If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

So you agree, then.

I don't object to this. The truth is that many times, military service sends people home with no scars; and sometimes it sends them home with no legs.

Sometimes, a teacher might go home with bullet wounds; more often than not, they go home with no scars.

The point isn't in the frequency, but in our capacity to cover injuries incurred.

You're also ignoring the nature of the majority of US healthcare costs and the nature of US military demands. The majority of US healthcare costs are due to unhealthy lifestyle (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, etc) and age. The majority of active duty service members are 18-22 and passed a physical that at least 1 in 4 couldn't pass, and that number is growing, primarily due to growing childhood obesity. If one wants active duty style healthcare, we would also need to instantiate active duty style health standards and required physical activity. Most are not going to agree to that. The US can't afford universal health care with the current situation, but if everyone needed to run 3 miles 3 times a week in under 28 minutes (Marine standards), and meet height/weight standards, we might be able to.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're also ignoring the nature of the majority of US healthcare costs and the nature of US military demands. The majority of US healthcare costs are due to unhealthy lifestyle (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, etc) and age. The majority of active duty service members are 18-22 and passed a physical that at least 1 in 4 couldn't pass, and that number is growing, primarily due to growing childhood obesity. If one wants active duty style healthcare, we would also need to instantiate active duty style health standards and required physical activity. Most are not going to agree to that. The US can't afford universal health care with the current situation, but if everyone needed to run 3 miles 3 times a week in under 28 minutes (Marine standards), and meet height/weight standards, we might be able to.

Again, I think this misses the point. But you're right, we can't afford universal health care with the current situation.

 

[Dak]

Again, I think this misses the point. But you're right, we can't afford universal health care with the current situation.

I approach things in terms of practicality first, and ideology second. Even ideologically, there's a difference between a random retail worker or whatever hurting their back lifting a sack of concrete and a servicemember rucking 75lbs for 10 miles multiple times. There is a difference in contract agreement and exposure. If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

We """"could"""" provide universal healthcare even without that; other, less wealthy countries do. The issue is of course one of quality, wait times, taxes, and overall autonomy and freedom of choice in medical care. A substantial amount of public healthcare money right now is spent on the elderly in their last moments of life, a massive waste. The problems are inherent to a quasi-private healthcare system where it's in the interest of private insurers and doctors to charge the public as much as possible.

 

[Dak]

We """"could"""" provide universal healthcare even without that; other, less wealthy countries do. The issue is of course one of quality, wait times, taxes, and overall autonomy and freedom of choice in medical care. A substantial amount of public healthcare money right now is spent on the elderly in their last moments of life, a massive waste. The problems are inherent to a quasi-private healthcare system where it's in the interest of private insurers and doctors to charge the public as much as possible.

There's an element of truth in your post, but there's zero equivalent in Scandinavian white health and a bunch of Southern/Eastern/tribal whites and Southern Euros/Mestizos/Afro health cases. A bunch of McDonalds eatin,sausage eatin, purple drankin MFs wantin diabetes and cardiovascular care motherfuckers.

 

[rms]

Scandinavian countries tax harmful.things to hell anyways so that's horseshit.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There's an element of truth in your post, but there's zero equivalent in Scandinavian white health and a bunch of Southern/Eastern/tribal whites and Southern Euros/Mestizos/Afro health cases. A bunch of McDonalds eatin,sausage eatin, purple drankin MFs wantin diabetes and cardiovascular care motherfuckers.

There doesn't really need to be. While there's no doubt that most Europeans have healthier lifestyles than most Americans, health and cost don't even correlate all that well. A person shot dead or dropped dead of a heart attack in their 40s is a boon on the medical care system relative to someone that lives a healthy life and treats every benign cancer they encounter up to their 90s. Every year that a person lives beyond their working years is one more year to diminish the tax surplus paid to the government during their working years (assuming they were ever not net-drains on the country). Our rate of heart disease isn't actually that out of line with other first-world nations, and it's the leading cause of death in virtually all of Europe, whether it kills at 60 or 90.

The problem is that our system is fundamentally backwards. If you don't contribute to society, you don't deserve anything from society. The elderly are the last people on Earth that deserve special medical treatment; they had an entire life to live healthy and save money, as well as plenty of time to have children who could in turn support their parents, and yet they're the biggest drains as well as the most indeterminate. Ideally we would reverse things, providing free health care to all minors (only fair since they are dependents with few rights and little opportunity for income) and encouraging savings accounts for all working adults. Retirees with no savings go to the glue factory when they begin to sour.

 

[EternalMetal]

yeah it's a weird thing. you only get continued care if you deployed to a combat zone, and that care is only for 5 years after your deployment(or end of service date?). You only get lifetime healthcare if you are disabled over 20% rating or 10%/0% on specific body parts/areas.

the author has VA care because he deployed, but he's not supposed to once that 5 years is gone.

Thank you for the clarification. The author of the article you linked seems to be oblivious to these stipulation, which invalidates his point.

I personally don't think you can separate the two aspects and i'm not sure how to weigh them in respect to each other. I think I dislike the idea of the government controlling what you can do because of the health care costs more than poor people/unlucky people getting fucked

Well to be honest I did separate them: into ideal and practical. I think that government subsidized healthcare should be a right that everyone is entitled to, but I recognize that this is impractical. I dont really understand what you mean by government "control"; I think everyone should have the right resolve their own health issues if it is technically possible. Doctors are trained to do everything in their power in order to enable their patient to survive. By extension I believe that the healthcare system should ensure that everyone in the nation should have the same justice. Even if this isnt currently possible, I still think that it should be our end goal, and anything in between is a fiscal compromise.

Sacrifice has to be a personal choice, otherwise it's just oppression eg the draft. However it wasn't myself who compared the danger and sacrifice involved in choosing to be a teacher vs choosing to join the military.

This is a serious point of contention imo. Drafted veterans are completely different from those who willingly signed a contract. Anybody who signs up for military service should understand the risks involved and agree to them. Anybody signing up for a dangerous job should be considering the cost:benefit analysis of said job and be ok with it. Most people I know who joined the military knew about the benefits and decided to join based on them. The others who joined based upon coerced nationalism or altruism were simply the fools who bought into military propaganda.

I think the contradiction was a tad more obvious because the writer called it sacrifice and not work, but the underlying point is not really important to anyone but myself.

the fact that we mostly talking about combat zone injuries/complications is part of the problems with the mentality in this country. You don't sacrifice human rights that we attempt to establish when you decide to join AmeriCorps or get a few years of "urban" experience.

You also don't throw away X years of your life away by signing a contract at age 19, where teaching is always a good look to get other teaching options.

The article is short sighted and it's hilarious that an active/veteran service member would write it. But he was ADA, an officer but that just shows how opportunity shapes opinion without any interest in understanding the whole thang.

I dont think I follow what you are saying. You seem to be downplaying the potential danger of military service while simultaneously mocking the career pursuit of a teacher who decides to teach outside his/her comfort zone. I havent had military experience, so maybe I just dont understand your esoteric viewpoints?

I approach things in terms of practicality first, and ideology second. Even ideologically, there's a difference between a random retail worker or whatever hurting their back lifting a sack of concrete and a servicemember rucking 75lbs for 10 miles multiple times. There is a difference in contract agreement and exposure. If we could force universal exercise and nutrition we could provide universal healthcare.

While there may be a physical difference, the moral difference between two such people is indistinguishable. You may conflate individual contribution with human worth, but this is the same fundamental issue that mankind has faced since day one. I also think that your logic is backwards: ideals should come before practicality, otherwise you are aiming for underachievement.

 

[CiG]

This is a serious point of contention imo. Drafted veterans are completely different from those who willingly signed a contract. Anybody who signs up for military service should understand the risks involved and agree to them. Anybody signing up for a dangerous job should be considering the cost:benefit analysis of said job and be ok with it. Most people I know who joined the military knew about the benefits and decided to join based on them. The others who joined based upon coerced nationalism or altruism were simply the fools who bought into military propaganda.

Agreed. I'm not really sure where the point of contention is.

 

[EternalMetal]

Agreed. I'm not really sure where the point of contention is.

I guess I wasnt too explicit about that. In America everyone always speaks about war veterans as if they are outside reproach, but imo there is a huge difference between those who were drafted without given a choice vs those who signed up knowing the risks. I guess since you are Australian you may not see it directly, but there seems to be a public sentiment to honor modern war vets the same way that we used to venerate those who were drafted back in the WW/Cold War days. I was apprehensive about bringing this issue up since we have some modern day vets among posters here, but I still think that the idea of volunteering is significantly different than forced conscription.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

American vets are over-entitled scum of the earth, by and large.

 

[CiG]

I actually respect both around the same degree, but for different reasons. Being drafted is horrific to me and they deserve respect for being used by the government like that, at the same time people who join by choice deserve respect because it's a brave choice without which the draft would eventually have to return, because no way am I joining willingly and without joiners we essentially create a justification for the government to force us.

Does that make sense lol?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

it's a brave choice without which the draft would eventually have to return

Nice meme. America fought plenty of wars without a draft. We only really began drafting people when our leaders decided that selling out its citizenry to international powers was profitable enough. Non-participation and opposition are what stopped the draft, not bending over like a schmuck for the good of muh nation. People that willingly join the military should be shamed for perpetuating a sham institution.

 

[CiG]

Black America, Please Stop Appropriating African Clothing and Tribal Marks.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nice find.

Insofar as cultural appropriation causes any real damage (and as far as I can tell it does not), it does seem a bit unfair to compare whites culturally appropriating blacks to blacks culturally appropriating blacks. The former took away the opportunity for culture from the latter. The wonderful culture of scarification, bizarre piercings, etc might exist among those African-Americans right now had the white man never purchased them as slaves. That being said, it's ultimately just a form of relatively benign racism to complain about cultural appropriation. The comments in those kinds of articles are always better than the articles themselves. Race-obsessed failures of life bragging about having taken a DNA test which somehow grants them the right of monopoly over ideas and creations that they themselves had no participation in developing. Can't wait for black separatism to be treated the way white separatism is.

Best comment:

Before I take this as read...who is the author? Where are their African ancestors from? Are they culturally African? Which country/region/group? Did Rachel Dolezal write this?

Because the lack of ability to know where the author is coming from, sort of negates his arguments in a big way.

That's right darkie, PROVE your blackness, show us your pure African heritage or your opinion isn't worth shit.

 

[CiG]

Just heard on the news that apparently a suicide-assassination plot on Theresa May's life was foiled. Hint: wasn't a Hindu.

 

[rms]

I dont really understand what you mean by government "control";

since we agree that public health is fiscally diffulcult, the only alternative to a Bernie Sanders type plan is to enforce citizens to be healthier: ie taxing 'bad' goods etc. This is what i mean by government control and I personally think rationing/max purchasing per period would be a real thing for booze, cigs, fatty foods etc.

Anybody signing up for a dangerous job should be considering the cost:benefit analysis of said job and be ok with it

Agreed, and part of said benefit is medical compensation for services rendered

You seem to be downplaying the potential danger of military service while simultaneously mocking the career pursuit of a teacher who decides to teach outside his/her comfort zone.

I am, because, as we've seen in this conversation by non-vets, most of the discussion centers around injuries by IEDs or fire fights. Something like 10% or less of service members even see combat, and that's in conflicts like Vietnam. I think it's only a few % now. One day public perception will change, one where military stories can be told other than combat or the slightly growing female rape thang.

Nothing against teachers, but being a combat trained service member does nothing for your professional life. My 4.5 years mean literally nothing to the outside world, except Obama gave employers a tax credit for hiring vets. If you teach in a shit area for 4.5 years, it's not going to be looked at as an indifferent or negative choice but the opposite IMO.

but there seems to be a public sentiment to honor modern war vets the same way that we used to venerate those who were drafted back in the WW/Cold War days.

I think we over estimate how the military is different because there isn't forced service and again how much 'forced' voluntarism there was because of the draft.

I'm not sure how to condition an argument about draftees vs. signed up, but I don't even think it has to go that far, combat deployments were incredibly different to anything before Desert Storm. That is intense enough.

American vets are over-entitled scum of the earth, by and large.

It's definitely effecting a large enough percentage to worry about, but if you ever talk to / hear someone complaining that vets don't get enough today -- they are part of the problem. only thing we need is adequate bureaucratic employees/oversight.

 

[Dak]

While there may be a physical difference, the moral difference between two such people is indistinguishable. You may conflate individual contribution with human worth, but this is the same fundamental issue that mankind has faced since day one. I also think that your logic is backwards: ideals should come before practicality, otherwise you are aiming for underachievement.

What is "human worth"? Some sort of metric based on the ability to breath, eat, and shit?

 

[EternalMetal]

Nothing against teachers, but being a combat trained service member does nothing for your professional life. My 4.5 years mean literally nothing to the outside world, except Obama gave employers a tax credit for hiring vets. If you teach in a shit area for 4.5 years, it's not going to be looked at as an indifferent or negative choice but the opposite IMO.

Law enforcement? Also I think many employers look fondly on the types of values and discipline one learns when in the military. Or perhaps maybe you should have done more for advancement rather than just be another combat scrub? Idk, I cant see this as a net neutral thing to put on a resume at all.

I think we over estimate how the military is different because there isn't forced service and again how much 'forced' voluntarism there was because of the draft.

I'm not sure how to condition an argument about draftees vs. signed up, but I don't even think it has to go that far, combat deployments were incredibly different to anything before Desert Storm. That is intense enough.

To be completely honest, if I was drafted in times of war I would do everything in my power to get out of it. If I were to have gone so far as to sign up, then that would mean I took on the potential risks of joining a violent organization.

I actually respect both around the same degree, but for different reasons. Being drafted is horrific to me and they deserve respect for being used by the government like that, at the same time people who join by choice deserve respect because it's a brave choice without which the draft would eventually have to return, because no way am I joining willingly and without joiners we essentially create a justification for the government to force us.

Like I said before, the people from high school that I know joined tended to fall into two categories. One, they wanted the signing bonus and the opportunity to get free college. Two, they wanted to "bag towel-heads", "blow shit up", fly fighter jets, or some other boyish 'plays-to-much-counterstrike' kind of horseshit. Someone who is forced to be trained to become a killer is someone who is very pitiful indeed, and deserves to be looked at from a different perspective than someone who signed up willingly. Some honorable people exist on both sides, but being drafted to war is probably the most fucked up thing in the history of mankind aside from stuff like the Holocaust or towns that get ravaged Genghis Kahn style.

What is "human worth"? Some sort of metric based on the ability to breath, eat, and shit?

Meh, I probably could have worded it better. I should have said something like the value of a human life, of which I mean should be equivalent regardless of contribution. Modern society was built with this ideal in mind, and is summarized well by the Golden Rule. You suggest looking at things practically before looking at them ideologically. Why?

 

[Dak]

Meh, I probably could have worded it better. I should have said something like the value of a human life, of which I mean should be equivalent regardless of contribution. Modern society was built with this ideal in mind, and is summarized well by the Golden Rule. You suggest looking at things practically before looking at them ideologically. Why?

I guess we should place equal value on the life of [insert terrible person in history] and [insert renowned person in history]. Because they both took shits and had functioning myocardium or something. Modern society was built by the discovery of and discovery of uses for oil and better understanding - in some cases anyway, of economic principles, not individual ideals.

To answer your question about practicality: I can hold any number of ideals that cannot translate into any meaningful action, or can in fact cause terrible harm to others, because material reality is ignored. See: Bolshevism. See: Venezuela. Etc.