Edwynn -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. health care lacking (11/19/2010 11:03:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Interesting choice you propose there. In human terms it looks like: (a) Continue the face the "challenges" (at an annual cost of tens of thousands of deaths, both US and non-US citizens) AND continue to let additional tens of thousands of your own people die because of inadequate health care; or (b) Let the rest of the world take care of itself and the US can take care of its own citizens. Whilst I am far from convinced these are the only options available, I am pretty sure I can guess which option the rest of the world would prefer. Option (b) would ensure tens of thousands of people, both inside and outside the USA, would live not die. Sounds like win-win to me. You are naive if you think the rest of the world would like the US not to fight their battles for them...As an example today... NATO has decided they want a missile defense shield...OK who do you think will pay for the lions share of the cost... provide the expertice...materials...and man the facilities? Not using option B my friend Hey I've an idea... lets tax NATO for the defense shield and we can use the money to pay for health care Butch Who is being naïve here? Probably me as much as anyone else, but ... You nor I would be posting here, nor would we be taking advantage of of a number of actually useful and productive things were it not for international trade. The complexity of both material goods and the services to accomplish distribution of such requires specialization beyond what any one country could obtain or render on its own. Rather than say "naïve" we might more properly say that it is impossible for any one person to see the entire picture all by him/herself. Do you think that NATO is some politically distant observer on world affairs that takes upon itself the task of actively defending the rights of nations to self determination, or might it be the case that that all the think tanks that actually inform NATO policy are extensions of the armaments manufacturers? Good on you if you answered "B". Indeed we should tax NATO, and quite heavily, being that as the only way to get some slight refund on all the tax dollars sent to the arms industry in the first place. The situation is not that NATO is requesting some "service" that only the US has the capacity to render, but that the armaments manufactures in the UK, France, US, Germany, Russia, China, et. al. are happy to have this facade in place to keep the ball rolling. Just to throw another wrench into the paradigm here, a UK-owned company is the largest defense contractor for the US. quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Whilst I am far from convinced these are the only options available, I am pretty sure I can guess which option the rest of the world would prefer. Option (b) would ensure tens of thousands of people, both inside and outside the USA, would live not die. Sounds like win-win to me. Excellent observation, if you can take it beyond the current situation and understand the historical context. Any reading of history is in fact a reading of "super powers behaving badly," and the UK would be an excellent source of study in that venture.
|
|
|
|