BF2S Forums Why Scott Brown's Election Really Wasn't a Referendum on Healthcare

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But only one is as comprehensive as something like the NHS in Canada or the U.K. -- Massachusetts's.

But that doesn't matter anyway, because I think Galt said it best.  Our government can't run much of anything for shit.  So fuck it.

Would that include the military?

The military is ridiculously inefficient and wasteful.

So lets privatize it..

No. I did.

It is already privatized to some degree. Of course admitting that the government is fail at it's primary goal (the common defense) is a good step. Admitting that we are also doing what we were so adamantly against a couple hundred of years ago would also be encouraging.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It is already privatized to some degree. Of course admitting that the government is fail at it's primary goal (the common defense) is a good step. Admitting that we are also doing what we were so adamantly against a couple hundred of years ago would also be encouraging.

What is it we were so adamantly against?

If by privatized you are talking about our use of mercenaries like Blackwater, I don't disagree. However, they are what? 1%?

Expansion, nation building. Using the military to fight anything but an imminent danger.

The contracts we hand out go far beyond Blackwater. Shit, NASA doesn't even actually build their rockets.

Is NASA fail too? The government can't do anything right etc.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

What is it we were so adamantly against?

If by privatized you are talking about our use of mercenaries like Blackwater, I don't disagree. However, they are what? 1%?

Expansion, nation building. Using the military to fight anything but an imminent danger.

The contracts we hand out go far beyond Blackwater. Shit, NASA doesn't even actually build their rockets.

Is NASA fail too? The government can't do anything right etc.

And your solution is what? I'm failing to see the point.

My point is that often the answer is somewhere in between. The country goes through phases where sometimes we need more govt (never unrestricted) and sometimes we need less (never completely unregulated). You don't drive 55 mph all the time. How quickly we adjust is what defines our success. It's not an easy or sexy answer, but very few things in this world are absolute.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, I'm just curious why the amount of money we spend on our military matters to you. I think the chances of us staging an invasion of Ireland are rather small so it really doesn't have any impact on your life. Why do Euros feel the need to point out the size of the American military as if it's of any consequence to their lives?

The chances of you staging an invasion on Ireland are probably zero given that a vast proportion of your army are of Irish descent. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency in Americans happily pumping billions of their tax dollars into an inefficient and wasteful military (your words, not mine) and yet baulking at the idea of putting tax dollars into a universal healthcare program that they have more chance of getting actual use out of.

Can you not see where I'm coming from?

Of course I can. I've argued strongly on this very forum that we need to drastically shrink our military expenditures. But, I don't want social expenditures raised to replace the military expenditures. I want my taxed lowered. If the military was ever shrunk down to a normal size in this country our politicians would only do so to expand some other function of the government. I am opposed to any expansion of the government and want what already exists rolled back and shrunk down to a much more modest level. The basic functions of government should never exceed between 5-10% of GDP (as close to 5% as possible), nowhere close to the current 20%+.

However, my point still stands. All the foreigners on this board taking digs at the US for things that have zero impact on their own life is really rather petty.

At least your consistent in this regard then, that's fair enough, but there are plenty of Americans who see no irony in being militantly opposed to using tax dollars to implement social services like universal healthcare while at the same time supporting huge spending in military and in foreign conflicts. This may surprise you coming from a 'Euro-commie' but I'm highly opposed to inflated Government spending and overblown civil services too... I'm a fan of moderation. I like the social services we have here in most EU countries but at the same time see a lot of wasteful spending. I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of the 'fat' trimmed off.

If you want to have an American only discussion section I suggest you talk to the mods. It swings both ways though, we Euros have had to listen to lowing shite on for about 18 pages in another thread telling us we're all headed towards an Islamic super-State.

Kmarion wrote:

It is already privatized to some degree. Of course admitting that the government is fail at it's primary goal (the common defense) is a good step. Admitting that we are also doing what we were so adamantly against a couple hundred of years ago would also be encouraging.

Inefficient =/= ineffective

War is an inefficient endeavor by its very nature.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Inefficient =/= ineffective

Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

How are those going BTW?
Are you finished yet?
How much help are those stealth fighters, nuclear submarines and vertical take off jets proving?

You are talking about politics. I'm talking about military.

They are not the same thing.

Are you finished yet?

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It is already privatized to some degree. Of course admitting that the government is fail at it's primary goal (the common defense) is a good step. Admitting that we are also doing what we were so adamantly against a couple hundred of years ago would also be encouraging.

Inefficient =/= ineffective

War is an inefficient endeavor by its very nature.

Wouldn't it be more effective if it were efficient also? More war machine for your dollar?
I judge success by efficiency as well. A more efficient health care system would definitely be more effective. Efficiency does not necessarily = not effective. Set the bar a little higher.

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It is already privatized to some degree. Of course admitting that the government is fail at it's primary goal (the common defense) is a good step. Admitting that we are also doing what we were so adamantly against a couple hundred of years ago would also be encouraging.

Inefficient =/= ineffective

War is an inefficient endeavor by its very nature.

Wouldn't it be more effective if it were efficient also?

Not always. Again, war is, by its very nature inefficient. You find efficiencies where you can, but the goal is effectiveness. Efficiency may come along for the ride as an enabler for effectiveness, but it is not the end goal.

Kmarion wrote:

More war machine for your dollar?

That's not war. That's business (production). Totally different animal where efficiency IS the goal.

Kmarion wrote:

I judge success by efficiency as well. A more efficient health care system would definitely be more effective. Efficiency does not necessarily = not effective. Set the bar a little higher.

Comparing health care systems to war machines is comparing apples to anvils, Kmar. It's not a matter of setting the bar higher, it's a matter of understanding what you are actually measuring.

And I never said efficiency = not effective. Nor did I imply it.

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Inefficient =/= ineffective

War is an inefficient endeavor by its very nature.

Wouldn't it be more effective if it were efficient also?

Not always. Again, war is, by its very nature inefficient. You find efficiencies where you can, but the goal is effectiveness. Efficiency may come along for the ride as an enabler for effectiveness, but it is not the end goal.

Kmarion wrote:

More war machine for your dollar?

That's not war. That's business (production). Totally different animal where efficiency IS the goal.

Kmarion wrote:

I judge success by efficiency as well. A more efficient health care system would definitely be more effective. Efficiency does not necessarily = not effective. Set the bar a little higher.

Comparing health care systems to war machines is comparing apples to anvils, Kmar. It's not a matter of setting the bar higher, it's a matter of understanding what you are actually measuring.

And I never said efficiency = not effective. Nor did I imply it.

Armies have budget constraints too. Their economic efficiency does impact their effectiveness. Measuring performance is what I assume you meant. Proper training and equipment cost money. Generals are always asking for more money. I assume this is so they can better serve, be effective.

Kmarion wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wouldn't it be more effective if it were efficient also?

Not always. Again, war is, by its very nature inefficient. You find efficiencies where you can, but the goal is effectiveness. Efficiency may come along for the ride as an enabler for effectiveness, but it is not the end goal.

Kmarion wrote:

More war machine for your dollar?

That's not war. That's business (production). Totally different animal where efficiency IS the goal.

Kmarion wrote:

I judge success by efficiency as well. A more efficient health care system would definitely be more effective. Efficiency does not necessarily = not effective. Set the bar a little higher.

Comparing health care systems to war machines is comparing apples to anvils, Kmar. It's not a matter of setting the bar higher, it's a matter of understanding what you are actually measuring.

And I never said efficiency = not effective. Nor did I imply it.

Armies have budget constraints too. Their economic efficiency does impact their effectiveness. Measuring performance is what I assume you meant. Proper training and equipment cost money. Generals are always asking for more money. I assume this is so they can better serve, be effective.

And that's where I said there are areas where efficiency can be found. But the problems arise where you try to apply business model efficiency standards to an inherently inefficient function. Because of the nature of what you do, metrics are not always there to show efficiency using civilian business models, so by those models, you are inefficient, but highly effective at your primary mission.

Does that make any sense?