The Glade 4.0

If we did not have such a powerful navy, there would be far greater temptation for other countries that ARE hostile to build a big one. Right now, there's little incentive to try to catch up with us because we're so far ahead. This is especially true for Alaska and Hawaii, not to mention Guam and Puerto Rico.

Then of course, there are strategic nuclear weapons.

It is not just about defending the CONUS. Sure, destroying the U.S. would be bad economically, but threatening to wipe out a city or two if we don't do X,Y, or Z wouldn't. Then of course there is the fact that our economy is simply dependant on trade, materials, and energy from around the world. If we cannot protect those lines of trade, other countries can dictate to us in a way they can't now.

Why do you think China is focusing on expanding its navy? It's because China has been modernizing itself considerably and has far more of an appetite for energy and other supplies than it used to, and it sees the need to protect access to it. Similarly, it might be to China's advantage to use that navy to affect who else has access to such things.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sometimes I think it's been too long since America has had foreign troops in it, or long range weapons pointed at its soil (terrorists in an airplane don't count apparently). We need another Cuban missile crisis to show the current generation that evil exists.

(full disclosure: yeah that was way before my time too, but as a student of history I understand how something like that could happen again and just as quickly)

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Aww DE resorting to ad hominem attacks against a poster's genitalia.

Pathetic as always.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there can be no meaningful debate on health care until the center-left gives up its delusion that government-run health care will be superior in quality to private health care, and the center-right gives up its delusion that somehow through the magic of charity and the free market everyone including the poor will receive adequate health care under a private system.

I'm not sure you've ever said that before.

_________________

I think you need to seriously do some research on what healthcare is really like in these places and not just the pro-government side that ignores that there are the problems. Like long waiting lists to get needed care or healthcare by committee or one's care being determined by what is the cheapest and not what the patient needs. The myth of the perfect HC system right across the pond that we aren't copying drive a lot of our pro-government controlled HC followers.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I'm not debating in this thread after being personally attacked by two people.

At the same time, there are many illnesses that cannot be reasonably managed under a private health care system, even for people who actually have money. Even if you're fine with letting the poor go without, private health care would kick even middle class individuals with certain conditions to the curb. I know a couple that have a daughter that, due to a congenital defect, has completely nonfunctional B cells. She needs recombinant immunoglobulin injections every 4-5 weeks in order to maintain a functioning immune system. These injections cost $11,000-$14,000 each.

Even under our current "socialist" health care model, her future is not too bright. EMTALA does not cover these injections. Without them, she would progressively get sicker and sicker until expiring just like an AIDS patient. Her parents are the biggest grade nazis ever because her whole future literally depends on it. She needs to land a job with a group plan that provides full health care coverage (and is forbidden to exclude her because of this condition) by age 25 when her parents' coverage runs out. If she does not, she basically can never be gainfully employed in her life as she would then need to remain on Medicaid in order to continue receiving her lifesaving therapy. If Medicaid gets cut or axed, which is likely, she needs that job to not die. Obamacare would also save her if it survives until 2014, which is when the ban on rejecting people due to preexisting conditions comes into effect, but that's not guaranteed or even likely either.

How would a private health care system handle such conditions? If we presume that the requirement forcing employer health plans to accept these people is dropped, how would she ever get health care? No sane insurer would ever accept her. She's had the condition from birth, so there is no way she could have purchased insurance beforehand to cover it. And even if the free market cuts the cost of that treatment in half, it's still going to be completely impossible for the vast majority of people to ever afford. Free/charity clinics are certainly not going to stock this kind of advanced treatment. Do you expect people with these kinds of problems to just step aside and die? It's either that or take someone else's money to pay for it, there's no real way around this.

The first question I have for you is, why are the injections $11,000+, and why can you see no way for them to drop in cost more than half? That's just focusing on the injections, you understand, and does not take into account any advances that may obviate the need for the injections.

_________________

I love how you guys always assume taxes are so extreme in those countries who have universal healthcare. After talking to a few American mates, I could potentially be paying the same amount, if not even less.

So lets look at the facts and figures behind taxes paid vs health care gained.

In Australia we have tax brackets…

0-$6000 Nil
$6001-$35,000 15% for each $1 over $6000
$35,001-$80,000 $4350 plus 30% for each $1 over $35,000
$80,001-$180,000 $17,850 plus 38% for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over $55,850 plus 45% for each $1 over $180,000

10% GST (already added to price, no need to tip anyone for service… Ever)
Australian Tax is a little bit confusing, but basically at $50,000 you pay around $10,000 in tax ($4350 + 30% of $15,000)


As does Canada…

0-$10,320 Nil
$10,321-$40,726 15%
$40,727-$81,452 22%
$81,453-$126,264 26%
Over $126,264 29%

~12% state tax

The US is so messy I’m not even gonna try listing states, but I’m sure you all know how much you pay in Tax.

Now according to WHO, the US is No 1 in expenditure per capita… in the world.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_h ... ranks.html

Total Expenditure as % of GDP

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
United States of America 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.1 15.2 15.2
Canada 8.8 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.8 9.8
Australia 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.8 8.8

Of course this is up to 2005 data and you can argue Obama care might have fixed that… but I guess the take home message is we do not necessarily pay more taxes and it's not as 'un-doable' as you guys seem to think.

ohh.. ohh.. I can answer that one *puts hand up*

Because cell injections are a biological that needs to be grown constantly as it has a short life span. There are only so many generations of a cell you can use before you can no longer grow them from the cells of the previous generation due to mutation. (For Microb it's usually 5, but I'm not certain on cells).

As the case, even if you only make 1 dose a day, you have to constantly make new cells, thus highening the overhead.

There maybe advances, however thats a lotto you shouldn't play with your life.

Xeq -do you believe it to be moral to force other people to pay for the upkeep of that girl's life?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is how I understand it: Antibodies are specific for only one type of antigen, and there are millions of variations. In a healthy person, having only a few antibody molecules specific for a certain antigen is OK, because when B cells specific for that antigen are activated, they are stimulated to rapidly divide and spit out lots of that antibody.

If your B cells don't work, however, to have immunity you need to have that high level of immunoglobulin circulating at all times, because you have no B cells to be stimulated and divide to produce it. So to get enough Ig with enough variation to provide immunity you need to pool over 1,000 units of donated plasma and extract the Ig from it (remember, normal people only have small amounts of Ig) to get one dose. That's why it costs so much. First you have the supply/demand issue with getting enough blood, and then you have to pay for all the man-hours of people with advanced degrees in order to extract the Ig from over 1,000 blood donations.

Of course. A society where we would have millions of people die rather than give even one dollar to someone that has not "earned" it is one of the most horrific dystopias I can think of.

Then you support evil. Sure you support evil for the idea of doing good in the end but that is an impossibility. A temptation and nothing more.

You would encourage a society of mutual theft with each segment racing to prove how it "needs" what other segments have. A marathon to the bottom of human existence with morality reversed.

And stop lying to please yourself. I did not ask about giving so you can stop using that word in your reply and you should erase it from your mind. You are talking about force which is at best coercion but more honestly simple theft. Your statement should read "A society where we would have millions of people die rather than steal from everyone is one of the most horrific dystopias I can think of."

Let me ask you - if the medical treatment cost 10k a day would you still rob everyone? 100k a day, 1 million a day...is there a limit - our entire GDP every month?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Of course there needs to be a limit. But that limit doesn't have to be zero.

Then it can't be the moral action if there is a limit. Actions are moral or immoral on their face - they aren't affected by numbers. Theft is wrong or it isn't. Murder is wrong or it isn't.

Theft isn't suddenly made right by what one does with the stolen property and that is precisely what you are arguing. It doesn't become immoral at some amount of theft - its always immoral.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is ridiculous. This is like saying that either taxes are immoral, and governments aren't allowed to collect any tax whatsoever, or that taxes are moral, and therefore any tax rate is also moral.

It isn't like saying it - it is saying it.

You haven't really given a reason why the statement isn't true though.

Is theft a moral or immoral act Xeq?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So a 100% tax rate (income or consumption, doesn't matter) would be moral? Really?

Its amusing that you took the exact opposite of the point.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, it's the only one that makes sense. Because if governments aren't allowed to collect taxes at all, how do you even run society? If nothing else, the people who administer it have to eat too, and someone has to pay for that.

Why do you believe that a government is necessary to run society? Why do you feel a society must be "run" by something?

Still though could you tell me if theft is moral or immoral?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Because in our kind's history there has never been an advanced or successful society without some form of order.