GolemIII said:
It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.
The Chinese, using technology that we forced on them during the Clinton EPA fiasco of the 1990's can easily shoot down lower orbiting satellites.Canada2017 said:GolemIII said:
It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.
Unless there is some perceived threat .....don't see the need to militarize space.
DaveyBear said:The Chinese, using technology that we forced on them during the Clinton EPA fiasco of the 1990's can easily shoot down lower orbiting satellites.Canada2017 said:GolemIII said:
It's time. It used to be enough to own the sky. Now that real estate is getting too crowded.
Unless there is some perceived threat .....don't see the need to militarize space.
A Space Force of weak minded clones will allow Trump to humanely transport his political enemies to battle the Klingons of Uranus.PartyBear said:
Now Trump is tweeting he wants to replace the troops with weak minded clones who will unquestioningly follow his commands. There aren't enough Trumpers who will join the service apparently.
Well, if he's looking for weak minded clones, there's no shortage on the left. He just needs to send out some kind of snappy hashtag like #ImWithHerInSpace or #MeTooInSpace or #BernieBrosInSpacePartyBear said:
Now Trump is tweeting he wants to replace the troops with weak minded clones who will unquestioningly follow his commands. There aren't enough Trumpers who will join the service apparently.
Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
robby44 said:
Dear President Trump,
If you want to create a Space Force, I'm your guy. I was once Supreme Commmander of the Galactic Empire. Give me a call when you can.
Sincerely, Lord Vader.
Absolutely perfect.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.GolemIII said:Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.
So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.
So let's do this:
1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid
8. Keep our military incredibly strong
Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.Buddha Bear said:Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.GolemIII said:Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.
So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.
So let's do this:
1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid
8. Keep our military incredibly strong
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
Beautifully written. Well said.GolemIII said:Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.Buddha Bear said:Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.GolemIII said:Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.
So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.
So let's do this:
1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid
8. Keep our military incredibly strong
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I agree that other nations should foot the bill for their own security. Too many have ignored their NATO commitments and they need to be billed for our expenditures on their behalf, to be sure. We should actually send them a bill for the slack we pick up and see what happens.
With regard to our strength, I am not sure there is a specific limit to how strong we should be...specifically the United States. There are a few reasons for this, but largely it's because we are stabilizing and we are benevolent with our power. There is really no other country on earth which has historically been as benevolent with power as the US. Most nations, when they acquire the power we have, use it to conquer neighbors (see Crimea recently, most of Europe during WWI and WWII, USSR satellites, etc). We, on the other hand, genuinely act as a stabilizing force (most of the time) and don't keep territory once unstable leaders are deposed. We've made some bad calls (Trying to depose Assad for instance), but overall, the US acts as a strong force for stability internationally. That is effectively something that provides us protection at home as well. If we can help keep the world stable, we can keep our nation safer. Now, that doesn't mean I think we should go on foreign adventures left and right and waste money. But it does mean that we should have the equivalent of "**** You Money" with regard to our military power. We should be so incredibly strong that the nearest 50 nations (enemies or allies) wouldn't dare confront us. We should retain that power and still remain benevolent with it.
Additionally, unlike welfare payments, our military spending has generated some amazing economic advancements via military innovations that bled over into the civilian world. Competition is creative and nothing is more creative than necessity. While the threat might only be perceived in some instances, the creativity it generates is not. Without military spending we wouldn't be talking like this because there wouldn't be an internet or computers...certainly not at the advanced stages they exist today. Other things we have arguably as a consequence of that spending include:
GPS
Duct Tape
Drones
Microwave Ovens
Disposable Razors
Weather Radar
Digital Cameras
Jet Engines
Superglue
Canned food
The EpiPen
Bloodbanks and transfusions
Nylon
Freeze Drying
Feminine Hygiene Products
Bug Spray
We get something for our money with military spending. We actually get a lot more than what we pay for (sometimes for ill, but mostly for good).
I just doubt it takes $600 billion per year to invent things. $400 billion would do the job. There's a lot of money unaccounted for every year, and it's a lot more than the cuts that Golem mentioned in a previous post.CSIBear said:Beautifully written. Well said.GolemIII said:Our health system has been under attack by Obama care in recent years and will certainly need some time to recover. But it's still the most amazing, technologically advanced system in the world. Get government out of it and it gets even better, because we agree that politicians are corrupt and corrupt it and should be term limited.Buddha Bear said:Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.GolemIII said:Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.
So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.
So let's do this:
1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid
8. Keep our military incredibly strong
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I agree that other nations should foot the bill for their own security. Too many have ignored their NATO commitments and they need to be billed for our expenditures on their behalf, to be sure. We should actually send them a bill for the slack we pick up and see what happens.
With regard to our strength, I am not sure there is a specific limit to how strong we should be...specifically the United States. There are a few reasons for this, but largely it's because we are stabilizing and we are benevolent with our power. There is really no other country on earth which has historically been as benevolent with power as the US. Most nations, when they acquire the power we have, use it to conquer neighbors (see Crimea recently, most of Europe during WWI and WWII, USSR satellites, etc). We, on the other hand, genuinely act as a stabilizing force (most of the time) and don't keep territory once unstable leaders are deposed. We've made some bad calls (Trying to depose Assad for instance), but overall, the US acts as a strong force for stability internationally. That is effectively something that provides us protection at home as well. If we can help keep the world stable, we can keep our nation safer. Now, that doesn't mean I think we should go on foreign adventures left and right and waste money. But it does mean that we should have the equivalent of "**** You Money" with regard to our military power. We should be so incredibly strong that the nearest 50 nations (enemies or allies) wouldn't dare confront us. We should retain that power and still remain benevolent with it.
Additionally, unlike welfare payments, our military spending has generated some amazing economic advancements via military innovations that bled over into the civilian world. Competition is creative and nothing is more creative than necessity. While the threat might only be perceived in some instances, the creativity it generates is not. Without military spending we wouldn't be talking like this because there wouldn't be an internet or computers...certainly not at the advanced stages they exist today. Other things we have arguably as a consequence of that spending include:
GPS
Duct Tape
Drones
Microwave Ovens
Disposable Razors
Weather Radar
Digital Cameras
Jet Engines
Superglue
Canned food
The EpiPen
Bloodbanks and transfusions
Nylon
Freeze Drying
Feminine Hygiene Products
Bug Spray
We get something for our money with military spending. We actually get a lot more than what we pay for (sometimes for ill, but mostly for good).
What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.GolemIII said:Buddha Bear said:How bout that $600 billion+ military budget? Those listed above are peanuts compared to this one. When is a military budget TOO big? I don't think Americans really know, even though they act like they know what conservative spending is.GolemIII said:Well, there are some places ripe for cutting.Buddha Bear said:
As long as there isn't an increase in the budget then fine with me. Better yet, for every dollar allocated to that budget, lets decrease another by $2.
Dept of Energy (DOE): Could wipe out 90% of the total budget: 25 Billion in savings
Dept of Education (DoEd): Should be eliminated: 68 billion in savings
Dept of Ag: Wiping out subsidies. cica 20 billion in savings
Dept HUD: Wipe it out: Savings circa 40 billion
Cut Amtrak subsidies: cica 1.4 billion in savings
EPA: Kill it. 5.7 billion in savings
I'm sure there are tons more locations to cut, but this gets us around USD 150 billion in savings. Let's do it.
Well, the only truly legitimate functions of government (functions where only government should have final authority) are police, military and courts of law....or from an economic perspective, which is a bit broader, the non-excludable non-rival functions (public goods). The latter might include things like light houses, uncongested roads and air traffic control. But what it doesn't include is transfer payments.
So while you advocate cutting one of the only legitimate functions of government, you failed to mention one our founders couldn't find in the constitution.Quote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
According to a quick search: "Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States" This is certainly higher today and still dwarfs our military spending.
So let's do this:
1. Make all the cuts I listed above.
2. Cut welfare transfer payments by 5% per year for the next 10 years.
3. Means test social security and raise the age for eligibility
4. Cut Medicare part D entirely
5. Build a border wall
6. Keep illegals out of our country and send those back who are already inside.
7. Stop all foreign aid
8. Keep our military incredibly strong
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.contrario said:What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?Buddha Bear said:8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.contrario said:What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.
See boldBuddha Bear said:8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.contrario said:What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good (all with lower cancer survival rates). All significantly cheaper (misleading -funded by taxes). And access in all of those countries is easier (only if you are not counting wait times - wait times matter). The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.
In regards to R&D, that is an argument pharmaceutical companies always make when politicians when we ask why we can't negotiate drug prices. Other countries do it. We are stupid for not doing so. Another corrupt congressional move that has destroyed a portion of our medical system. That leads back to my argument of congressional term limits that I think everyone agrees with. No change will happen without it.contrario said:All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?Buddha Bear said:8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.contrario said:What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.
And you can't give vague platitudes, I need specifics and empirical data if you are going to propose fundamentally changing our medical system. I'm on board with making changes to the medical system to make it affordable, but I think the two biggest changes is that we need to require other countries to pay their fair share of new medical innovations and we need transparency in pricing for medical care and an incentive to find better prices for care.
You completely ignored my entire point. To your points:Buddha Bear said:In regards to R&D, that is an argument pharmaceutical companies always make when politicians when we ask why we can't negotiate drug prices. Other countries do it. We are stupid for not doing so. Another corrupt congressional move that has destroyed a portion of our medical system. That leads back to my argument of congressional term limits that I think everyone agrees with. No change will happen without it.contrario said:All of those countries have benefited from the research and development that have been created by the for profit US system, but because of price controls, they haven't historically had to pay for the benefit. In other words, the US has paid for the R&D of new pharmaceuticals, medical treatment procedures and medical devices. With your experience, how do we solve that problem? Do we just accept the fact that without a profit motivator, some new medical research won't be completed because it isn't feasible to do so? Because if you look across the globe, medical research across the board is significantly less, or less without the understanding that they can charge whatever they want in the US for new breakthroughs. So if we move to a more socialized program, how do we ensure medical innovation will continue? How do we get other countries to accept their fair share? Or do we just accept that medical innovation going forward won't be what it is today?Buddha Bear said:8 years abroad. Lived in UK, Thailand, Uganda and Tanzania. In addition to those countries, I've used hospital services in South Africa, Australia and Singapore.contrario said:What is your experience? You put that qualifier in there, so I think it's important to define what your experience is.Buddha Bear said:
Our medical system is broken. The most broken of any developed country in my experience. Due to a corrupt congress that has split this country, it won't be fixed anytime soon. Not without terms limits of say...12 years. I agree with the cuts you stated above.
Now with the military....what is incredibly strong? What's the limit? Maybe twice the size as our nearest competing country? Maybe the strength of 10 countries? Because right now it's the strength of 20. That's absurdly over bloated. With a $200 billion dollar cut to the military budget, still no country on earth would be able to invade the US on our soil. And that to me is the whole point of military protection. Let the other countries pick up the slack in protecting themselves, or pay us to do so.
I could write a novel about the experience. Some worse in that list and some better, with UK, Singapore, Australia and South Africa all pretty good. All significantly cheaper. And access in all of those countries is easier. The US has good to great quality healthcare in most places. But access and price are pitiful, and it hasn't been a sustainable model in my 20 years of adulthood that I've experienced. I prefer a different system.
And you can't give vague platitudes, I need specifics and empirical data if you are going to propose fundamentally changing our medical system. I'm on board with making changes to the medical system to make it affordable, but I think the two biggest changes is that we need to require other countries to pay their fair share of new medical innovations and we need transparency in pricing for medical care and an incentive to find better prices for care.
Also, America is not the only innovator in the medical field. We may be a leader, but there are plenty of others leading the charge with us. The only facts that matter are
1) Our medical costs are highest in the world, and double that of the 2nd highest.
2) Our life expectancy rate is declining.
3) Our healthcare system does not have the best value in the world. We pay more, and we get less than other developed countries. Much like our tax system.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/09/which-country-has-worlds-best-healthcare-system-this-is-the-nhs
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf