The US Health Care System Not as Heartless as Some Would Have You Believe

**Beirut** · 05-11-2005, 23:32

Well now ya really got me confused.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-12-2005, 00:00

Then take it out of the hands of the government...

The same day you privatize the US Army.

Is your army or any other countries army privatized ? Its a part of the government. When you join the armed forcs you are a representitive of that government and besides that raising and maintaing an army is one of the few powers granted the federal government by our constitution. Theres nothing in it about healthcare.

Then privatize the Army and Air Force and Navy. Why on Earth should the government run, what is considered by many Amricans, to be the most crucial of all efforts?

Read above. Besides who would a private army be responsible to? And do we want to make war a profitable enterprise?

Those who seek to make maximum profit with minimum effort.

Oh you mean the people who want free healthcare.

Ive experienced free healthcare and it sucks. Ask anyone who was in the service. Its nice that its free but its far from what you get in civilian life.

**bmolsson** · 05-12-2005, 05:43

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Is your army or any other countries army privatized ? Its a part of the government. When you join the armed forcs you are a representitive of that government and besides that raising and maintaing an army is one of the few powers granted the federal government by our constitution.

BS, Gawain. The army is given a task, just like health care and when it's done, it's over. The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services........

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-12-2005, 05:50

BS, Gawain. The army is given a task, just like health care and when it's done, it's over.

You cant be that clueless. So we should disband the army as soon as were done in Iraq then. Again our constitution says the federal government can raise and maintain our armed forces. Again who would a private army answer to? What if they go on strike? What if they want more power? Talk about comparing apples and oranges.

The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services........

Well this tops the cake. If there ever was a place where purchasing power meant anything its in our courts. Your rich you walk your poor you get put away. Its a matter of how good a lawyer you can afford. I believe you would pay him for services rendered.

**bmolsson** · 05-12-2005, 06:29

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You cant be that clueless. So we should disband the army as soon as were done in Iraq then. Again our constitution says the federal government can raise and maintain our armed forces. Again who would a private army answer to? What if they go on strike? What if they want more power? Talk about comparing apples and oranges.

In US everyone have the right to carry a gun, so I can't really see any political risk there. I haven't talked about the constitution at all. I guess that at the time the constitution was written, there was no good tender software to be used for purchase of military forces.
There are no difference between a private held force contractor and a little divison commander. Both can lose their mind.
Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot. Just make sure that the teamsters don't negotiate that part away.......

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well this tops the cake. If there ever was a place where purchasing power meant anything its in our courts. Your rich you walk your poor you get put away. Its a matter of how good a lawyer you can afford. I believe you would pay him for services rendered.

If that is so, change it. Vote .....

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-12-2005, 06:42

In US everyone have the right to carry a gun, so I can't really see any political risk there. I haven't talked about the constitution at all. I guess that at the time the constitution was written, there was no good tender software to be used for purchase of military forces.

Are they selling opium over there again? What the hell are you talking about.? Does everyone have the right to an tank or a jet fighter and be trained in their use? What is tender software?

There are no difference between a private held force contractor and a little divison commander. Both can lose their mind.

What if hes the one in charge of the whole force? Again you dont seem to able to see reality here. In other words your still clueless.

Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot.

No they dont. What if the guy in charge of this private army decides to take over?

If that is so, change it. Vote ..

For what ? Universal legal representation. Now theres a social program I could go along with. Why should the rich get better legal representation than the poor? Everyone should have to use legal aid. That will go a long way in reducing the number of lawyers and law suits we have. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than universal healthcare.

**bmolsson** · 05-12-2005, 07:10

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Are they selling opium over there again? What the hell are you talking about.? Does everyone have the right to an tank or a jet fighter and be trained in their use? What is tender software?

Actually not so much these days. Other drugs are available though.
I am talking about privatization of military forces.
For the US, I don't know. I guess the second amendment include tanks.
A tender software is a tool used to achieve the best tender process for a large purchase project. Very common among modern governments.

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What if hes the one in charge of the whole force? Again you dont seem to able to see reality here. In other words your still clueless.

If so, I would guess he could invade a country if he felt for it. Not that it hasn't happened before....
I think that I am more able to see reality than many. If the main goal for a military force is to achieve a contracted target and then leave, there would be less time spent on political agendas and bullshit on what is right and wrong. Isn't that really what this is all about ?

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No they dont. What if the guy in charge of this private army decides to take over?

Who said that you hire all your army from one guy or company ? You don't seem to know much about PPI schemes.

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

For what ? Universal legal representation. Now theres a social program I could go along with. Why should the rich get better legal representation than the poor? Everyone should have to use legal aid. That will go a long way in reducing the number of lawyers and law suits we have. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than universal healthcare.

To make the change you request.
The rich have earned their money, so as long as it's not against the law, what is the big issue ?
Of course everyone should have the right to legal aid, but they would have to deal with the level available, just like in health care.

**The Black Ship** · 05-13-2005, 03:57

Further more, soldiers don't strike. If so they just get shot. Just make sure that the teamsters don't negotiate that part away.......

Interesting fact, the Finnish officer corp justed threatened to go on strike due to their displeasure at renumeration rates for over-seas deployments. Seems they're peeved that civil contractors get extra compensation for such deployments whilst they get none.

**Papewaio** · 05-13-2005, 04:02

Isn't 1/10 the military in Iraq at the moment mercs er 'private security consultants'?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-13-2005, 05:40

Isn't 1/10 the military in Iraq at the moment mercs er 'private security consultants'?

No. Their just glorified security guards . Their hired by independant companies not the US government and they donnt prosecute the war,.

If the main goal for a military force is to achieve a contracted target and then leave,

I guess clueless doesnt even begin to describe this statement. he job of the military is to pretect the nation , its borders and citizens. You dont recieve a contract to go take hill 336 and if you do you then go home.

Isn't that really what this is all about

NO

Who said that you hire all your army from one guy or company ? You don't seem to know much about PPI schemes.

Yeah we will have a bunch of people raise armies and then pick the best one. Or maybe we should go with the cheapest one. This is sheer lunacy. This is just about the only thing the government does right.

The rich have earned their money, so as long as it's not against the law, what is the big issue ?
Of course everyone should have the right to legal aid, but they would have to deal with the level available, just like in health care.

The big issue is you can buy your way out of jail. Who was it who said

The only thing really needed to be under government control is the courts. Everything else is just a question of purchasing and tendering services.......

Well my point is the courts are no different. Maybe we should have privatised courts.

**bmolsson** · 05-13-2005, 06:17

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I guess clueless doesnt even begin to describe this statement. he job of the military is to pretect the nation , its borders and citizens. You dont recieve a contract to go take hill 336 and if you do you then go home.

Well, for me a soldier is nothing more than another staff member doing something he is paid for. I can't see any higher glory or "for your country" BS have anything to do with armies.
Each soldier signs a contract to follow orders and is given the rules to follow. Then he receives a task to do. He is expected to do this and only this. When his contract is done, he goes home. If he has been good he get a medal.
Same thing with the factory worker, just that he get a gold watch instead......

Protect the nation is also done by police officers, private security guards etc. Guard the border is done by customs as well as immigration.

I don't think I am that clueless at all. Maybe I haven't seen enough movies with John Wayne though......

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-13-2005, 15:46

Each soldier signs a contract to follow orders and is given the rules to follow. Then he receives a task to do. He is expected to do this and only this. When his contract is done, he goes home. If he has been good he get a medal.

Does a factory worker swear an oath of alligance to his company? When you join the armed services you must swear an oath to protect and serve the government of the US. You are a direct representitive of that government just like a congressman or senator. Would you support jailing people who are late for work or miss a day without an excuse? Because this is what can happen on the military. I dont believe you could have similar disciplines in a civilian or private army. Also what task are you assigened to do? As far as when your contracts up you go home Im afraid there are alot of US soldiers whos contracts are up but there still fighting in Iraq.

Protect the nation is also done by police officers, private security guards etc. Guard the border is done by customs as well as immigration.

Private security guards? These others you speak of are not private firms but like the armed forces representitives of the US government and sworn to uphold our laws.

I don't think I am that clueless at all.

I would hope not.

Doesnt change the fact that you are though

**Nelson** · 05-13-2005, 19:16

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, for me a soldier is nothing more than another staff member doing something he is paid for. I can't see any higher glory or "for your country" BS have anything to do with armies.

I'm damn glad very few soldiers, firemen and policemen feel that way.

Most of the rest of us don’t either.