View Full Version : The rest of the world thinks you're silly
Goofball
09-26-2013, 08:19
Good discussion about the American healthcare debate from a "damn foreigner" point of view. It seems that opponents of "Obamacare" (a stupider term I don't think I've ever heard) are driven by a lingering memory of the cold war and the evil influence of communism/socialism. Here's the latest message: public health care does not mean that you will soon be nationalizing oil companies. Get over it and do the right thing for your people. And oh yeah, tell Cruz to shut the hell up; he's an idiot. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-canadians-dont-understand-ted-cruzs-health-care-battle/2013/09/25/ee2d6e6e-25d9-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html
Goofball
09-26-2013, 08:22
Also, I forgot to add: Jesus would have completely endorsed socialized medicine. Discuss.
Strike For The South
09-26-2013, 08:35
Also, I forgot to add: Jesus would have completely endorsed socialized medicine. Discuss.
THERE WE HAVE IT, PROBLEM SOLVED
Having social benefits is great. Bulgaria is an ex-communist country and I've been brought up as a rabid anty-commie by my father. However, I can see some benefits of the socialism philosophy. Free health care, free education and goverment regulation on the prices of the most important commodities - bread, meat, dairy products, eggs, petrol, medicine, meant that the people lived without the fear of what they will eat tomorrow or if they will have 200 euro for their first grader's textbooks this fall.
Nobody is denied an operation or a medical procedure. Not like today where you have to go and buy your own bandages or you're left to rot. There was no fertile land which was not used for agriculture. Sure, the concept of private property in regards to fertile land was basically fiction as one could not opt out of the TKZS large-scale agricultural development format. But this also meant Bulgaria was a major producer of grain, tomatoes, plums, grapes (and wine) and such. We were exporting and we had enough surplus to saturate our own market.
Is this bad? Can't say. It probably is, but the alternatives are not that great either. But having fertile land growing weeds and shrubs now is the worst, considering our warm climate is great for quality fruit and vegetables. But back on the topic of health care - all goverments take in millions (some billions) from their people as taxes. In fact, if you sit down and calculate just how much of what we make we give to the gov. as taxes you'd see that druing the middle ages, revolts have happened and kings have been detrhoned for raising taxes to an extent of a fraction of what we conisder normal taxes today. So why shouldn't some of these huge piles of money go for OUR health and well-being?
Major Robert Dump
09-26-2013, 09:27
Goofball are you even familiar with the law? You do realize it's not socialized medicine, right? You do realize it is socialized insurance, right?
I do realize that typical Washington dc politics is what kept us from getting a proper single payer system, which is ridiculous considering we already have such a system called Medicaid and we could have just expanded it.
Instead we get the Affordable Care Act, which is government mandated and subsidized insurance. This was, of course, supposed to be a way to penalize people -- particularly poor people -- in a manner that makes them get insurance rather than sucking the tit of the system. Except now we are getting talk of exempting poor people from the penalties which defeats the purpose it began with. We also are now seeing big companies get exemptions from having to subsidize employees insurance.... we also just had the employer mandate pushed back a year.... but not the individual mandate.... so people still buy the insurance or get penalized but employers don't have to help them hahahaha
Oh wait, theres more. The law also had dozens of rules for things that had nothing to do with healthcare, like "creating jobs" by outsourcing student loan servicing to outside banks instead of the DOE, which means changing your due date for your loan payment now takes 10 phone calls and 40 emails between you, the DOE and the IRS whereas before it took one single email
So we have a healthcare law that was castrated by Republicans who didn't' want single payer; a law that was filled with crony favors by crony lovers Dems and Repubs to pander to the health insurance industry, an industry that was largely responsible for rising care costs to begin with; we have large companies and government itself exempt from the law; we have the enforcement coming from the IRS, one of the most inefficient, unfair and outdated government agencies in the universe that exists solely to keep itself alive through indecipherable tax code and butcher tactics; oh, and my personal favorite.... if I spend more than 30 total days CONUS (nonconsecutive or otherwise) I have to buy into this retarded healthcare exchange or get penalized by the IRS, even though I reside in a foreign country where I use local insurance or pay out of pocket because I can afford to, and belong to the only nation in the world that makes its citizens pay to revoke citizenship. Oh yeah, and that "undocumented immigrants won't be covered" ruse, which is funny because undocumented immigrants dont file federal tax returns so they don't get penalized for not having but they can reap any benefit of having it
Basically, what started as a good idea got turned retarded by Republicans and Democrats, most of whom never even read the law. Now, it is a cluster, it's teeth have been removed, many will lose their current health coverage, many more will gain no benefit yet pay more, and what started as a way to provide healthcare to the middle class and the poor has quickly turned into nothing more than a tax on the middle class and government subsidation of immoral insurance companies.
That is what the rest of the world should be laughing at, not some false pretense that Americans do not want socialized medicine.
InsaneApache
09-26-2013, 10:05
Also, I forgot to add: Jesus would have completely endorsed socialized medicine. Discuss.
Here in the UK if you go into hospital you've got more than an even chance of meeting him.
National Death Service we call it. Google it and your blood will run cold.
Here in the UK if you go into hospital you've got more than an even chance of meeting him.
National Death Service we call it. Google it and your blood will run cold.
Clearly there is a mismatch between your experiences and my own when you come out with a statement like that.
The downsides with the NHS is the relation with the private sector, usually with private payments taking a priority over the 'free' (some doctors do out of hours or allow private referrals) and private services such as a bed-side basic TV costing £5-per-day and the waiting times for non-essential operations or having to wait a couple of months for a free hip replacement opposed to paying over $50,000 in the United States and still having to wait a while.
A lot of people take the service for granted, but even then, it is something like 4 out of 6 operations are for the over 65. It clearly takes care of the vulnerable old people.
InsaneApache
09-26-2013, 10:33
Clearly there is a mismatch between your experiences and my own when you come out with a statement like that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10128886/Cover-up-over-hospital-scandal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furness_General_Hospital_maternity_ward_deaths_investigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
Oh and to quote the late Frank Carson..."and there's more!"
:sweatdrop:
It clearly takes care of the vulnerable old people.
Aye they do. Three words.
Liverpool Care Pathway.
So you cherry pick the odd examples for confirmation bias opposed to the great many Hospitals and services which are active within the country?
It is like saying women are worse drivers than men, cherry picking news articles which involve women drivers, and ignoring the volumes of data which statistically show that male drivers are more likely to be in an accident and receive driving offences.
InsaneApache
09-26-2013, 11:13
So you totally ignore the fact that hospitals all over the UK have been killing people through negligence and box ticking.
When I had my heart attack 4 years ago the elderly guy in the next bed would have starved to death if the Polish cleaners hadn't taken the time to feed him. Or perhaps the time a year or so later when my eldest lad was in hospital and his bed frame was caked in faeces. Or perhaps the time last year when the consultant was going to stop my dads meds because he was old and quote, "didn't have much time left".
Wonder of the world eh?
So you totally ignore the fact that hospitals all over the UK have been killing people through negligence and box ticking. Did I say there were no such things as bad apples? I was simply remarking that a few incidents out of over 400 hospitals, even then one ward out of a great many (they are ran separately), doesn't mean it is representative for the majority of the NHS.
As for anecdotal evidence, it is different to my own. Outside of superficial things such as lack of activities/overpriced activities and hospital food not being comparable to my home cooking, the treatment was quick, thorough and rather no nonsense and regularly saw cleaners and support staff. Even with my terminally ill brother, he was on 'about a week' and they still continued treatments and he has lived for a further 5 years due to constant and ongoing support. When on the wards, I regularly see support staff assisting patients with feeding, and if they skip (when voluntary) two meals they are automatically placed on a diet and fluid chart to monitor what they have eaten with further steps implemented, if the gentleman was in a situation where he couldn't feed himself, then he would have some one with him to ensure it or placed on supplement bags.
If you are saying about greater transparency and accountability, I have no issues with that. Anything out of line should be reported and dealt with. The incidents you experienced should not have happened and if anything like that starts to happen again, get proof of it, via pictures and other evidence then report it on.
That is what the rest of the world should be laughing at, not some false pretense that Americans do not want socialized medicine.
Wrong. All this happens because Americans have to and want to pander to the companies and their owners because pandering to them makes them benevolent in the sense that they create underpaid minimum wage jobs so Americans can follow the American dream of accumulating debt, not being able to afford food and never working their way up because they could never afford an education.
That is what Americans want and the politicians just implemented that instead of a filthy communist law that would provide fairness in healthcare.
Everybody with a business 101 degree knows that fairness stifles competition, progress and the American Way. Organ donations should really be sold in auctions so that the most productive, richest citizens can buy them and prosper through a competitive process of natural selection as Jesus intended.
InsaneApache
09-26-2013, 11:41
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.
Major Robert Dump
09-26-2013, 11:52
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.
I THINK YOU'RE BIG PROBLEM OVER THERE IS THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE NOT INVOLVED. CLEARLY IF THE UK INVOLVED MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES IT WOULD FIX EVERYTHING
ICantSpellDawg
09-26-2013, 12:11
I'm willing to give it a shot because it passed congress and the executive and then, on the judgement of SCOTUS, was deemed to not be an unlawful abuse of Federal power under their power to tax.
Do I think that it will work? No. Do I think that out will fail so badly that and prices will skyrocket to such levels that people will be clamoring for single payer? Absolutely - but this was the agenda of the left the entire time. I'm so fed up with the current health system that I really don't care'; we're all going to die one day, but the current system makes my living years angst ridden due to the financial calamity that could befall my family at any time. I don't know if people realize that when you are chronically I'll that your "off" days are different. It is so easy to get fired and just have no insurance when you are sick.
HoreTore
09-26-2013, 18:07
I feel like quoting Per Fugelli in response to IA:
"I heard a representative from the Progress Party scream with an offended tone: 'People are dying in our hospitals!' Yes, where else should they die?"
People demand perfection in life, and freedom from pain and hurt. When society can't deliver, they scream and blame everyone.
We as a society needs to face up to the fact that life isn't without pain, and cease the constant demand of a perfect life.
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2013, 18:21
I must honestly say, as both a Swede and Austrian, that I really struggle to understand how (some of) the people of the US do NOT want everyone to be able to get treatment.
What's the problem?
If we can afford healthcare for all our citizens, why not provide it?
And if we can not afford it, where does the money go that would be MORE important?
Really, c'mon. Everyone with somewhat of a heart must understand that being able to treat your childs cancer is a good thing. There are no "but", "if" or "when" about it.
Humanitarian reasons aside, nations as a rule benefit from having a healthy - not to mention alive - population.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2013, 18:37
Some interesting things in this thread.
First: Health care, as with anything else, cannot be free. The cost can be transferred, deferred, shared, or gifted but nothing is ever free. Somewhere, somehow, someone or some group of someones must pay.
Second: Obamacare -- and yes the name is a little silly -- is mostly mandated insurance requirements. As is usual with the US approach to healthcare, it is a booddoggle waiting to happen. Persons who, by current standards of insurance underwriting, have a high morbidity risk will flock to obtain health insurance that will defray the bulk of their expenses.
Since most who are really ill cannot get health coverage at all and are forced to rely on pro bono care under the present system, they would be foolish NOT to avail themselves of Bronze coverage costing them $500 a month with a deductible of 6,350 max. For less than 12.5k per annum, they will receive unlimited health care for their condition. With lifetime costs well into the six-figure range for cancer treatment (1 in 8 women WILL face breast cancer; nearly 1 in 7 men WILL face prostate cancer), persons suffering a debilitating illness would be silly not to procure coverage and minimize their costs.
Ideally, this is offset by large numbers. If large numbers of (usually healthier) younger persons participate, the numbers will work well (that's the classic insurance approach to spreading the risk as a risk management tool). However, for example, the current law has a maximum "not covered" penalty of 2.5% of income. Run the numbers and a 27 year old making 25k in Dallas would (Source: Huffington Post) pay $74 a month for health coverage costing 888/year. The non-payment penalty would be $625/year (even lower for the first two years of the program). Most of the relatively healthy younglings -- the ones least likely to have insurance or give a care anyway -- are going to opt out because it is cheaper.
We will see, I suspect, a prototypical example of adverse selection that completely skews the finances on the whole thing. As many employers will have opted to have employees use the government exchanges rather than absorb the cost of maintaining their own coverage plan, we will rapidly face a situation where the government will have to:
a) increase penalties to draconian levels so as to make health insurance a required personal obligation for all
b) subsidize the continued losses of the program through an increase of the debt and/or an increase in taxation
c) nationalize the health system along the lines of the present Canadian or British health systems
Third, the government will NOT make a quick decision when this new crisis looms because of the usual political shenanigans, thus leaving us with option b), debt increase variant.
Fourth, when the government services bubble bursts, it will make the sub-prime lending bubble look like fart bubble in a bathtub.
Or, I suppose, our politicos might have the courage to act and tackle the problem head on....but I don't plan to hold my breath until that occurs.
I really don't understand it, I have tried reading articles about the problems and what caused them. A basic summary would be very nice as everybody is saying something else.
No time to read it (work), but this looks like a halfway decent primer on the subject (http://hnn.us/article/146911), Frags.
Kadagar_AV
09-26-2013, 20:40
The TLDR would be:
How come USA, claiming to be rich, can NOT afford what other nations, worse off, easily can?
How come USA doesn't WANT a healthy populace?
Seamus>>> That's a whole lot of monetary reasons. I grant that the US has more fatties, but apart from that, you should be able to give USAnians the same healthcare as, say, Austria and Sweden, no?
It's not like breast or prostate cancer is an USAnian invention, now is it?
Papewaio
09-26-2013, 21:48
Also, I forgot to add: Jesus would have completely endorsed socialized medicine. Discuss.
He was a confirmed wino who shared his body around even with complete strangers... :smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2013, 22:00
The TLDR would be:
How come USA, claiming to be rich, can NOT afford what other nations, worse off, easily can?
How come USA doesn't WANT a healthy populace?
Seamus>>> That's a whole lot of monetary reasons. I grant that the US has more fatties, but apart from that, you should be able to give USAnians the same healthcare as, say, Austria and Sweden, no?
It's not like breast or prostate cancer is an USAnian invention, now is it?
The USA has always had more of a laissez-faire attitude toward the issue than most.
In addition, we traditionally have not been willing to accept the rate of taxation necessary to fund such a program as the Austrian two-tier. The total tax burden on yanks with the highest income streams is usually less than 50% including federal income taxes, state and local sales and property taxes/fees, and other minor levies. Our capital gains tax is set at 23.8% for our highest earner brackets (and many of our richest have little or no wage income thus qualifying for the 15 capital gains rate).
Many if not most Austrian wage earners pay 41% or 50% income tax rates, you have a value added tax on goods and services of 16% (10% for subsistence-related stuff), and a 25% capital gains with fewer loopholes.
Historically, USA'ers have been unwilling to accept the tax burden shouldered by the typical Austrian...and national health care cannot be paid for without same. TANSTAAFL.
Our health costs are the highest in the world per capita because: 1) our lifestyle as an aggregate is not the healthiest (wealth has its costs too), 2) we have the most cutting edge medical stuff/treatments/etc. in the world and the R&D costs for that are passed to the consumer indirectly, 3) we are viciously litigious and the malpractice costs for physicians are outrageous, again passed to the consumer, and 4) we have the worst of all worlds in terms of our specific combination of fee-for-service, private insurance, government regulation and coverage.
There is no doubt that the current system is far less cost effective than it should be...I am just doubting that the ACA will actually improve upon things.
I'm sorry, but tell me again why I or any American should give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about how we govern ourselves? Forgetting the fact that the rest of the world is not worth us wiping our butts with, what business is it of theirs?
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2013, 23:47
I'm sorry, but tell me again why I or any American should give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about how we govern ourselves? Forgetting the fact that the rest of the world is not worth us wiping our butts with, what business is it of theirs?
Didn't your momma ever give you that honey v vinegar lesson?
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2013, 23:48
He was a confirmed wino who shared his body around even with complete strangers... :smoking:
Well, he asked to be remembered. Gotta check that block as completed.
I'm sorry, but tell me again why I or any American should give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about how we govern ourselves?
You toppled countless governments during the cold war because you didn't like the way people governed themselves and you do quite a bit of that stuff even today. And now you wonder why people love to give you some of that back during comparatively harmless internet discussions?
Forgetting the fact that the rest of the world is not worth us wiping our butts with, what business is it of theirs?
We all secretly want to migrate to America, and like all migrants we want to make our new home a bit more like the old one in some respects. ~;)
You toppled countless governments during the cold war because you didn't like the way people governed themselves and you do quite a bit of that stuff even today. And now you wonder why people love to give you some of that back during comparatively harmless internet discussions?
We toppled them because we could. Nobody's really giving us anything back because nobody can. You can talk all you like about how bad the American social/political/whatever system might be, but it's worth pointing out that your impact upon that aforementioned system equals to zero. A big, fat zero.
Just sayin'.
Papewaio
09-27-2013, 01:34
I'm sorry, but tell me again why I or any American should give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about how we govern ourselves? Forgetting the fact that the rest of the world is not worth us wiping our butts with, what business is it of theirs?
Because we don't like bulldust where someone states they are #1 but smell like a #2 :smoking:
Papewaio
09-27-2013, 01:40
He was a confirmed wino who shared his body around even with complete strangers... :smoking:
For those not making the connection:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
Because we don't like bulldust where someone states they are #1 but smell like a #2 :smoking:
That's rather subjective, no? What smells like #2 to some, smells like big profits to others.
Papewaio
09-27-2013, 01:41
I'm fine with roses too and they need a bit of manure every now and then too.
Right. Just remember, folks, we're on the same side. It would be best if we remain on the same side. Best for everyone, I might add.
Papewaio
09-27-2013, 01:51
It is funny that a Canadian is bringing this up considering a lot of people mistake them for Americans :)
Crossing the border into Canada is in many ways akin to crossing the ocean. Canadians are very much in line with the Old World values and way of thinking.
We toppled them because we could. Nobody's really giving us anything back because nobody can. You can talk all you like about how bad the American social/political/whatever system might be, but it's worth pointing out that your impact upon that aforementioned system equals to zero. A big, fat zero.
Just sayin'.
That's wrong, I made Vuk cry.
Papewaio
09-27-2013, 03:06
That's wrong, I made Vuk cry.
That's cause you stole his lip gloss.
That's wrong, I made Vuk cry.
Quite a feat indeed. I'll alert the CNN.
Basically, what started as a good idea got turned retarded by Republicans and Democrats, most of whom never even read the law.At what point or in what form was it ever a good idea? Healthcare reform may be a good idea- but at no point did the Affordable Care Act ever resemble anything that could be called "a good idea".
Our healthcare system is a mess- it started circling the drain with The New Deal and has had a steady decline since. But I'm not aware of any country's healthcare system that doesn't have its share of fleas- unsustainable costs, poor service, and so on....
Real reform in the US would start by breaking the perverse relationship between insurance and employment. Once should not depend on the other. When I was last unemployed, I was able to purchase a great HMO plan for my family. Reasonable prices- and it gave us the level of coverage we needed.
In fact, I liked it so much that I wanted to keep it when I did get a job. I asked to turn down my employer's insurance and keep my private plan. Guess what? They told me they were legally unable to off me individual coverage if coverage was offered by my employer. How stupid is that?
HopAlongBunny
09-27-2013, 05:43
Something that might help with spiraling cost would be breaking the linkage between "reverence for life" and "infliction of unlimited suffering"; having myself been brought back from the brink in the past, I realize this is a touchy subject...
"your impact upon that aforementioned system " The impact of Bin Laden on USAnians way of life was quite big...
Ironside
09-27-2013, 09:02
At what point or in what form was it ever a good idea? Healthcare reform may be a good idea- but at no point did the Affordable Care Act ever resemble anything that could be called "a good idea".
Our healthcare system is a mess- it started circling the drain with The New Deal and has had a steady decline since. But I'm not aware of any country's healthcare system that doesn't have its share of fleas- unsustainable costs, poor service, and so on....
True, but the thing is you pay about 50-100% more than anyone else (in ppp GDP/capita) and it's not noted in coverage nor quality (it's mediocre at best on average), except for a top few people.
That's pretty severe.
In addition, we traditionally have not been willing to accept the rate of taxation necessary to fund such a program as the Austrian two-tier. The total tax burden on yanks with the highest income streams is usually less than 50% including federal income taxes, state and local sales and property taxes/fees, and other minor levies. Our capital gains tax is set at 23.8% for our highest earner brackets (and many of our richest have little or no wage income thus qualifying for the 15 capital gains rate).
A tax reform with fewer brackets and more importantly, place the capital gains tax on a fixed value comparable to the average income holder or even higher, rather than having "legal tax dodging for the rich" avenue open. Have it ever been a real movement to fix the capital gains loophole? It's a such obvious one.
Quite a feat indeed. I'll alert the CNN.
"your impact upon that aforementioned system " The impact of Bin Laden on USAnians way of life was quite big...
This.
While my influence may be small or nonexistant because all the Americans here are inflexible and cannot accept my superior arguments, there are quite a few terrorists on whose plans a single American has zero influence and who also make Americans cry. It's funny because their plans to make Americans cry are a direct consequence of the attitude displayed here that America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. Which isn't even true because you wouldn't topple other governments then. In other words, you also have zero influence over whether I tell you here what I think about your healthcare system. In fact your tears and arguments to make me stop are fuel to my arguments because it clearly shows you run out of proper arguments concerning the healthcare debate and resort to "Why can't you just let us have our imperfect system just because!!!".
Guys, I think the anti-healthcare insurgency is in its last throes.
Sir Moody
09-27-2013, 13:00
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favour of subsidised health-care. Just not in the way we do it in the UK. It clearly isn't working as intended.
don't blame the model blame the administration.
The NHS is still one of the best examples of socialized Healthcare in the world but it is currently suffering under major administration problems.
Demand for the NHS has risen inline with the population, which as we all know has swelled massively - the Government (both Labour and the Conservatives) however have failed to manage this and instead of expanding services with more Hospitals and more staff, they have instead either pumped more money into existing Hospitals which ends up spent on middle management or worse CUT the budgets which has led to closed Hospitals and dangerously low levels of the key staff (aka Nurses and Doctors).
What the NHS needs is a culling of the middle management, a recruitment drive for Nurses and Doctors, and new hospitals to be set up in areas where demand is highest... then the service might be able to handle the demand being thrown its way
...there are quite a few terrorists on whose plans a single American has zero influence and who also make Americans cry.
That's what the shoe bomber thought. And many others. We might not be perfect at catching them, but we do a reasonably good job of apprehending them, as well as killing those who managed to slip through.
It's funny because their plans to make Americans cry are a direct consequence of the attitude displayed here that America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks...
Hmm, I thought their plans were a direct consequence of them being religious fanatics. I don't see Dutchies flying a plane into WTC because we have not allowed gay marriage or marijuana on a federal level.
That's what the shoe bomber thought. And many others. We might not be perfect at catching them, but we do a reasonably good job of apprehending them, as well as killing those who managed to slip through.
You mean you send targets ver there so the don't have to cross the ocean anymore. Pretty much everyone seems to think that Afghanistan will be swarmed by the Taliban once we leave so I wouldn't celebrate the victory yet.
Hmm, I thought their plans were a direct consequence of them being religious fanatics. I don't see Dutchies flying a plane into WTC because we have not allowed gay marriage or marijuana on a federal level.
I thought most of them demand that the US have no bases on islamic territory because that's an unwanted influence on their region. Or that was one of the original demands, by now they probably have a lot more. The dutchies apparently like McDonald's and your military bases on dutch territory enough to want to keep them.
You mean you send targets ver there so the don't have to cross the ocean anymore. Pretty much everyone seems to think that Afghanistan will be swarmed by the Taliban once we leave so I wouldn't celebrate the victory yet.
Good. When they hang Karzai I'll be cheering. Then we'll just drone them like we do in Pakistan. Cheap, safe and efficient.
I thought most of them demand that the US have no bases on islamic territory because that's an unwanted influence on their region.
Unwanted by whom exactly? No matter what America does, somebody somewhere will not like it. So screw them, we'll be doing whatever needs to be done.
The dutchies apparently like McDonald's and your military bases on dutch territory enough to want to keep them.
Most countries do. Those military bases keep lots of people employed.
"Then we'll just drone them like we do in Pakistan..." Then they will blow-up one of your embassies with a car full of explosives like in Libya. Cheaper than drones and much more effective. Then you will buy more expensive materiel. Then they will attack tourists trekking in the Mountains or in Hotels... They will find other lateral way to hurt... The North Vietnam won the war because it was willing to have more dead than the USA...
...Then they will blow-up one of your embassies with a car full of explosives like in Libya.
We can deal with that.
Then you will buy more expensive materiel.
Did the Illuminati tell you that?
Then they will attack tourists trekking in the Mountains or in Hotels...
Tourists? In Afghanistan?
The North Vietnam won the war because it was willing to have more dead than the USA...
Is that some kind of expert opinion or something? Do you know much about Vietnam war?
Good. When they hang Karzai I'll be cheering. Then we'll just drone them like we do in Pakistan. Cheap, safe and efficient.
Sure, drones are more beloved than gitmo after all. Not that you seem to care...
Unwanted by whom exactly? No matter what America does, somebody somewhere will not like it. So screw them, we'll be doing whatever needs to be done.
Yeah, just like I will say about your politics what I want, regardless of whether you or Vuk like it. Your complaints are thus still pointless.
Most countries do. Those military bases keep lots of people employed.
Yes, maybe you should open more in Africa to create jobs. ~;)
Sure, drones are more beloved than gitmo after all. Not that you seem to care...
Then drones it is.
Yeah, just like I will say about your politics what I want, regardless of whether you or Vuk like it. Your complaints are thus still pointless.
I do not recall complaining about anything. I only mentioned that nobody gets a say in how America should run herself except Americans themselves. As for Vuk, he can speak for himself.
Yes, maybe you should open more in Africa to create jobs. ~;)
We're not a charity. Jobs are just a positive influence of our bases, not their primary purpose. What we should do is pull them out of Germany. The Cold War is over.
I do not recall complaining about anything. I only mentioned that nobody gets a say in how America should run herself except Americans themselves. As for Vuk, he can speak for himself.
Your first reply on that subject read a bit like you were really hurt about us trying to tell you how to run your country. But noone does that here, all we do is tell you our opinion and offer some alternatives. You should be thankful that we share information about our incredibly advanced systems with you for free.
And if we laugh at you because your system is so backwards it's no different from you laughing about terrorists falling to drone strikes due to the technological difference. We all do it because we can and because it's funny to see others fail. I mean we're all in the same boat if you look at it this way. ~:grouphug:
We're not a charity. Jobs are just a positive influence of our bases, not their primary purpose. What we should do is pull them out of Germany. The Cold War is over.
It's pretty cute when you take a joke seriously. ~:pat:
I don't really mind whether you have bases here. Apparently bases like the military hospital in Rammstein are quite useful for your military and global power projection stuff since most injured soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be brought there for more serious treatment than can be offered in the countries where they got hurt.
Your first reply on that subject read a bit like you were really hurt about us trying to tell you how to run your country. But noone does that here, all we do is tell you our opinion and offer some alternatives. You should be thankful that we share information about our incredibly advanced systems with you for free.
Thank you. Your opinions are very important to us.
And if we laugh at you because your system is so backwards it's no different from you laughing about terrorists falling to drone strikes due to the technological difference. We all do it because we can and because it's funny to see others fail. I mean we're all in the same boat if you look at it this way. ~:grouphug:
I suppose that the difference is that our drones change the world that we live in, and your words do not.
It's pretty cute when you take a joke seriously. ~:pat:
I don't really mind whether you have bases here. Apparently bases like the military hospital in Rammstein are quite useful for your military and global power projection stuff since most injured soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be brought there for more serious treatment than can be offered in the countries where they got hurt.
It's okay, the war in Iraq is over, Afghanistan is almost over. Once that's wrapped up, it'll be good time to downsize.
I suppose that the difference is that our drones change the world that we live in, and your words do not.
That's too bad, I was expecting the US to change everything according to my personal advice. :sad:
That's too bad, I was expecting the US to change everything according to my personal advice. :sad:
Evidently so. Otherwise why spend so much time talking about it, right?
Evidently so. Otherwise why spend so much time talking about it, right?
Why spend so much time replying if my words have zero effect and are completely meaningless in the real world?
Why spend so much time replying if my words have zero effect and are completely meaningless in the real world?
I like telling people that they do not matter. It's a hobby.
I like telling people that they do not matter. It's a hobby.
My hobby is to tell people how bad their overrated country really is. I see it as a charitable effort.
You're welcome. ~D
My hobby is to tell people how bad their overrated country really is. I see it as a charitable effort.
You're welcome. ~D
Thanks. Any more overrated countries or just one?
Thanks. Any more overrated countries or just one?
I can't tell, the Australians are on my side of the argument so far, but that huge hole in the ozone layer they have has to be karma, I mean come on.
Oops.
I would love to have some North Korean or Chinese shills here but they're probably not allowed.
Somebody needs to take on the micro-nations (http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/smallcountries.htm). Yeah, Grand Duchy of Westarctica, I'm looking at YOU.
-edit-
PS: Finally had time to read the brief on the history of healthcare reform in the USA (http://hnn.us/article/146911), and I gotta say, pretty good summary. If this thread ever goes back on track, I recommend it as a backgrounding document.
CrossLOPER
09-27-2013, 22:53
I like telling people that they do not matter. It's a hobby.
You sound pretty empty.... and butthurt.
You sound pretty empty.... and butthurt.
How does one sound "empty"?
Oh, and watch out, you're next on the list to be lectured on how your country should be run.
The whole pre existing conditions thing alone makes it a step forward...
Ending the ability for insurers to refuse you based on pre-existing conditions and still calling the product "insurance" is crazy. :dizzy2:
That's like buying mechanical breakdown insurance on your car after you blew up the engine and being shocked when they won't pay your claim.
Montmorency
09-28-2013, 01:09
That's like buying mechanical breakdown insurance on your car after you blew up the engine and being shocked when they won't pay your claim.
Not quite. To make it analogous to the earlier pre-existing conditions coverage paradigm: you have a harder time getting or keeping breakdown-insurance if your car has previously broken-down (and subsequently been repaired, of course); previous breakdowns or other mechanical malfunctions raise the projected costs-over-time for the insurer.
Ending the ability for insurers to refuse you based on pre-existing conditions and still calling the product "insurance" is crazy.
It's misleading - but what do you expect from a country that has decided to continue to permit insurance agencies to be some of the leading payers in the national health-care system? :wiseguy:
My hobby is to tell people how bad their overrated country really is. I see it as a charitable effort.
You're welcome. ~D
Better to be great and overrated than to be a country that is only considered important in recent history because of the incredible evil of one of its maniacal rulers. You blondies loved to whine about Bush, ignoring the fact that you come from Godwin-stan. You love to try to undermine the importance of the US, meanwhile you have just about enough military power to conquer a rabbit den. You love to talk about how oppressive our culture and government is, meanwhile your police force is 1 billion times larger, better trained, better equipped, and more capable than you laughable, cigarette smoking, beer drinking military.
You have been invaded by Mongols, French (even the French...shame on you), Russians, and Americans in war, yet you think yourselves some kind of super humans. Wanna talk about overrating oneself?
So tell me honestly, why should an American care if a bunch of stereotypes which would make bigot blush country think we are overrated?
I know I am gonna get an infraction for this one, but I'll guarantee it; some times you just gotta tell it how it is. I'll regret it when I am sober.
Nighty-night Hans. ~;)
Sir Moody
09-28-2013, 02:32
/Husar uses sarcasm - it is super effective!!!
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-28-2013, 02:42
Oh no, Canada's pissed. We'd better stick to buying our maple syrup from Vermont for a while.
Ending the ability for insurers to refuse you based on pre-existing conditions and still calling the product "insurance" is crazy. :dizzy2:
That's like buying mechanical breakdown insurance on your car after you blew up the engine and being shocked when they won't pay your claim.
If you think humans are like cars then you also shouldn'tcomplain if your wife doesn't use you for a month or replaces you with a new model.
Maybe your definition of insurance simply doesn't suit human requirements.
And a lot of it could be alleviated by insuring everyone before they have preexisting conditions unless they have them from birth so that's a bit problematic, especially if you're against abortions.
“Do you know much about Vietnam war?” Matter of fact, err, yes.
“Tourists? In Afghanistan?” US Armies? Just joking.:sweatdrop: No, tourists somewhere else, like a Commercial Centre in whatever country full of USAnians tourists.
“Did the Illuminati tell you that?” No. Observation and quick look on US military Budget: Impressive for so little results.
“We can deal with that.” The attack on the Twin Towers showed than you didn’t and can’t. You fall in Bin Laden trap, and now have to face even more enemies. Well done and manage… USA is so predictable…
“the war in Iraq is over” Good I was not drinking coffee above my keyboard… This is the worst month in Iraq in killings and bomb attacks. Well, I understand now, if it is how you qualify a war to be over by this standard…
“It's a hobby” Good one.
even the French...shame on you: I know it is Nationalism, but you should really study as you will find out that France is the most successful country in term of Military successes.
I always wonder why I am proud of this, when it is shame that France was so involved in wars. France conquered lands all over the World,had two Colonial Empires, lost both) attacked and was attacked by numerous countries, won more battles than lost (reason why France still exists) and then, why I am proud of it?
Papewaio
09-28-2013, 22:40
USA is just a realm divide from the British Empire as far as external factions are concerned. ;)
InsaneApache
09-29-2013, 04:21
Indeed.
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2013, 08:26
maybe the long term goal is to nationalize all insurance companies.
“They lost everything they ever won.” Ridicule, you are. France still exists, so what did France lost? Her Empires gained on invasions and exploitation? That is good news. The UNIVERSAL declaration of Human Rights is a by-product of the French Revolution, as the metric-system, Code of Laws in Continental Europe…
“What's to be proud of with France?” Study History instead of listening prejudices. I know it is a lot to ask.
“They lost everything they ever won.” Ridicule, you are. France still exists, so what did France lost? Her Empires gained on invasions and exploitation? That is good news. The UNIVERSAL declaration of Human Rights is a by-product of the French Revolution, as the metric-system, Code of Laws in Continental Europe…
Heh, but Vuk and especially rvg just tried to tell everyone that Americans do not care about morals, human rights or humans without an American passport as long as they can benefit by not giving a poop. Their ideals promote a struggle and cmpetition and the winner takes all, losers aren't worth thinking about. And since the USA are the big winner, they can do whatever they want, morals are not a concern. Unless someone flashes a nipple, boy, now that is a problem!
Papewaio
09-29-2013, 12:07
If only French men could change a nappy they would be one step closer to perfect.
Better to be great and overrated than to be a country that is only considered important in recent history because of the incredible evil of one of its maniacal rulers. You blondies loved to whine about Bush, ignoring the fact that you come from Godwin-stan. You love to try to undermine the importance of the US, meanwhile you have just about enough military power to conquer a rabbit den. You love to talk about how oppressive our culture and government is, meanwhile your police force is 1 billion times larger, better trained, better equipped, and more capable than you laughable, cigarette smoking, beer drinking military.
You have been invaded by Mongols, French (even the French...shame on you), Russians, and Americans in war, yet you think yourselves some kind of super humans. Wanna talk about overrating oneself?
So tell me honestly, why should an American care if a bunch of stereotypes which would make bigot blush country think we are overrated?
Don't worry Vuk, I saw your post without the edits and was so shocked and insulted that I forgot to reply to it.
To get to the meat of the issue, our armies are not capable because we think invading is mostly a medieval practice and because Europe has grown together so much that we'd defend eachother anyway. This is also the problem with the invasions you mention since they were mostly more like conquering campaigns that ultimately failed before the war was really over. Some of them even failed because Europeans even back then stood together and helped eachother because they realized that it's beneficial for all Europeans. Compare it to how you want all your 50 states to be different here and there, yet stand together as a nation towards the outside.
As for your lack of caring, that's a long reply with quite a bunch of silly insults for someone who does not care. I do care about America or I would not argue about how to improve America. But then compassion is not part of the American psyche or part of spreading freedom and democracy I learned. :dizzy2:
Trying to mke me blush by mentioning Hitler is always great comedy, assuming that Germany today is in any way like Hitler's Germany or had not improved at all in a moral sense is simply hilarious. Especially from a country that reinvented the concentration camp for undesirables whose human rights it declared null and void (gitmo in case you're wondering).
I know I am gonna get an infraction for this one, but I'll guarantee it; some times you just gotta tell it how it is. I'll regret it when I am sober.
Nighty-night Hans. ~;)
I know how it is, the difference is that moral standards only seem to be of concern for you when you can point to Hitler and 9/11 but when US policies are concerned it's all about "might is right and awesoooooome!". At least Brenus is able to see how french colonial power phantasies and victories are in conflict with his moral compass and the things he wishes for in a modern world.
I hope you slept well Joe. ~;)
Well, all is the problem lays there. Most of the Glory earned by the French and recognised as such by idiots is Military. France crushed a lot of Countries (and was crushed, but I speak of Glory), in Europe and Outside, and a lot of time it was to rule and conquer, for minerals, cheap labour and profits.
Yeah yeah, we told ourselves it was to free the slaves, protect the minorities or spread democracy but the results were occupations, racism and the bloody Columns…
The problem is in the fact that Camerone, the legendary battle of the Foreign Legion was done during the Campaign of Mexico (done to oblige Mexico to pay the debts of the previous government), and that Dien Bien Phu was the last battle of a Colonial Power to keep a land under submission. This does not erase the courage of the soldiers who fought the battles, but it brings a question about why are we proud of it?
I could easily make the list of all glorious battles and wars won by France. I could easily make a list of France glorious lost battles and wars. The ones like Gelatinous Cube (nothing personal, just example) will jump on the last and ignore the first. It is a choice, not entirely, but a choice based on prejudice and ignorance.
"If only French men could change a nappy they would be one step closer to perfect." Pff... I manage it with skill and ease.
Don't worry Vuk, I saw your post without the edits and was so shocked and insulted that I forgot to reply to it.
Sorry if I was a little too honest for you.
To get to the meat of the issue, our armies are not capable because we think invading is mostly a medieval practice and because Europe has grown together so much that we'd defend eachother anyway. This is also the problem with the invasions you mention since they were mostly more like conquering campaigns that ultimately failed before the war was really over. Some of them even failed because Europeans even back then stood together and helped eachother because they realized that it's beneficial for all Europeans. Compare it to how you want all your 50 states to be different here and there, yet stand together as a nation towards the outside.
At least when you were Nazis you had balls. I am not sure which is worse. Read what you wrote above and you will see exactly why Germany is nothing and will never be anything till they get a serious attitude change.
Trying to mke me blush by mentioning Hitler is always great comedy, assuming that Germany today is in any way like Hitler's Germany or had not improved at all in a moral sense is simply hilarious. Especially from a country that reinvented the concentration camp for undesirables whose human rights it declared null and void (gitmo in case you're wondering).
Concentration camp? I take it that English must be your second or third language, because you obviously have no idea what the phrase 'concentration camp' means.
I know how it is, the difference is that moral standards only seem to be of concern for you when you can point to Hitler and 9/11 but when US policies are concerned it's all about "might is right and awesoooooome!". At least Brenus is able to see how french colonial power phantasies and victories are in conflict with his moral compass and the things he wishes for in a modern world.
On the contrary, I recognize when America has been in the wrong and fully condemn those actions (Abandoning our allies in Vietnam, failure to support the revolution in Hungary we pledged to support, getting involved in the Bosnian War, etc, etc. I fully admit that not everything we have done has been good, but in the balance we have done far more good for the world than bad. What has Germany done in the last two centuries other than massacre and torture people, build crappy little cars, and get crap-faced drunk constantly?
I hope you slept well Joe. ~;)
Like a baby. ~;)
Sorry if I was a little too honest for you.
I'm still crying.
At least when you were Nazis you had balls. I am not sure which is worse. Read what you wrote above and you will see exactly why Germany is nothing and will never be anything till they get a serious attitude change.
Exactly, I think everyone can agree with that.
Concentration camp? I take it that English must be your second or third language, because you obviously have no idea what the phrase 'concentration camp' means.
A camp where you concentrate terrorists instead of sending them to proper prisons and giving them a fair trial.
Also the german flag in my signature is there to show that English is my first language.
On the contrary, I recognize when America has been in the wrong and fully condemn those actions (Abandoning our allies in Vietnam, failure to support the revolution in Hungary we pledged to support, getting involved in the Bosnian War, etc, etc. I fully admit that not everything we have done has been good, but in the balance we have done far more good for the world than bad. What has Germany done in the last two centuries other than massacre and torture people, build crappy little cars, and get crap-faced drunk constantly?
There's really nothing we have done because only wars count for you. I wonder why you even care about healthcare since it's not called the 'war on sickness'.
Like a baby. ~;)
How apt, you deserve it.
To get back to the topic, do you think Americans who are abducted by pirates and rescued by the US military should get the bill afterwards or is this kind of socialized caring for their health okay for you and why? Couldn't they get a private travel insurance that will then make sure to get them out of captivity?
To get back to the topic, do you think Americans who are abducted by pirates and rescued by the US military should get the bill afterwards or is this kind of socialized caring for their health okay for you and why? Couldn't they get a private travel insurance that will then make sure to get them out of captivity?
They already do pay for it through their taxes. Levying taxes for a military is defined in the Constitution as one of the legitimate powers of government. I don't remember our founders saying that a legitimate role of government was to force people to buy a service they may or may not want. Maybe I just have to read that again.
There's really nothing we have done because only wars count for you. I wonder why you even care about healthcare since it's not called the 'war on sickness'.
Nah, I care about things other than wars, but I will play along. Germany has waged many successful wars, such as its 'war on religion', its 'war on freedom', its 'war on privacy', and its 'war on decency'. When it comes to those things, you guys are conquering heroes.
How apt, you deserve it.
Of course. Good work brings good rest. You should look into it. ~;)
Montmorency
09-29-2013, 19:03
don't remember our founders saying that a legitimate role of government was to force people to buy a service they may or may not want. Maybe I just have to read that again.
By the same token, "rescuing people from pirates" is not one of the roles of the military as explicitly outlined in the Constitution!
Also
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Oops!
Seamus Fermanagh
09-29-2013, 19:17
...Is that some kind of expert opinion or something? Do you know much about Vietnam war?
Actually, though he's simplifying it a bit, there is a good kernel of truth to that assertion.
The US and its SEATO allies struggled for years against the VC insurgency, including a huge buildup of troops between 1965 and 1968. While any large-scale engagement ended in a US victory, we were never able to do more than curtail the VC as they used -- quite intelligently -- classic guerilla tactics and we did not have enough troops to truly quash their insurgency (the accepted ratio required at the time was 10-1).
Then came the Tet offensive, where the VC attacked throughout Vietnam en masse -- and were decimated. They finally came out in the open and fought giving us the kind of fight we could really win, and which we did. So high was the casualty rate and so damaged was the VC infrastructure that Giap thought that NV might have to ask for terms. Until, that is, Walter Cronkite and the rest of the US media -- perceiving the US public's war weariness -- announced that Tet indicated that any hope of victory had been lost. At that moment they knew that we would not continue absorbing casualties in order to win.
After that it was all "peace with honor, etc." We accepted our defeat in the very moment of victory -- largely because a big slice of the US electorate was tired of the bleeding.
There were, of course, a number of other factors at play, but being "willing to have more dead" was a central facet of the whole thing.
They already do pay for it through their taxes. Levying taxes for a military is defined in the Constitution as one of the legitimate powers of government. I don't remember our founders saying that a legitimate role of government was to force people to buy a service they may or may not want. Maybe I just have to read that again.
As Montmorency says, rescuing people from pirates near Somalia is not what the military is there for, this stuff costs extra and they're not sent there by the US government.
Nah, I care about things other than wars, but I will play along. Germany has waged many successful wars, such as its 'war on religion', its 'war on freedom', its 'war on privacy', and its 'war on decency'. When it comes to those things, you guys are conquering heroes.
Except for the war on religion you might want to explain those a bit more. Especially the second one I do not get considering our privacy protection laws are much stricter than those in the USA and the NSA is not exactly a German institution.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-29-2013, 19:32
maybe the long term goal is to nationalize all insurance companies.
Just health insurance. The current set-ups for Life and Property/Casualty are a pretty comfortable fit for government.
Regarding health insurance, the basic premise is that all persons should receive healthcare as a basic human right, and that to deny healthcare is to deny the personhood of that individual.
A national health care system would provide equal access to medical care for any and all citizens without favoring those economically advantaged persons who, under the current system, can afford premier coverage or fee-for-service while others simply cannot.
The ACA becomes an effective tool for achieving this by requiring all persons to pay for coverage and requiring insurance companies to offer coverage to persons with pre-existing conditions. Of itself, this is not a problem for insurance, but it will be virtually impossible for the Government to allow companies to charge premiums that accurately reflect the increased risk associated with persons who have such conditions. When government imposed premium limits make the numbers untenable for private companies, they will drop out of providing health coverage. Eventually, this will generate the need for government-run healthcare following a two-tier approach such as that seen in Austria and elsewhere.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-29-2013, 19:39
They already do pay for it through their taxes. Levying taxes for a military is defined in the Constitution as one of the legitimate powers of government. I don't remember our founders saying that a legitimate role of government was to force people to buy a service they may or may not want. Maybe I just have to read that again.
The SCOTUS has upheld it as a legitimate form of taxation which, pursuant to the 16th amendment, no longer needs to be apportioned among and collected by the states but may be levied on an individual basis directly by the federal government.
Of course, the 16th was adopted without too much trouble since it was made known that it would only be for the purpose of levying a 1% income tax on America's highest wage earners. Which is all it did.....at first.
How can one say that Germany is nothing? This is absurd. Even after being torn to bits by the allies and russians in WWII it is still the beating heart of Europe economics wise. It is THE country to talk about when we are talking manufacturuing. German cars and industrial machines are a staple for quality, not American ones.
Germany was divided, a lot of intellectuals and scientists were moved to either the USSR or the USA. Most of the inventions claimed to be done by the USA are actually done by European (and mostly German) scientists.
That Germany waged sucessfull war in WWII versus so many opponents is a feat of military prowess which the USA has not even come close to matching. All your wars were versus two-bit third world countries. And even then you sometimes got your arses handed to you (Veitnam). In fact, if Hitler had not spared the British troops the war might have been a tad bit harder, especially since the USA and Canadian navies suffered heavy losses to German submarines.
It is also a fact that the heavy lifting in WWII was done by Soviet troops, and the fall of the Wehrmacht was due mainly to lack of minerals and fuel to resupply the armoured corps and Luftwaffe. Is their modern army not up to the same standard? Probably. But they have they industrial capabilty and the discipline to get back at it if they WANTED to. But warmongering and stealing resources is left to other powers...
How can a country which has FEMA camps, Detroit, inbred hillbillies, a moronic "2 of the same" party system and children's beauty pagents think itself the best thing to grace God's earth after sunlight and fertile soil? Wait, you grace the soil with Monsanto's poisonous GM crops and give yourselves cancer. I guess that qualifies you.
What about your economy then?
USA GDP - Mar 31, 2013 13.75 trillion
And here is your debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/), which is a figure I can't even prononunce.
Some econonomy...
USA GDP - Mar 31, 2013 13.75 trillion
And here is your debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/), which is a figure I can't even prononunce.
Some econonomy...
The debt is 16 billion if you use a proper system of counting. ~;)
Using the anglo system it's 16 trillion, so a bit higher than their GDP, about two months' wages for the average hard-working burger flipper.
All the money was spent winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though, so it was absolutely worth it since Bush was also better than Obama because he bailed out the banks.
Yes. Let's bail out Goldman Sachs because giving the guys who make money out of thin air even more money is a good idea.
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a9dpRy6_460s.jpg
Also this.
The debt is 16 billion if you use a proper system of counting. ~;)
Or.. we could just say 16 T$ (tera dollars) which incidentally would be understandable in all nations? Sneakfrenchifisation :sneaky:
Papewaio
09-30-2013, 13:10
Myth Germany lost because it was arrogant, had a big mouth and didn't have the ability to back it up.
Amateurs fight shiny metal object vs shiny metal object. Professionals talk logistics.
Not just the wealth and industrial might to be at war and develop nuclear weapons, nor the industrial might to rebuild an air craft carrier faster than your enemy can conceive it (Midway), the ability to supply both USSR and UK with the materials to fight against an arrogant aggressor and build ships like the liberty.
Then add to it after the Allies defeated the Axis the industrial might to rebuild the economies from scratch. If you want an object lesson in the intent and capability of the US then compare and contrast what Japan and Germany did to their occupied nations and then compare how Western Germany did vs Eastern Germany.
Western Germany was so prosperous that unification for them was a scary thing as the debt to bring Eastern Germany up to scratch was massive.
So lets get real here. WWII Germany was a bunch of bully boy facists who lost most of their great scientists before the war even started. The only awards for logistics that won were best slave and concentration camps and mass graves awards. They started a war, they got trounced and lost all their colonial assets.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-30-2013, 14:40
Myth Germany lost because it was arrogant, had a big mouth and didn't have the ability to back it up.
Amateurs fight shiny metal object vs shiny metal object. Professionals talk logistics.
Not just the wealth and industrial might to be at war and develop nuclear weapons, nor the industrial might to rebuild an air craft carrier faster than your enemy can conceive it (Midway), the ability to supply both USSR and UK with the materials to fight against an arrogant aggressor and build ships like the liberty.
Then add to it after the Allies defeated the Axis the industrial might to rebuild the economies from scratch. If you want an object lesson in the intent and capability of the US then compare and contrast what Japan and Germany did to their occupied nations and then compare how Western Germany did vs Eastern Germany.
Western Germany was so prosperous that unification for them was a scary thing as the debt to bring Eastern Germany up to scratch was massive.
So lets get real here. WWII Germany was a bunch of bully boy facists who lost most of their great scientists before the war even started. The only awards for logistics that won were best slave and concentration camps and mass graves awards. They started a war, they got trounced and lost all their colonial assets.
On the bright side, their fabs are mostly using machine tools with 1946 and later dates on them, for some reason....Harley Davidson was -- at least as of the mid 1990s from my own personal inspection -- still using machine lathes and such that were constructed in 1901.
On the other hand, I was never quite so dismissive of European success and approaches as were some posters. I have only asserted that the USA has, traditionally, been unwilling to shoulder the total tax burden typical of a Western European social democracy -- A level that I suspect is necessary to begin to cover the cost of the broader social services/safety net provided.
I am more than willing to acknowledge that the USA has a debt problem. I rather suspect that my preferred solution choices would meet with little support on this forum.
[M]y preferred solution choices would meet with little support on this forum.
Meh, since when has the Org been a popularity contest? If you can't air strange, unworkable, half-baked, lunatic theories on the Org, where can you?
Also, when are we allowed to declare a thread terminally derailed? Seems to me the merciful thing would be to take this one out behind the chemical sheds and shoot it.
I seem to recall there was something about healthcare, but that was another country, and anyway the wench is dead.
Myth Germany lost because it was arrogant, had a big mouth and didn't have the ability to back it up.
Amateurs fight shiny metal object vs shiny metal object. Professionals talk logistics.
Not just the wealth and industrial might to be at war and develop nuclear weapons, nor the industrial might to rebuild an air craft carrier faster than your enemy can conceive it (Midway), the ability to supply both USSR and UK with the materials to fight against an arrogant aggressor and build ships like the liberty.
Then add to it after the Allies defeated the Axis the industrial might to rebuild the economies from scratch. If you want an object lesson in the intent and capability of the US then compare and contrast what Japan and Germany did to their occupied nations and then compare how Western Germany did vs Eastern Germany.
Western Germany was so prosperous that unification for them was a scary thing as the debt to bring Eastern Germany up to scratch was massive.
So lets get real here. WWII Germany was a bunch of bully boy facists who lost most of their great scientists before the war even started. The only awards for logistics that won were best slave and concentration camps and mass graves awards. They started a war, they got trounced and lost all their colonial assets.
Of course logistics plays a key role, and it is closely related to the issues I pointed out:
- Not enough steel to manufacture spare parts (this includes trucks which are what makes an army supply go forward)
- Not enough fuel for not just tanks but also for the non-combat vehicles, so the forward positions were left woefully undersupplied
So much was the issue that a unit of 50 veteran foot soldiers was ass signed to a single anti-tank cannon (I know the name but can't spell it and not make a jackass of myself since I can't spell in German)
In any event, your notion that Germany lost because they got arrogant is too linear IMO. It is never this simple, and never this black and white. First of all, Germany was set up for WWII. Poland was committing genocide in Prussia and waving their d**cks at Hitler from across the yard, knowing that they had a secret deal with France and England that they'd back them up if Germany invaded.
Hitler surrounded the English army on the atlantic coast and could have captured/massacred them. Instead, he let them go, to show a gesture of good faith to Churchill, who then insisted that the war continued.
Stalin was preparing for war regardless of the German invasion. As such, picking a war with the USSR wasn't Hitler's biggest mistake (as some say) but rather the timing of it and the objectives.
Thinking they could thwart mighty Russia in 2 months time (dreadfully short summer in those parts) IS arrogant. And not counting in the fact that Russia had dirt paths and taiga for infrastructure also... And the biggest one (after letting all those Brits go to their island kingdom) is throwing so much manpower in capturing Moscow. Amrygroup Center was essentially wasted effort. He should have gone for Stalingrad and get the Caucassian oil fields and the iron and coal mines in the Ural mountains, then entrench for the winter.
WWII Germany with enough oil, steel and manpower (from occupied Europe. And not all people were opposed to Nazi rule. It sure as hell wasn't teatime and pancakes for the Ukranian folk. Hell, they viewed the German soldiers as LIBERATORS) could keep a firm hold on Europe that the USA would not be able to crack sans nuclear weapons.
Also, excuse me if I'm wrong, but Germany was actually closer to getting nukes than the USA before it all hit the fan... Regarding occupation - German occupied countries did just fine. The most prosperous countries in Europe now are direct descendants of the HRE (Germany, Austria, Northern Italy) or are Scandinavian. USSR occupation is what made Eastern Germany (as well as Poland, Czheckoslovakia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) so bad. In fact, this example defeats your own - the German people, when left to freely pursue their industrial and disciplined way of life, can and will build a country that is just awesome.
Germany lends money out now, the USA borrows money. I think that's pretty obvious. Hence, you can see the value of each economy. The real produced and exported goods and services.
That the USA supplied airplanes to the USSR and sent ships to help Britain hold out was remarcable. I admire them for that, but it is, after all an entire CONTINENT and all it's industry directed to war manufacturing. But I say again, if Germany didn't have so much on its plate, the USA would really have a hard time projecting power on continental Europe. Imagine D-Day with a well supplied, veteran, entrenched Wehrmacht waiting for you...
That the USA is a megapower because it can now sustain its economy and mass produce weapons is known. That it has the best power projection in the world currently, is also fact (navy, marines, airforce). But for a country which was left to its own devices on an entire continent I'd rather say this was expected. The industrial might to rebuild France, England and so on is no argument here. Germany was torn inside-out. Entire factories were dismantled and moved to Syberia. There was so much devastation that if this happened to modern day USA you'd spend all your money bailing out your insurance companies... Seriously, America let Detroit happen. Have you seen pictures of post-war Berlin? Have you seen it now?
If I didn't want to try and make something of my life here, I'd probably be living in Germany or the UK. Not in the USA, despite having the option to go there.
Montmorency
09-30-2013, 17:35
It's a rather silly notion: 'Germany could have won, or at least survived WW2, if absolutely everything went right for it.' Sheesh.
And not all people were opposed to Nazi rule.
Heh, they were once the Germans got through genociding them.
Myth: I don’t want to start a debate on History (there is a place in the org for that) but all your facts are absolutely wrong and come from Rightist/revisionist propaganda.
Germany and its allies (that somehow you forget) lost the war because they were ill prepared for war they initiated and started. All others points (as Stalin preparing a war) are unproved and in fact utterly false. Hitler didn’t want to save the British Army, Hitler, remembering WW1, wanted to secure the flank of his armies, as the French in Lille were still fighting against all odds, and Hitler couldn’t be sure what could come from this. And the battle of Gembloux has proved to the Germans that their tactic could be defeated, so more caution was required.
And yes, you are wrong. Germany even not approached the atomic power, as their path (Heavy Water) was a Cul de Sac.
The myth of USSR saved by the USA material: The first defeat in the Eastern Front came even before the USA was pushed in war (Moscow). And in term of tanks, the Soviets ones were much better than the British, French or US of the times. Or German for the matter.
Now, if you want to carry on this subject, open a debate in the right place. I will be there.
I've actually seen a T55 and I have a colleague who was part of its crew during the mandatory military service era of not so long ago. They were an average tank - not as bad as the French ones, but nowhere near as good as the German ones. But the sheer volume of manufacturing capability and the manpower behind the USSR is waht made that tank into a monster. Having a 5 to 1 numeric advantage would let spearchuckers win vs. so few German tanks.
Let's go to the Monastery, I haven't reserached WWII in-depth, i'm more of a classical antiquity-dark ages-middle ages guy.
Edit: thread done here. Could Germany have won WWII? (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145765-Could-Germany-have-won-WWII)
I've actually seen a T55 and I have a colleague who was part of its crew during the mandatory military service era of not so long ago. They were an average tank - not as bad as the French ones, but nowhere near as good as the German ones. But the sheer volume of manufacturing capability and the manpower behind the USSR is waht made that tank into a monster. Having a 5 to 1 numeric advantage would let spearchuckers win vs. so few German tanks.
Let's go to the Monastery, I haven't reserached WWII in-depth, i'm more of a classical antiquity-dark ages-middle ages guy.
T-55, the T-54 with nuclear fallout protection was not a WWII tank and never fought in Europe against German tanks. (You need the dash to distinguish from American T series)
However... *cough* at tier IX in Beta it was formidable and maybe the most feared tank on the battlefield. Grouped it was a menace and it needed two fully upgraded tier VIII Tiger II Heavies to make scrap metal of one of them. Their agility was such that large heavies had serious problems getting their barrels into position to hurt them. :sneaky:
Damn it guys, that's what I get for writing before my coffee. Still the 55 and the 34 are close. I belevie they have the same engine? Gotta check my facts first.
The Tigers are so hyped up as the end-all, be-all of WWII tank I can't even tell what's fact and what is "shoots fireballs out of his arse" glorification
Hurr durr, so how do T-34s and T-55s fit into a healthcare debate? And don't trust World of Tanks, most everything has a bigger gun there than it really had and real tankers do not aim for the weak spots, they're happy to hit at all AFAIK.
The Tiger tank was a scary machine because it mostly fought british tanks and T-34s relatively early in the war. The Tiger in Bovington for example has a whole lot of hits from british guns and was apparently only knocked out when a shell lodged itself between the turret and hull and made the turret unusable. 100mm frontal armor was simply a lotin the early war and not every nation initially optimized guns and ammunition for anti-tank warfare since tanks were mostly fighting infantry anyway.
The T-34 had a pretty good armor design concerning penetrations, but it still wasn't good enough to stop shells from the Tiger's gun at about 2km while the T-34 had to come much closer to harm the Tiger. Additionally the armor design hurt crew comfort in the sense that the commander was also the gunner and loader IIRC, or at least one crew member had to perform two functions and the turret was cramped which made the reloading relatively slow. With a higher number of tanks that may not be such a problem I guess. The T-34-85 was apparently quite improved and also far more effective vs. Tigers due to the upgraded 85mm gun. Experts say however, that German engineers were aware of the benefits of sloped armor but those always had to be weighted against the space available inside a tank since you can put less stuff into a tank that has wedges everywhere, think of a room right below a sloped roof.
The T-54/55 only has the bad name from battles it fought when it was already superseded by better tanks AFAIK. It was still the first MBT, combining armor protection of heavy tanks and mobility of medium tanks and making that distinction pretty much obsolete even though it has continued to exist to some extent. I don't think American tanks of the time had any great advantages over the T-55 other than maybe better crew ergonomics. At this time the new tanks of the Soviet Union usually scared the US, which then reacted by trying to invent a tank that could beat them. It was mostly the US acting on superior soviet designs however, the drive to get ahead in tank design was seemingly not so big until the 60ies or 70ies. Composite armor was also first introduced by the Soviet T-64 IIRC.
So to get back on track, what can we learn from this?
First, of course, that Germany never achieved anything, the soviet tanks had similar armor protection with less steel and the American tanks had butter armor that provided high crew survivability when a tank was inevitably shredded because the armor didn't spall as much as harder steel. German tanks were ugly monsters that fell apart on the way to the front anyway and since Hitler was mentally ill yet incredibly evil everything anyone in Germany ever did at the time was bad anyway. Ever heard of despicable people such as Canaris, Bonhoeffer, Beitz and Schindler? Despicable people like Snowden and Manning.
Which brings us right back to death panels in Obamacare. Death panels are necessary to decide who are the most socialist patients most deserving of help because noone wants to spend precious tax dollars on liberal capitalists who despise paying taxes in the first place. It is a far superior method to a market-oriented system where a treatment costs 50000$ and can only be afforded by liberal capitalists while the rest either dies or accumulates debt that is hard to repay with a minimum wage burger flipping job. Then again we just established that jews and burger flippers may not be deserving of human compassion, right? Except if they have the right papers and get abducted by smelly foreign pirates in which case millions of tax dollars should be spent in order to make sure the filthy brownish pirates are killed in the most brutal way possible.
Also if anything reads weird, sorry for my bad English, I meant it in a way that reads good of course and I don't know what half of the words I used mean.
Papewaio
10-01-2013, 11:20
How does warfare relate to health care?
Because the place you will find the highest percentage employees with automatic health insurance and socialized medicine in the USA is the military.
So to get back on track, what can we learn from this?
First, of course, that Germany never achieved anything...
Ah.. but you forget Steel... German high quality steel from before 1945. The most sought after steel resource in the world. Crucial to space programs as it contains little to no radioactivity. Also the steel from the old German navy is the only steel plates that they use with confidence of not breaking or warping during road work, to cover road holes for traffic to drive on. If you have a Tirpitz type ship lying in your back yard, you'll be rich.
How does warfare relate to health care?
Because the place you will find the highest percentage employees with automatic health insurance and socialized medicine in the USA is the military.
Yes, but the military is the only thing worth spending money on since only wars count as achievements and everyone in there is a hero who sacrifices his life for lazy burger flippers who aren't worth anything really.
Ah.. but you forget Steel... German high quality steel from before 1945. The most sought after steel resource in the world. Crucial to space programs as it contains little to no radioactivity. Also the steel from the old German navy is the only steel plates that they use with confidence of not breaking or warping during road work, to cover road holes for traffic to drive on. If you have a Tirpitz type ship lying in your back yard, you'll be rich.
Lies, scapa flow never happened and if it did, it was certainly not an achievement, it just shows once more what a pathetic country Germany is that never achieved anything and only had balls when it was so evil that the balls don't count.
Papewaio
10-01-2013, 12:36
Technology might =/= morally right
If Germans occupation methods as per Poland had been applied by the Allies to Germany. Then 20% of the population post surrender would have been killed. So yes WWII Germany had technology but it was even more lucky in how at least its Western partition got treated considering its own value system.
Technology might =/= morally right
Yes, but I could swear that two posters here basically said "might makes right" and they don't care about anything else as long as their country has might. And why would they?
If Germans occupation methods as per Poland had been applied by the Allies to Germany. Then 20% of the population post surrender would have been killed. So yes WWII Germany had technology but it was even more lucky in how at least its Western partition got treated considering its own value system.
Absolutely, if we hadn't been so pathetic as to lose the war, this wouldn't be an issue though.
Papewaio
10-01-2013, 21:42
I also agree that might =/= right, nor does USA of WWII = USA of now.
Nor do I think that technology = might.
WWII Germany had lots of shiny new gadgets. It just didn't have enough resources to keep up supplying them for a long war. As such they had a tech advantage in the short term but not sustainable might.
US going into Iraq did a similar thing by outsourcing to contractors believing the Iraqis would automatically welcome them and democracy, thereby increasing their cost base dramatically for a long term engagement.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.