Starving the beast: the U.S. Military

[Barnabas]

Wrong. Look at domestic expenditures. Social security alone (and yes, Obamacare), are far more major drivers of the deficit and debt. Even if you eliminated the military entirely, the deficit would still exist, and the fiscal position of the US would be perilous.

Social security, welfare, Obamacare, all the entitlements are going to have to be cut - that is the fiscal reality. If these are not cut - the US will be in the exact same position as Europe. No military AND massive debt and deficits year after year.

Americans spend more per capita than in Europe. THAT is the problem, not the military. The spending is just too damn high.

Why is healthcare better in Europe if you spend more money per capita?

[kentonio]

You could barely handle the war you wanted to launch against Libya.

Yes, that's what the right wing news keeps telling you. The truth? There might have been a slightly longer lead in time to prepare, but if the US had not been there to support we'd have ramped up to a level we needed to. Why would we keep vast stocks of supplies at instant readiness? It's not like we make a habit of launching offensive campaigns. It's also not like in the modern age we're not going to notice any potential foe preparing an invasion.

[Felch]

We need to take all that sweet materiel the military is hoarding, and auction it off to the American people. Boom, big revenue for the government, plus tons of automatic weapons, tanks, and howitzers in private hands. That'll squash our deficit and piss off the Eurocoms.

The idea of America being invaded is ****ing ridiculous. Mexico's able bodied men are already cutting our grass, Canada wants to keep that sweet socialized medicine to itself, and nobody else can project power all the way over to us.

[regexcellent]

Why is healthcare better in Europe if you spend more money per capita?

It's not.

[DaShi]

[Jon Miller]

[MrFun]

It's not.

[Hauldren Collider]

He's correct....

Cue one of you idiots pointing out life expectancy data, as if that's a meaningful comparison of the efficacy of healthcare systems...

[Al B. Sure!]

It would help our healthcare if Americans weren't fat ****s... which brings us back to the military...

I'm giving one vote for Spartan America

[giblets]

He's correct....

Cue one of you idiots pointing out life expectancy data, as if that's a meaningful comparison of the efficacy of healthcare systems...

Cue a bald assertion by Hauldren Collider with no supporting evidence...

[giblets]

It would help our healthcare if Americans weren't fat ****s... which brings us back to the military...

I'm giving one vote for Spartan America

How about estimating how much you think the difference in obesity accounts for this?
If you accept the estimate from this source that obesity takes ~3 years off of someone's life expectancy, and if an extra 20% of Americans are obese, does that work out to ~.6 years?
So let's see where America would rank with that extra .6 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

We'd be up there with Costa Rica and still behind Canada, or France, or the UK

[MrFun]

He's correct....

Cue one of you idiots pointing out life expectancy data, as if that's a meaningful comparison of the efficacy of healthcare systems...

You're right. If our healthcare system was as "good" as, say, that of Uganda, our life expectancy would still be as long as it is now.

[DinoDoc]

Yes, that's what the right wing news keeps telling you.

It's what the facts of the situation told me. You were running out of bombs to prosecute a campaign you chose to take on.

Why would we keep vast stocks of supplies at instant readiness?

To invade an African country for no real reason?

Why is healthcare better in Europe if you spend more money per capita?

Third party payment as it is structured in the US gives no real incentive to control costs. The best solution for the US would either be to go to a real single payer program or as would be my choice to institute the reforms talked up by Milton Friedman here.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're right. If our healthcare system was as "good" as, say, that of Uganda, our life expectancy would still be as long as it is now.

You're a complete ****ing moron. Obviously healthcare has some impact on life expectancy, but it is far far FAR from the only factor. Furthermore, the headline life expectancy number gives you no information on the life expectancy of demographic subgroups, which can distort the final result.

The life expectancy at birth groups includes Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Chicago gang members. Considering demographic groups in BOTH Europe and the US exhibit radically different data on things like poverty, life expectancy, suicide rate, etc., it is statistically nonsense to compare the headline numbers. If you can draw comparisons between the demographic subgroups, you can compare those, but otherwise, trying to decide whose healthcare system is "better" is a very tricky process. It's also not a simple "better or worse". The US has far better cancer survival rate, for example. It's possible there's a European country with better success on some other disease. You are being an idiot if you just say "they have higher life expectancy and pay less, their healthcare is better, QED".

[kentonio]

America has great healthcare for rich people and ****ing terrible healthcare for a ton of poor people. What's so complicated about that?