or less than the guy sitting next to me, or to make that kind of adjustment happen, without violating the limitations imposed on the military by the external civilian government.


Key word here is "need." All you "need" as far clothing goes are your dress/service uniforms. They were good enough for pre-Vietnam era military members to wear everywhere they went off base.

False. I have had the fortune to have a temporary duty assignment where I was required to wear civilian clothes, and in accordance with public law (something external to the military, again, just case you missed that point anywhere along the line) I was provide da civilian clothing allowance. No where near enough to purchase the clothing I was required to obtain, BTW. If they were providing me what I needed, I wouldn't have had to go to other revenue to purchase the items I was explicitly told I needed to have. And, yes, I used some pretty good sales. I got some nice shirts that are standing up to wear and tear VERY nicely for $10~12 apiece. I didn't spend poorly, the military simply did not provide me with what the military told me I needed to have.

Also, I seem to remember that my grandparents, pre-Vietnam era, were encouraged NOT to wear their uniforms off base and off duty. Maybe that had something to do with being occupying Army, one in Japan and another in Germany?


Why don't we look at the former Warsaw Pact countries and their relation to the USSR, and apply the same principle here. Are you telling me that these countries were not socialist/communist still?

Yes, let's look at, say East Germany. Oops. How about Poland? Oops. Each was defined as an independent nation (is the US military an independent nation?) whose government was rebuilt from the ground up by one of the victors in WW2. This "parent" nation barely even pretended that these puppet governments were not simply extensions of itself. As I seem to remember things, though, none of them claimed to be socialist They all claimed Marxist or Communist. The three ARE different, BTW..


No, despite the facts I'm giving you, you have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that you benefit from a socialist society.

Facts?

What facts?

Let's review the FACTS that you provided, shall we?


Doesn't matter.

Not true.

Tell that to the cooks, and virtually anyone else in a customer service-based MOS/rating/AFSC.

Karl Marx once said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That should answer your question.

Military members don't even own THEMSELVES, so what are you getting at?

Yes.

Because you live in an area where they are available. If you didn't, the military would provide it.

The military gave you money outside of your base pay that was meant for that.

Key word here is "need." All you "need" as far clothing goes are your dress/service uniforms. They were good enough for pre-Vietnam era military members to wear everywhere they went off base.

Why don't we look at the former Warsaw Pact countries and their relation to the USSR, and apply the same principle here. Are you telling me that these countries were not socialist/communist still?

No, despite the facts I'm giving you, you have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that you benefit from a socialist society.

I see a quotation, that could easily be called a fact.

I see several assertions, with no supporting material.

I see questions designed to make me ask questions, but not actually providing any information.

If this is how you provide facts, it is no wonder you have such a hard time getting people to accept your opinions.

Yep. I.m a lot harder to bully than you seem to be used to . . ..

[Yggdrasil]

Do they make their own beef? Slaughter their own cows? Forge their own bullets? Build their own guns?

The military is semi-self-sustainable, as its intended to be in case a national emergency cuts off basic supplies. However, our raw materials are not gathered or transformed into equipment by us.


Again, that doesn't matter. I'm pretty positive that in 1985, Romania (a communist country at the time) didn't brew it's own beer; and instead, had to trade with Czechoslovakia (a fellow communist country at the time) in order to get it. Hell, today, North Korea probably has to get materials from China and vice versa.

That said, the military doesn't need to slaughter its own cows to substantiate socialism.

[Seasons]

Again, that doesn't matter. I'm pretty positive that in 1985, Romania (a communist country at the time) didn't brew it's own beer; and instead, had to trade with Czechoslovakia (a fellow communist country at the time) in order to get it. Hell, today, North Korea probably has to get materials from China and vice versa.

That said, the military doesn't need to slaughter its own cows to substantiate socialism.

Actually, it does for the statement I quoted to make any point in the furthering of your argument.

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, it does for the statement I quoted to make any point in the furthering of your argument.

Oh, so now you're saying that neither the Warsaw Pact countries were ever communist, nor is North Korea today? Because the only way that you can say that your statement matters is to deny that those countries were communist - or even socialist.

[Seasons]

Oh, so now you're saying that neither the Warsaw Pact countries were ever communist, nor is North Korea today? Because the only way that you can say that your statement matters is to deny that those countries were communist - or even socialist.

Actually, it means that your statement to the point of the military providing its own resources is dismissible as unimportant to the determination of socialist or not. Since obviously, it doesn't, and obviously, many socialist and communist countries don't either.

[Yggdrasil]

Actually, it means that your statement to the point of the military providing its own resources is dismissible as unimportant to the determination of socialist or not. Since obviously, it doesn't, and obviously, many socialist and communist countries don't either.

Look, I don't know what kind of semantics games you're trying to play here, because that gibberish makes absolutely no sense.

Think about it - Do you think that Hungary and East Germany distilled all of their own vodka, and didn't have to get any from the Soviet Union?

Bottomline is this: Socialist societies have traded with other societies, and are still socialist. The US military is one of them.

[Seasons]

Look, I don't know what kind of semantics games you're trying to play here, because that gibberish makes absolutely no sense.

Think about it - Do you think that Hungary and East Germany distilled all of their own vodka, and didn't have to get any from the Soviet Union?

Bottomline is this: Socialist societies have traded with other societies, and are still socialist. The US military is one of them.

The bottom line is: I hate it when people misuse and distort facts to fit their agenda. Your original statement was made to look as though it was a fact supporting the definition of socialism. You have refuted your own point, or the perception of that point as I just stated.

I've also noticed you've preferred to respond to my post rather than the large one Gigglendorf posted disputing your entire previous post.

[Yggdrasil]

Nice dismissal. Care to justify it, or are you going to claim that if I need you to justify your dismissal of my points that I am an insufficient intellectual opponent? Support for the position is where learning happens, remember.[/QUOTES]

The reason I said it doesn't matter is because there is no definition of socialism that states that socialist societies can or cannot make requirements for people to enter that society.


[QUOTE=Gigglendorf]Congress, who passes the laws detailing not only our compensation package, but our size, our budget, the Manual for Courts Martial, the source law upon which DADT is based, and more is NOT external to military society? So, everybody who has ever complained that their elected representative has no military experience was wrong?

Or were you trying to say something different?

Okay, what member of the military society builds tanks, planes, ammunition, uniforms, grows the food, refines the fuel, etc.? We do not produce what we consume. Your closet cases of people who perform the final finishing touches on said production is not even close to fulfilling that mandatory aspect of any society.

Let me use examples here: The Warsaw Pact countries. They were socialist. The financial well being of the people of Romanian, East Germany, Poland, etc ultimately rested in the hands of the Soviet Union. Oh, so now were those countries not socialist? The fact that North Korea has to take aid of other countries... is is North Korea not communist?

And the examples I gave Seasons: Romania doesn't brew beer in sufficient amounts, it had to get beer from Czechoslovakia. Hungary doesn't distill vodka in sufficient amounts, it had to get vodka from Poland or the Soviet Union. Yet, no one is going to deny that these countries were socialist and/or communist.


How, exactly, does that address anything about socialism? ESPECIALLY given that Marxist theory notes that socialism is (what did that say in the Dictionary.com quote again?) "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles". So, in other words, you are trying to use Marxist theory to make a point about a topic that Marxist theory says is not actually part of that theory.

Try something relevant instead.

It's relevant, because you attempted to use the fact that the military doesn't attempt to exert control over military dependants. That's where "ability" comes into play. And... you, as the military member, are held responsible for the actions of your dependants... so... that was a pretty moot point you were trying to make.


You have not even begun to address how MY PAY is capital controlled by the military state.

Do something to violate the UCMJ at your job, see if the MILITARY doesn't affect YOUR pay, while making you work extra hours on restriction for that reduced pay.


What is the difference between my pay and the money my wife earns in the local community? It is usable interchangeably, and nobody especially cares what money is used where. How does this provide an example of the military controlling all capital inside military society?

The difference is that you can be a total screw up, slack off on the job, etc - and as long as your screw-ups don't violate the UCMJ, you're still guaranteed a paycheck on the 1st and 15th; and you're guaranteed to have your job for the length of your contract. Your wife doesn't have that luxury. You are given allowances to take care of things that are considered to be "needs" so that your base pay pure spending money. Your wife doesn't have that luxury.

If nobody cared where you money was spent, I'm pretty positive that you would have sections of your income designated as "Basic Allowance for Housing" or "Basic Allowance for Sustenance," etc.



Oh, little things like the Airmen who work for me who have 5 computers in their dorm rooms. The guys who have built up the personal collection of soft porn magazines. The guys who take the money they are paid, and invest it, whether in bonds, stocks, or real estate.

In a socialist society, none of them could do any of that, because neither the capital nor what they have chosen to purchase with it would actually be theirs. How many SNCOs and FGOs with rental properties do you think would agree with you that the profits from their PERSONAL PROPERTY belong to the military society as they would were the military truly socialist?

There are people in China who have those things; hell, there are people in Cuba and North Korea who do too, are those countries not socialist or communist?

But as far as those nice dorm rooms that are provided to them... I've addressed that before.


Don't like that angle, how about this one: Why are people who take things out of other people's dorm rooms prosecuted under the UCMJ for theft of personal property if military members do not own anything, as is a mandatory aspect of a socialist society?

You think North Koreans don't go to jail for stealing? Hell, I even remember watching episodes of Cops that was filmed in Moscow during the Soviet Era... I've watched dozens of Russians get busted for stealing.

Nice try.


Military society provides you and yours with everything they need? Interesting. Where do you get the clothing, gear, and accessories that your boys (should you have any) need to participate in Boy Scouting properly? The BX doesn't sell the right material, so I know you don't get it from AAFES. Oh, now you're going to comment that you pay for it with the money you from your pay check?

No, I'm actually going to comment that your son doesn't "need" to participate in Boy Scouting.


Okay, again, how is the money from my pay check any different then the money my son makes working at a civilian theater downtown? Why is the money sitting in my private civilian bank account (and the interest that I receive on it) the property of military society? If it is not the property of military society, then military society is not socialist.

This is wrap up of everything you said in the whole post, and I've explained it already with examples in other socialist countries.



Oh, so the military does NOT provide everything my family needs.

Yeah, but the government did. Either way, you didn't have to pay a dime to send your kid to school; and if there were only private schools in the area, the military would make sure you don't have to spend money on your child's school.



The military provides me the compensation package for my service that they are forced to provide under public law. There is no choice made by anyone in the chain of command about what I am paid. There is no opportunity for them to decide that I need more or less than the guy sitting next to me, or to make that kind of adjustment happen, without violating the limitations imposed on the military by the external civilian government.

Try slapping someone in your chain of command, and tell me this after you get your next paycheck.




False. I have had the fortune to have a temporary duty assignment where I was required to wear civilian clothes, and in accordance with public law (something external to the military, again, just case you missed that point anywhere along the line) I was provide da civilian clothing allowance.

Because, you guessed it, you NEEDED civilian attire at that station!


No where near enough to purchase the clothing I was required to obtain, BTW. If they were providing me what I needed, I wouldn't have had to go to other revenue to purchase the items I was explicitly told I needed to have. And, yes, I used some pretty good sales. I got some nice shirts that are standing up to wear and tear VERY nicely for $10~12 apiece. I didn't spend poorly, the military simply did not provide me with what the military told me I needed to have.

In ever service's uniform requirements, we are all issued two service uniforms. Following that same standard, it would stand to reason that you are only considered to "need" two civilian outfits, along with a coat, a pair of shoes, etc.




Also, I seem to remember that my grandparents, pre-Vietnam era, were encouraged NOT to wear their uniforms off base and off duty. Maybe that had something to do with being occupying Army, one in Japan and another in Germany?

Did anyone force them to go off base while they were off duty?


Yes, let's look at, say East Germany. Oops. How about Poland? Oops. Each was defined as an independent nation (is the US military an independent nation?) whose government was rebuilt from the ground up by one of the victors in WW2. This "parent" nation barely even pretended that these puppet governments were not simply extensions of itself. As I seem to remember things, though, none of them claimed to be socialist They all claimed Marxist or Communist. The three ARE different, BTW..

I understand that difference, HOWEVER, communism is a form of socialism. So not all socialist countries are communist, but all communist countries are socialist. So by claiming communist, the claimed socialist.

Oh, by the way - what does the second "S" in USSR stand for?



Facts?

What facts?

Let's review the FACTS that you provided, shall we?



I see a quotation, that could easily be called a fact.

I see several assertions, with no supporting material.

I see questions designed to make me ask questions, but not actually providing any information.

If this is how you provide facts, it is no wonder you have such a hard time getting people to accept your opinions.

Yep. I.m a lot harder to bully than you seem to be used to . . ..

Get over yourself. No one is going to accept what I say because it's not popular; and it's something that most have a difficult time coming to terms with.

In this post, the one thing that I can conclude is that you don't know the difference between a "need" and a "want".

[Gigglendorf]

You keep referring to previous nation-state social structures as socialist, when they called themselves communist.

Communism and socialism are NOT THE SAME THING.

By definition, in a socialist society, all property and capital belongs to the state, never to individuals.

Socialism requires that there be no private property. (Translation of the above)

Theft of private property requires that there be private property.

You choose to call a group socialist, and then state that they have laws against the theft of private property.

What's wrong with that logic path?

I love how you equate breaking the laws of the community and being punished for breaking those laws as being the same thing as the people above you in the hierarchy having authority to make value judgments about how the state property is distributed. Even in these cases, the people higher in the hierarchy don't have the power or authority to make that call. They have to request that a legal evaluation of the violation of the social laws has been made, and then sit back and watch how those laws are applied.

This is not how that's handled when the state gets to simply make the call.

I don't want to "get over myself", I want to get you to explain and support your position in a logical fashion, providing support, arguing against opposing support, and trying to prove your point. I want to learn as opposed to simply dismissing you as a crackpot the way you seem to want to do to me.

Civil discourse and logical arguments are opportunities to expand our knowledge and viewpoint.

[Gigglendorf]

In this post, the one thing that I can conclude is that you don't know the difference between a "need" and a "want".

Oh, no, I understand the difference.

Show me where the definition of socialism demands that only needs will be met.

If it is not part of the definition of socialism, then wants have to be addressable as well, or justification provided as to why not.

[Gigglendorf]

I understand that difference, HOWEVER, communism is a form of socialism. So not all socialist countries are communist, but all communist countries are socialist. So by claiming communist, the claimed socialist.

Not according to the previously quoted Marxist theory statement. Socialism is an imperfect step in the conversion from capitalism to communism. It is neither here nor there, but somewhere in between.

So, how is it that one end of the scale is automatically the same as half-way down the scale again?

[Gigglendorf]

Did anyone force them to go off base while they were off duty?

Did anyone tell them NOT to?

[Gigglendorf]

Yeah, but the government did. Either way, you didn't have to pay a dime to send your kid to school; and if there were only private schools in the area, the military would make sure you don't have to spend money on your child's school.

Incorrect. My family has income other than my military compensation.

I pay property taxes on our home that are used to fund the public schools my children attend.

In addition, the US Government (in accordance with law passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS) pays those public schools a bonus incentive because they educate the children of a military member. SO, the school system makes out like a bandit, but part of that money comes out of the family budget, which, again, is NOT limited to the military compensation.

[Gigglendorf]

And the examples I gave Seasons: Romania doesn't brew beer in sufficient amounts, it had to get beer from Czechoslovakia. Hungary doesn't distill vodka in sufficient amounts, it had to get vodka from Poland or the Soviet Union. Yet, no one is going to deny that these countries were socialist and/or communist.

Why is it you criticized me for failing to differentiate between wants and needs, but you chose to use vodka as your example import? Do you consider recreational alcohol a need?

[Gigglendorf]

In ever service's uniform requirements, we are all issued two service uniforms. Following that same standard, it would stand to reason that you are only considered to "need" two civilian outfits, along with a coat, a pair of shoes, etc.

Actually, the instructions I received mandated 2 suits, a minimum of 4 distinct sets of slacks and polos, shoes to look good in and shoes that looked reasonable but could be used for climbing around on tarred roofs and through rafters. Those instructions also recommended another 4 distinct sets of slacks and polos.

The instructions required more clothing than the Congressionally defined compensation was designed to cover.

If I was being provided what I needed, I wouldn't have been given money, anyway, because money was NOT what I needed, clothes were.

[Gigglendorf]

No, I'm actually going to comment that your son doesn't "need" to participate in Boy Scouting.

In WW2, both the Germans and the Italians (who did claim to be socialist, as I recall) had very similar programs for youth that were pretty close to mandatory, didn't they?