posted 09-08- 07:15 PM               

If socialized medicine is so great, then why do I pay $9 per week for my HMO, but $17.75 per week for MED/EE?

My company's the health care contribution schedule is dependent on income. I'm near the bottom of the exempt employees' schedule, so my costs are low. Also, my costs are fixed regardless of family size.

Oh, just remembered, if I chose no coverage, my company would provide an extra $15 per week in income. So, my total costs are $24 per week.

posted 09-08- 08:48 PM               

Now the poor rif-raf (we were one about 6 years ago) get their pills for $10.

So I am paying for them.

I would not mind so much if everyone understood this... that we this is socialism, and after all is said and done about 85%+ of my earnings go to pay for stuff for our country and other people. Some of this is OK in this modern wealthy world, but it is starting to get out of hand... enough is enough... we are headed down a bad path.

The system is rotting and there is no sign of change. Oh there will be a backlash, but I don't think we will see the effects of the turn around until after I croak off from some simple operation in a state hospital...

$900 and nothing is covered... what is this $900 for? It is a tax, nothing more today, a welfare tax so people up the road can get everything for free. It really makes taking a permanent vacation look real good... I could buy a smaller house in cash and just live off of the wealth of the nation... write books, smoke my pipe, and be a t peace with the world, not feeling ripped of.

We're all fucking suckers getting ripped off... they take our money and curse us, thankless bastards.

Bush's tax cut benefits the rich.

Fuck you. That fucking $600 is not a drop in the tax bucket. I feel real benefited. At least I got $600 of my money back - at least there was some justice. It did "feel" good... until I found out that this was a not a rebate but an advance on the future tax cut!

Of course this won't help the economy.... consumer spending is not the problem here! It is the unemployment creeping up fast after the tech market bombed. $600 does not stay off the need to look for work...

Once the poor ignored old-world conservative businesses get their attention from the money guys again, things will boom again.. this time technology will fuel the business, not BE the business...

What was I talking about again? God Damnit - what? What the hell is going on here? Man its hot tonight, could you open the window? Hello? Hmmmm. Huh? ...

posted 09-09- 08:21 AM               

1. Covered by an employer in which case you
pay or have paid for it by working for said
employer.

2. Pay for it yourself in which case you are
under a plan in which a lot of other people
pay and then all people in the plan recieve
benefits as needed.

3. You are old enough that the govt. pays for
the major part of it.

posted 09-09- 01:47 PM               

MoO's plan was about $1200 per year for myself only, and it had a $5000 deductible (or maybe $15,000.. I don't remember any more...dropped it 3.5 years ago).

What I would be willing to pay "even more" taxes for is a provision to provide health care through the service of military doctors. The DoD has hospitals and doctors, and during peace time (!), those facilities could be used to treat families without coverage.

Treatment would be minimal (no breast implants, nose jobs), would not include medications taken outside the facility (to stem trafficing in meds), and would be unavailable during War Time. Most importantly, no money would be exchanged. The patient would fill out paperwork, and be admitted without cost (maybe a processing fee could be charged).

Also, as usual, patients would not be able to sue the military or military docs. You may get what you pay for, hopefully better.

This probably has been suggested by others.

My costs are driven by the average income of my neighbors. I now earn that "average" income, and I can finally afford to spend some money on myself. Amazingly, my neighbors seem to spend with reckless abandon. I can't see signs of a recession in NJ, yet.

[This message has been edited by Todesvogel (edited 09-09-2001).]

I paid about $14,000 in Fed income tax last year. A $300 tax break isn't very significant... I'd rather see the money go into debt payments.

I recently read Social Security will be insolvent in 2037. I'll turn 70 in 2037. It runs out of money the YEAR I RETIRE! Great.

posted 09-09- 02:50 PM               

For you veterans out there, get this! Here in the Norfolk VA area, at NAS Oceana, you have to have an APPOINTMENT to be seen at MILITARY SICK CALL! Now, for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, used to be that if you were in the military, and you woke up and felt ill any day, you'd just pull on the uniform-of-the-day and go on down to sick call and be seen, first come, first serve. You'd then get your chit to give your sergeant or chief justifying your absence. Now you have to have an appointment. Technically, you have to plan your sicknesses, or know in advance. It's because we don't have enough docs or facilities.

Wasn't like this 8 1/2 years ago...

posted 09-09- 09:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wing Chaps:
Hate to burst yer bubble, there, Todesvogel, but there aren't enough military doctors to provide proper care to active-duty military, let alone military dependents, let alone military retirees, let alone the civilian populace at large.
.
.
Chaps out

---

Oh ok. It seemed that the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) had more Docs and beds than could be used by the European Theater (in peace time). Hanau (or Darmstadt...or where ever) the other big hospital in Germany, seemed under utilized , generally. Didn't know things were so tough here.

Like I said, I'd pay more tax for expanding the medical care for civs and the military. I'm in favor of a well equiped military that provides help for the nation as a whole.

posted 09-09- 09:51 PM               

The typical illustration for government-provided health care is Canada. It's a popular illustration, except for Canadians that need involved elective surgery, or are older. Note I said ELECTIVE, or OLDER. Those folks run into a kind of health-care rationing, and often come down to the U.S. to get care they can't get up there.

On the other hand, I'm not about to pretend I know the easy answer. Doctors left to themselves will often order all kinds of proceedures, sometimes to protect themselves from malpractice, sometimes because they have a financial interest in the facility that conducts that proceedure. Insurance companies are in business to make money. Ditto, actually, HMOs. I don't like the idea that HMOs can't realistically be sued, but then turning lawyers loose on anything doesn't strike me well either. And the government providing the care? Talk to a veteran about the care he/she gets... or consider how well the Postal System works compared to UPS or Fed Ex.

I would prepare the way for medical reform with tort reform, though. Medical costs rose dramatically in part due to a dramatic rise in malpractice insurance, which was due to malpractice cases.

posted 09-09- 11:22 PM               

I hate the way eye doctors sell contacts and glasses.

I mean don't you think you might be a little biased if your trying to sell stuff?

Oh yeah you need some glasses, heres some that are 3 times the going rate.

Me and my girlfriend recently went to get fitted for contacts, our eye doctor wanted 70 or 130 (I can't remember which one) just to measure our eyes.

We went to an optical store and paid $15 bucks, and got a free pair of 2 week disposables and a sample cleaning kit.

Obviously they are banking on you buying your contacts from them.

Well turns out I don't like contacts, I find I can always feel them and my eyes are dry. So if I would have went to my eye doctor I would have been out that money, 15 bucks is nothing.

How cool would it be if there was a car doctor that told you what was wrong and charged a flat fee, and then another that fixed it. I bet you wouldn't get ripped off half as much.

About Canadian heath care, I have no problems with it, yes its busy sometimes, and my personal doctor seems to overbook so it takes longer for an appoinment then my son and wifes doctor (they use a different one). And emergancy is overworked, in the US is the emergency room busy alot of the time?

And yes it stuff like cancer treatment is getting bogged down and there waiting lists and crap.

I don't feel thats because a national healthcare system is impossible, I just think its probly inefficiant.

Our town has 2 seperate hospitals, within a block of each other, they do 2 differnce jobs but still if all that was under 1 roof, it would be cheaper to run.

They are planing to build a new one right on a large 4-6 lane bybass, so things could be better after that, ambulances could travel faster to it, and less redundancy.

posted 09-10- 12:36 AM               

Defense spending cuts began during the Bush Sr. Administration. These cuts were a direct result of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Clinton Administration actually increased pay and allowances for the military, but there was only so much they could do given the enormous debt Reagan left in his wake. All this, combined with the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, and it's no wonder that medical care for our troops is in a shambles.

posted 09-10- 07:21 AM               

The military drawdown DID begin under Bush senior, but accelerated way out of proportion under Clinton. In fact, all those years they bragged about cutting the size of the government, the only part of the government personnel size or payroll that got cut was the military, and so much so it covered up the expansion in size of the rest of the government.

The cuts layed in at about 40%. Remember, now, the cutting went on the whole 8 years of Clinton, and how many under Bush?

But the most unacceptable part of this was not the cuts. It was the radical increase in commitments. We can indeed have a military the size of Great Britain's, or Canada's. We just have to limit ourselves to doing no more with our military than we do with theirs (not that Great Britain's military could do without some care...).

Our commitments doubled under Clinton. Some of them brought criticism that they were by nature open-ended, and there never was an end-strategy. Then there's the whole interesting story about how weapons inspections ended in Iraq. Yet, we're still flying over there.

But back to the increase in commitments... Consider a 40% strength cut with a 100% increase... how much harder does a soldier, sailor, or a peice of hardware have to work? How likely is someone to re-enlist under this load?

And the hardware... As of 1996 in my helecopter group with the Marines we had CH-46 airframes that took damage over Vietnam. We have not replaced that bird since then, so I assume we STILL have those airframes...

Economic policy is open to debate, especially with me, because the numbers and math are so complex. But don't try to tell me that Clinton is blameless for the condition of the military just because Bush cut back from the fantastic levels of the Reagan years! Should Bush then not have cut at all? Or was Clinton too stupid to know when to stop?

posted 09-10- 12:34 PM               

Well, maybe... but, under Clinton, we were still spending twice as much as all of our opponents combined. On top of that, our primary adversary, the Soviet Union, had been essentially wiped out. When the Cold War ended, there simply wasn't any reason for us to spend the kind of money we spent during the height of the Cold War. And finally, all proposals to increase spending beyond what Clinton proposed broke the BBA.

>Our commitments doubled under Clinton.

That is a myth. During the 80s, we had 25% of our military outside the US. Under Clinton, only 17% was outside the US.

>Some of them brought criticism that they were by nature open-ended, and there never was an end-strategy. Then there's the whole interesting story about how weapons inspections ended in Iraq. Yet, we're still flying over there.

True, but Clinton's problems with Saddam were all part of the Bush Sr. legacy.

posted 09-10- 02:56 PM               

For the understandable way in which you'd get that from my last post, I apologize. That was not what I meant.

What I did mean was that we have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. We've got them in Germany and Japan/Okinawa. We send carrier battle groups constantly to the Persian Gulf and the Western Pacific. We have folks in Korea. We send detachments all over South America and the Carribean. We send Seabees on construction projects in South America. We do our interventions in places when crises arise which come, flair up, and die away to be forgotten by our media.

The point of my post was not to denegrate Canada's military... it was to answer that comment about our military cutdown beginning under Bush Sr., as if it were his fault. I said and I stand firmly behind my statement that under Clinton the military was cut by 40% of what it was, and committed double what it had been.

Of course, I can see where an artist would know more about the military than a veteran would...

As far as the Canadian military, the comparison would be that we would only be able to send out the numbers you guys do... for instance, instead of sending a carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, we'd send what Canada or England sends, which is not a full carrier battle group (bear in mind that a US CVN is different than a Royal Navy through-deck-cruiser).

Now, if you want to say that you do more than we do on a ship-for-ship basis, I wouldn't and couldn't argue with that. I'm struggling for an illustration that I can use without the fear of violating some level of security, suffice it to say that what I've seen of the Canadian military shows you guys proud. Same with the Royal Navy, Marines, or Air Force.

It wasn't a judgement of quality, it was one of quantity.

Abashedly,

Chaps out

posted 09-10- 03:39 PM               

Right, but no one has refuted that. All I'm saying is that there was a very valid reason for the cutback. That cutback was perhaps too severe, but that's only because Clinton, unlike Reagan, decided to work within a budget. During the Reagan years, we went from being the largest creditor to being the largest debtor. That's not a very admirable distinction for the #1 super power on Earth.

>and committed double what it had been.

Sorry, but the numbers simply do not support that conclusion. If you have different numbers, I'll be more than willing to listen.

>Of course, I can see where an artist would know more about the military than a veteran would...

I see... so, only military personnel are qualified to discuss defense spending? Why would you post here if you really want to discuss this with only your brethren? Furthermore, I don't claim to know more than you. All I'm doing is giving you numbers that I've gleaned from various sources.

Finally, sorry if I seem confused, but in one breath you seem to want to blame Clinton for the weakening economy, and then, in almost the same breath, you want to blast Clinton for not spending enough on the military. Am I the only person who sees a disconnect here?

posted 09-10- 04:25 PM               

Or do I misunderstand... Healthy military, bad economy; sick military, healthy economy?

And if I remember, I at least implied that it's not so much how big the military is, it's what he did with it. As he was cutting us, he did not reduce our deployments anywhere, and sent us to Bosnia, Kosovo, off the coast of Haiti, we dealt with refugees/migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Typhoon releif at Bangladesh, we're building hospitals and schools in South America, there is the ongoing commitment vs Iraq (Bush messed that up, you're right. We should have ordered our Airborne and the French Foreign Legion to turn left instead of right and have gone into Baghdad, but them I remember commentators on the left raising Ned about how this was going to be a never-ending open-ended Vietnam kind of thing. Unlike Bosnia of course...).

Your numbers say different, and to a degree I respect that, for I, too am "giving you numbers that I've gleaned from various sources." It doesn't surprise me our sources look at different numbers, they have different aggendas.

But I do think the health of the economy hinges on more than just military spending.

posted 09-10- 05:50 PM               

Obviously a large country with a large population can support a large military, but why?

I personally think that a small standing army with supplies and equipment for a larger one at times of crisis and a very large reserve force would be a better and more finacialy responsible way of running the military.

I'm not saying cut the military just to save money, but not waste money. And I'm a military brat who has thought about joining.

Canada's military is always going everywhere and is always overstreched, I think we should scale back our commitments. (and it seems the US is doing the same) Plus some of our equipment is old and needs updating.

I know right now we have less then 100 CF 18s, so thats less then 100 front line fighter/bombers.

From books I have read on our airforce in the 60s we had hundereds, CF 100s and CF 101s. Course back then we had alot more fighter groups and fighters based in Germany, I'm not sure if we even do anymore.

About Canada and peace keeping, My dad was in cyprus? 1 or 2 times in the early 80s.

He was radio op back then I think.

He started in airborn, but had bad knees and went to radio op, then remustered to airforce and was a radar op and then later was doing all kinds of wacky stuff before getting out, schedualing an airshow (that takes alot of background work it seems) and doing some radio active removal, and some crash site stuff. That was all over a 20 year period.

posted 09-10- 06:19 PM               

One of the many things I like about the Canadian military is it's 'purple', meaning the services have been more or less joined into one service. On this issue of Pentagon waste, perhaps this should be looked at. We can't be efficient if the services are competing to get a larger share of the military budget pie.

Rumsfeld went at his review, which has died, bass-ackwards. What should have happened IMO is that Colin Powell and the State Department should have said: "We want a military capable of doing _______". Then, the mission defined, we would be able to come up with a military that fits that bill, fits those commitments.

The folks in the Pentagon are like any other victims of group-think, they have become institutionalized, they have largely lost the ability to think out of the box.

In defense of defense, though, we have 800 #s and other methods of anonymously reporting waste, fraud, and abuse. Beyond a certain point, though, I think it's hard for any business or institution to cut waste. That's a high degree of efficiency.

I've been bashing Clinton, but that's only valid for today. I'll even stop bashing Clinton today. Tomorrow's what matters, and Bush gets his crack at tomorrow with the budget fight that began today. When that budget is passed, it's on Bush.

Apparently Kerry and Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad, D-N.D proposed a tax cut targetted more at the middle class. I don't know much about that proposal, the reason was to stimulate the economy. While I think the economy is more complex than military spending = government debt, the degree of tax cuts, which is good and I believe will eventually stimulate greater revenue, makes a military budget increase questionable even to me. How is Bush going to do it, I wonder.

At a minimum, though, I hope he cuts our commitments, and replaces aircraft that are too dilapidated to fly.

posted 09-10- 07:01 PM            

BAHAHAHAHA.. You believed in that shit? Get real dude. ROFLMAO!!

posted 09-10- 07:27 PM               

The only waste, fraud, and abuse I've seen lately is expecting anything other than an ignorant load of crap out of you.

posted 09-10- 08:56 PM               

It has been my observation that Field Grade officers are the primary problem.

However, I was talking about socialized medicine. Stay on topic or start your own freaking thread Chaps!

I don't give a damn about your opinions on the military if they don't relate to the topic at hand.

Sv's situation is much more relevent.

posted 09-10- 09:21 PM               

Only whining about a lack of facilities, which doesn't jibe with my observations (which are now 3 years out of date).

Especially irratating was the statement that ex-patriot retirees, who had to get on a waiting list to go to LRMC, had their situation hotly debated in Congress. Poor US citizians pay taxes in the US so that a hospital in Germany can serve retirees living in Greece.

Chap's next comment is typical military think. Nothing can be done until you point a weapon at the military system. Typical.

Think like you train, and train like you think.

posted 09-10- 09:30 PM               

It won't work.

No can do.