Sentenced to death on the NHS

Grateful Heart said:

And yet your original post still stands for all to see...



What you and other socialized medicine advocates do is rather like car salesmen who advertise to sell vehicles 'interest free.' It's a gimmick that sounds great on its face. Of course when we read the fine print we realize that we'll be paying more under the 'interest free' program. Similarly, there's no such thing as 'no cost' health care. Yet you'll continue to spread that line proudly, then cover yourself with your 'fine print' explanations later.

:doh

Click to expand...

Dude....what the ****? She clarified her position and corrected herself. Let it go.

Wessexman said:

I agree with you about the general benefits of the NHS even if I think it is not quite so miraculous and could do with a few changes. But it is always worth pointing out it is certainly not at no cost, although maybe that was simply vague wording and you meant at point of access.

Click to expand...

I worded that post wrong and corrected myself on the post after that. Please read it. I know the NHS isnt perfect, but its good enough for your average Briton :shrug:

Grateful Heart said:

And yet your original post still stands for all to see...

Click to expand...

Indeed. So does this post which corrects the misunderstanding:

kaya'08 said:

Was that post for me? I didnt say there was no costs. We pay for the healthcare we recieve through tax. But that comes back to us when we are in need of medical attention. The taxes are reasonable and ensure the best quality health care, and when we need it, we recieve the sufficient attention we need, without having to worry about soaring debts compromising our lifestyle as a result. Healthcare is a service we have the right to. In the long run it works out better to pay an extra tax than pay huge bills when in need of medical attention.

And in your posting of this article, it is evident you have no clue about our NHS system, hence your attempt at a comparison between the British national health care and the American to-be national healthcare, as they are totally different systems (legistlated and strucutured totally differently).

Click to expand...

What you and other socialized medicine advocates do is rather like car salesmen who advertise to sell vehicles 'interest free.' It's a gimmick that sounds great on its face. Of course when we read the fine print we realize that we'll be paying more under the 'interest free' program.

Click to expand...

Pathetic squabble. Simply speaking, you accuse us of saying its free and so on so fourth while this is far from the truth; its a fact that the costs will be covered by tax money, at the benefit of you recieving as much healthcare as required without all the bills and the interest, with more job opportunities for the country and healthcare for all classes of the nation. You said earlier on that its a common misconception that people believe this service to be "free" and we trick people into thinking that. Please provide proof of this assertion, also research more about the huge positive impact of socialized medicine here in the UK, and TRY and find something other than the error i made in the previous post about their being no costs where i corrected myself afterwards as seen above.

If you cannot see the fact that a reasonable addition of taxes to be payed inorder to access a healthcare system whereby you may recieve sufficient healthcare at the benefit of there being no huge hospital bills and interest to pay back, as well as, through Obama's nationalization of the healthcare system open the doors to healthcare for all the classes of the country to enjoy, as they rightfully should, then im sorry you cannot see that. But the one thing that gets to me is Americans finding everything and anything they can to use against our own system as a terror tactic for Obama's plans. You know, the only people unsatisfied with the NHS seems to be those who have never lived in the UK. :lol:

Similarly, there's no such thing as 'no cost' health care. Yet you'll continue to spread that line proudly, then cover yourself with your 'fine print' explanations later.

:doh

Click to expand...

Havent i already made you aware of this error? Is this all you got? Really? :lol:

Hatuey said:

Dude....what the ****? She clarified her position and corrected herself. Let it go.

Click to expand...

Thankyou. And read my sig

creation said:

Unfortunately this thread was started on an idiotic premise and therefore it does no one any good to continue to debate over it.

Click to expand...

Really?:roll:

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.


As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

Realist1 said:

Really?:roll:

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.


As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

Click to expand...

The problem is if you keep searching for awful things said about the NHS, you will certainly be able to find them because we are constantly vigilant about finding problems, exposing them and getting them sorted.

However, I had heard nothing about this 'growing discontent' till I found this post so I decided to have a further look.

It appears that what you are making a fuss about is a letter sent to the Telegraph. By some Drs yes, but by a large section of Drs in this country, it would appear not.

Creation therefore I think makes a valid point.

‘As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.’

However, a spokeswoman for Marie Curie said: ‘The letter talks about death being an inexact science and that is absolutely right. The Liverpool Care Pathway is not about ticking boxes, all decisions are made by a multi-disciplinary team so they’re constantly reviewed and any decisions are made by a range of experts in palliative care.’

Click to expand...

Medics warn of 'national discontent' over care of terminally ill patients | News | Nursing Times

If there is genuinely a problem, it will be sorted but I would not make such a fuss over one letter sent to a Tabloid newspaper.

Richard Nixon said:

And yet we pay less than the American private system for better healthcare. Lord Mighty it's a miracle!

Click to expand...

The NTIMES had an article a bit ago about the US paying more than other countries. One of the authors conclusions was we pay more due to the fact that most medical innovations are from the US. We spend more on R&D.

The article also pointed out that most nobel prize winners are from, or reside in, the US.

One of the conclusions he drew was that Americans spend more on health care, in part, due to the much larger amount we spend on medical R&D and for the "best" medical professionals.

Anyway, once a lot of the profit motivation is removed from the medical industry, at least if you beleive that article, we will see less medical innovation, which will greatly hurt the world over time (due to loss of medical innovations going forward).

BTW, the "Better healthcare" comment is not as cut and dry as you might like to believe.

Richard Nixon said:

And yet we pay less than the American private system for better healthcare. Lord Mighty it's a miracle!

Click to expand...

It's funny how this argument of expenditure gets turned around in the health care debate. Supporters of big government generally measure the effectiveness of their programs by how much is spent. Want to improve education? Increase budgets and devote more resources! Spend more per child! Want to decrease poverty? Increase budgets and devote more resources! Spend more on welfare and programs for the poor!

It turns out that in the U.S., we spend more per citizen on health care, which by every big government logic should be a great statistic... but suddenly that's a bad thing.

If spending less per patient is 'good', tell me how much you'd like to cut your NHS budget next year please. 10%? 20%. How about cutting it by half!?!

Funny how twisted logic works.

:doh

What I find amusing in this thread - and other similar threads - is people that live with, use and pay for UHC in other countries like their system very well, thank you very much.

Meanwhile people here in the U.S., who have the most expensive, mix-mash, disjointed, mosh pit, millions of uninsured health care system are saying...'Nuh-uh', you don't know what you're talking about...:wow:

buck said:

The NTIMES had an article a bit ago about the US paying more than other countries. One of the authors conclusions was we pay more due to the fact that most medical innovations are from the US. We spend more on R&D.

The article also pointed out that most nobel prize winners are from, or reside in, the US.

One of the conclusions he drew was that Americans spend more on health care, in part, due to the much larger amount we spend on medical R&D and for the "best" medical professionals.

Anyway, once a lot of the profit motivation is removed from the medical industry, at least if you beleive that article, we will see less medical innovation, which will greatly hurt the world over time (due to loss of medical innovations going forward).

BTW, the "Better healthcare" comment is not as cut and dry as you might like to believe.

Click to expand...

Which is a load of crock. Of the 10 biggest companies in the world in terms of revenue in 2006/7 (latest numbers I could find), 7 are European. Of those you can clearly see (with the exception of Bayer) that the US companies are not "mega spending" on R&D when compared to the non US companies. While the biggest spender in 2006 was an American company the nr. 2, a European was not far behind and the rest of the top 5 was dominated by European companies.

Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes it is wikipedia, however finding newer info is pretty damn hard since the industry protects it self behind pay sites and members only sites.

On top of that, big US pharma spent much more on advertising than on R&D

PLoS Medicine: The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States

In fact almost double. So if anything, the thing that is driving up US prices is advertising..

So basically it is just another excuse for an overpriced healthcare industry that is bleeding the US dry for every cent it can before the politicians figure out that they are getting taken from behind over and over again.

BWG said:

What I find amusing in this thread - and other similar threads - is people that live with, use and pay for UHC in other countries like their system very well, thank you very much.

Meanwhile people here in the U.S., who have the most expensive, mix-mash, disjointed, mosh pit, millions of uninsured health care system are saying...'Nuh-uh', you don't know what you're talking about...:wow:

Click to expand...

You could just as easily argue that it's amusing for foreigners to tell Americans who like their own system (thank you very much) that they don't know what they're talking about.

You could argue that it's amusing for people who benefit from the drugs, treatments, and medical advances exported each year by the U.S. (as a direct result of our private health care system) to tell Americans that we need to change our system.

You could argue that it's amusing for people who wait in line for health care, the way we wait in at the DMV, to tell us that we need to change our system.

You could make all those arguments.

As a child I had the opportunity to experience government-provided health care as a military brat. "No cost" treatment doled out by Uncle Sam. It sucked. Thank you very much.

:2wave:

PeteEU said:

Which is a load of crock. Of the 10 biggest companies in the world in terms of revenue in 2006/7 (latest numbers I could find), 7 are European. Of those you can clearly see (with the exception of Bayer) that the US companies are not "mega spending" on R&D when compared to the non US companies. While the biggest spender in 2006 was an American company the nr. 2, a European was not far behind and the rest of the top 5 was dominated by European companies.

Pharmaceutical industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes it is wikipedia, however finding newer info is pretty damn hard since the industry protects it self behind pay sites and members only sites.

On top of that, big US pharma spent much more on advertising than on R&D

PLoS Medicine: The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States

In fact almost double. So if anything, the thing that is driving up US prices is advertising..

So basically it is just another excuse for an overpriced healthcare industry that is bleeding the US dry for every cent it can before the politicians figure out that they are getting taken from behind over and over again.

Click to expand...

Got lucky and found the article I was orignally referencing:

Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation - New York Times

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Grateful Heart said:

You could just as easily argue that it's amusing for foreigners to tell Americans who like their own system (thank you very much) that they don't know what they're talking about.

You could argue that it's amusing for people who benefit from the drugs, treatments, and medical advances exported each year by the U.S. (as a direct result of our private health care system) to tell Americans that we need to change our system.

You could argue that it's amusing for people who wait in line for health care, the way we wait in at the DMV, to tell us that we need to change our system.

You could make all those arguments.

As a child I had the opportunity to experience government-provided health care as a military brat. "No cost" treatment doled out by Uncle Sam. It sucked. Thank you very much.

:2wave:

Click to expand...

I personally believe it's due to the fact that Europeans just don't know any better. They've had their system for ever, and have grown accostomed to it.

Of course, they could make the same argument of our health care system, but I think there is enough factual data to show which system has the better results (with the big exception of number of uninsured).

buck said:

I personally believe it's just due to teh idea that Europeans just don't know anybetter.

Of course, tehy could make the same argument of our health care system, but I think there is enough factual data to show which system has the better results (with the exception of number of uninsured).

Click to expand...

If we look at real survey data (as opposed to partisan message board opinions), we'll find that Americans, Canadian, and the British all rate the quality of their health care nearly the same.

In fact, according to Gallop, more Britains are somewhat dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the quality of their care than are Americans. The British do rate higher on the affordability of their care. So we see a trade-off between quality and cost.

Gallop Health Care Survey

:2wave:

Grateful Heart said:

If we look at real survey data (as opposed to partisan message board opinions), we'll find that Americans, Canadian, and the British all rate the quality of their health care nearly the same.

In fact, according to Gallop, more Britains are somewhat dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the quality of their care than are Americans. The British do rate higher on the affordability of their care. So we see a trade-off between quality and cost.

Gallop Health Care Survey

:2wave:

Click to expand...

That survey was from Jan 2003, I tried to find one from this year, but I couldn't find one. I did find Jan 2006, which shows US satisfaction deteriorating. I'd suspect it has deteriorated further still since then. We personally have become profoundly more dissatisfied in the last three years, having had a 25% premium increase this year, 19% last year, and a 33% increase the year before ...

Over the three years Gallup has asked this question in all three countries, the ratings in Canada have remained essentially unchanged, while the ratings have become slightly more positive in Britain and somewhat more negative in the United States.

Americans, Canadians, Britons Similarly Rate Their Healthcare Systems

Click to expand...

buck said:

The NTIMES had an article a bit ago about the US paying more than other countries. One of the authors conclusions was we pay more due to the fact that most medical innovations are from the US. We spend more on R&D.

The article also pointed out that most nobel prize winners are from, or reside in, the US.

One of the conclusions he drew was that Americans spend more on health care, in part, due to the much larger amount we spend on medical R&D and for the "best" medical professionals.

Anyway, once a lot of the profit motivation is removed from the medical industry, at least if you beleive that article, we will see less medical innovation, which will greatly hurt the world over time (due to loss of medical innovations going forward).

BTW, the "Better healthcare" comment is not as cut and dry as you might like to believe.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me where the world's first test tube baby was born? How about cloning (Dolly the sheep) and genetic studies? These are just 2 medical research breakthroughs which come to mind. You can't tell me that Britain doesn't do it's share of medical R&D. Yes, the US spends more on R&D but it doesn't benefit the people of the US, it benefits the drug companies. People in other countries get to use the same drugs but at much lower prices.

Grateful Heart said:

You could just as easily argue that it's amusing for foreigners to tell Americans who like their own system (thank you very much) that they don't know what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

I don't see many, if any, foreigners telling Americans that we need to change our system to their system. Primarily I see them defending their system from attacks from Americans and telling Americans that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to lambasting their system - even though theres no such proposal to go to the Canadian or Great Britain type of system.

Grateful Heart said:

You could argue that it's amusing for people who benefit from the drugs, treatments, and medical advances exported each year by the U.S. (as a direct result of our private health care system) to tell Americans that we need to change our system.

Click to expand...

Big pharma and equipment manufacturers don't charge other countries for their medicines or medical equipment? We have never imported medical advances from other countries? We have that all locked up and other countries are like baby birds in the nest with their beaks skyward awaiting the next morsel from the almighty American medical community? Besides I have heard of no proposals to eliminate the NIH, where much of our medical research originates.

Grateful Heart said:

You could argue that it's amusing for people who wait in line for health care, the way we wait in at the DMV, to tell us that we need to change our system.

Click to expand...

Wait in line?...LOL...You make it sound as though to see a physician that one must go physically stand in a line similar to those lining up for the latest hot video game going on sale at midnight at Best Buy.

You ever call and make a routine doctor's appointment? Guess what? You're now on a waiting list.

Grateful Heart said:

You could make all those arguments.

Click to expand...

LOL...I wasn't arguing. I was making an observation.

Grateful Heart said:

As a child I had the opportunity to experience government-provided health care as a military brat. "No cost" treatment doled out by Uncle Sam. It sucked. Thank you very much.

Click to expand...

You seem to have fared well and the earth didn't shift from it's axis.

Keep the government out of my Medicare...LOL

Happy Days said:

Can you tell me where the world's first test tube baby was born? How about cloning (Dolly the sheep) and genetic studies? These are just 2 medical research breakthroughs which come to mind. You can't tell me that Britain doesn't do it's share of medical R&D. Yes, the US spends more on R&D but it doesn't benefit the people of the US, it benefits the drug companies. People in other countries get to use the same drugs but at much lower prices.

Click to expand...

I think you might be confused. No one ever claimed that medical advancements didn't occur elsewhere. Only that most (by quite a lot) of medical advancements occur in the US, and the US spends a lot more then other countries on medical R&D (hence the reason they innovate more and at least one additional reason our care is more expensive).

Yeah... The medical advancements that the US came up with didn't benefit the people of the US.... Really, it's come down to such a ridiculous statement?

I can only hope that most clear thinking people will just point at you and quietly snikcer behind their hand.

Grateful Heart said:

If we look at real survey data (as opposed to partisan message board opinions), we'll find that Americans, Canadian, and the British all rate the quality of their health care nearly the same.

In fact, according to Gallop, more Britains are somewhat dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the quality of their care than are Americans. The British do rate higher on the affordability of their care. So we see a trade-off between quality and cost.

Gallop Health Care Survey

:2wave:

Click to expand...

How can you say there is a trade off between quality and cost when there is a very large portion of people in the US who can't afford to go see a doctor? They have no quality of care whatsoever. Your survey probably doesn't even consider those people. At least everyone in the UK and Canada has an opportunity to see a doctor when they get sick or injured.

I saw someone post an article a few weeks ago about Canadians coming to the US for surgery etc. I didn't get a chance to respond, but here's my tuppence's worth on that one - If you have money you can go wherever the heck you want for your surgery. People with money will always have choices that others don't. This ties to your comments because you discuss quality vs cost. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. They lose their jobs and they typically lose their healthcare. That is so wrong.

Do people understand the principle of insurance? You take insurance to spread the risk. If 100 people have paid the insurance but only one person has an accident then that one person is protected from financial ruin. The point is, however, that that accident could have happened to any one of those 100 people. I think the same goes for health insurance. Stop looking at things as every man for himself and start working as a team people. Give everyone the opportunity to buy reasonably priced insurance when they are born that won't be taken away from them if they have to actually use it or if they lose their job.

buck said:

I think you might be confused. No one ever claimed that medical advancements didn't occur elsewhere. Only that most (by quite a lot) of medical advancements occur in the US, and the US spends a lot more then other countries on medical R&D (hence the reason they innovate more and at least one additional reason our care is more expensive).

Yeah... The medical advancements that the US came up with didn't benefit the people of the US.... Really, it's come down to such a ridiculous statement?

I can only hope that most clear thinking people will just point at you and quietly snikcer behind their hand.

Click to expand...

Oh geez, you're one of those idiots who think if you make fun of me for my comments then it makes you look intelligent (snicker behind hand). Medical advancements in the US do not benefit the people of the US if they are one of the people who doesn't have health insurance. Yes they do benefit those who can afford them but not everyone.

Happy Days said:

Oh geez, you're one of those idiots who think if you make fun of me for my comments then it makes you look intelligent (snicker behind hand). Medical advancements in the US do not benefit the people of the US if they are one of the people who doesn't have health insurance. Yes they do benefit those who can afford them but not everyone.

Click to expand...

You just changed your comment entirely. You went from "US advancements don't benefit the people of the US" to "US advanements don't benefit all of the people of the US".

Regardless, federal law requires that a hospital provide emergency medical treatment. So, yes, even the 10 or so percent of people that don't have any health insurance have the opportunity to benefit from US medical advancements.

I find it quite baffling that so many Americans cry on about how costly it would be to have state healthcare. Well I can tell you this, it won't cost a fraction of your excessive military spending. Why are you so happy to spend fortunes on taking lives but so against spending less to save lives? Why do you want the state to train people to kill but not to heal? It's perverse.

Joe Castro said:

I find it quite baffling that so many Americans cry on about how costly it would be to have state healthcare. Well I can tell you this, it won't cost a fraction of your excessive military spending. Why are you so happy to spend fortunes on taking lives but so against spending less to save lives? Why do you want the state to train people to kill but not to heal? It's perverse.

Click to expand...

Some communist philosophy? :2razz:

No seriously. The USA is living in an extremely dangerous world, and nations counter to the interests of Democracy and Human rights are rising in power and the US's own influence is beginning to wobble. A strong military is a strong western world. I think cuts in military spending is a nah ah.

kaya'08 said:

Some communist philosophy? :2razz:

No seriously. The USA is living in an extremely dangerous world, and nations counter to the interests of Democracy and Human rights are rising in power and the US's own influence is beginning to wobble. A strong military is a strong western world. I think cuts in military spending is a nah ah.

Click to expand...

it is precisely their obscurantist militarism which creates a dangerous world. Cutting that out would make the world safer, not more dangerous. It is their militarism which has murdered hundreds of thousands Iraqi's, Afghans and many other peoples before them. This is what creates a swamp of hatred.

Also I do not want a 'strong western world'. I want strong peoples, of all the world.

If America is serious about having a safer world then it should be slashing its unnecessary military and re-allocating to state health services. if they can build the mightiest killing machine in the world they can build the mightiest life saving machine in the world. Imagine if instead of sending thousands out into the world to kill, they sent out thousands to care for people, if Cuba can do it then so can the US. People in the middle east and elsewhere wouldn't want to attack a state which cares for them, but they will want to kill someone who like a coward bombs them from the skies.

kaya'08 said:

Some communist philosophy? :2razz:

No seriously. The USA is living in an extremely dangerous world, and nations counter to the interests of Democracy and Human rights are rising in power and the US's own influence is beginning to wobble. A strong military is a strong western world. I think cuts in military spending is a nah ah.

Click to expand...

You have to remember that as an ardent, unflinching Marxist who's obviously not only swallowed ALL the Kool-Aid, but keeps barrels of Kool-Aid mix on hand, he despises the Western culture which birthed him. Not likely to sway him here.

Joe Castro said:

it is precisely their obscurantist militarism which creates a dangerous world. Cutting that out would make the world safer, not more dangerous. It is their militarism which has murdered hundreds of thousands Iraqi's, Afghans and many other peoples before them. This is what creates a swamp of hatred.

Click to expand...

I can counter your argument and say the American military has saved many lives and has also been the cause of liberation in many opressive parts of the world.

Also I do not want a 'strong western world'. I want strong peoples, of all the world.

Click to expand...

I think for as long as every nation has interests that are counter to others, there will be conflict.

If America is serious about having a safer world then it should be slashing its unnecessary military and re-allocating to state health services.

Click to expand...

Would that make the world a safer place, or a world with a weakened America?

Imagine if instead of sending thousands out into the world to kill, they sent out thousands to care for people, if Cuba can do it then so can the US.

Click to expand...

Thats a bit extreme and ignorant to the reality of whats happened. And lets not use Cuba as an example, of all countries...seriously.

People in the middle east and elsewhere wouldn't want to attack a state which cares for them, but they will want to kill someone who like a coward bombs them from the skies.

Click to expand...

I could say the same for Americans. They dont want to attack a state which cares for them...9/11 just shows Americans how much Afghanistan and the ME really cared.

Harshaw said:

You have to remember that as an ardent, unflinching Marxist who's obviously not only swallowed ALL the Kool-Aid, but keeps barrels of Kool-Aid mix on hand, he despises the Western culture which birthed him. Not likely to sway him here.

Click to expand...

Im not trying to sway him at all. Im just telling him why a weakened American military is not what Americans want, nor the Western World, regardless of his own beliefs. Thats why his own belief the Americans should cut military spending will not sway a Capitalist either.