Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Shingen

quote:

Hmm...It appears that almost every argument I have given has received an appropriate counter-argument, except for my reply to Shingen's post, so I have nothing left to say, except for this.

Yeah sorry, I've been experiencing computer problems

quote:

Not true. It was American military strength that assisted in the defeat of Hitler. The economic system used to produce the weaponry is irrelevant.

I'm surprised aramike let this one slip. Fact is a country's military strength is ALWAYS dependent on it's economic strength. (ie: No money, no weapons, no viable armed forces ) ..and are you saying that Britian could've held off the Nazis WITHOUT U.S. intervention?! Here's some of your beloved statistics:

Total Armed forces commited in WWII

USA - 16,354,000

UK - 5,896,000

CAN. - 1,100,100

GER. - 17,900,000

INDIA - 2,581,800

Aust. 993,000

USSR 13,200,000

Production commited to WWII

TANKS

USA - 88,410

USSR - 105,251

UK - 27,896

GER. - 46,857

ARTILLERY

USA - 257,390

USSR - 516,648

UK - 124,877

GER. - 159,144

MILITARY AIRCRAFT

USA - 324,750

USSR - 157,261

UK - 131,549

CAN. 16,431

GER - 189,307

BOMBERS

USA - 97,810

USSR - 21,116

UK - 34,689

GER. - 18,235

MACHINE GUN

USA - 2,679,840

USSR - 1,477,400

UK - 297,336

CAN. 251,925

GER. - 674,280

I fail to see how ANYONE can not say that the USA was a PRIMARY FACTOR in the defeat of Hitler! Not only were we supplying OUR OWN ARMIES, but also supplying half of the allied armies as well! (do we need more statistics for that??)

quote:

Secondly, Germany's military strength was so vast that it took a combined force of American, British, and Canadian militaries to defeat Hitler on the western front.

D-DAY was almost an entirely American operation. There were several allied armies invovled, but the majority of armed forces landing on Normandy were AMERICAN!

quote:

Finally, the Japanese advance south of Manchuria was slowed down to a crawl by the Chinese United Front, and they were fighting for four years before America became involved.

True, but if it hadn't been for American Sea and Air power, Japan could have conceivably conquered all of the Solomons, AND Austrialia!

quote:

First, America was never in possession of Europe because the US was one part of a combined force on the western front. Secondly, Japan was given back to the Japanese because the Allied powers had learned from the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty

First, America had the bomb, so if WE WERE THE IMPERIALIST DOGS that you say we are, we could've taken Europe, Japan, and half the Coral sea if we had wanted to!

It really ticks me off when people start glorifying their country as if it was superior to every other nation, which happens to be arrogant and untrue, and I don't like it, I don't live in your country and you don't have to be Socialist to live outside the US.

Arrogant maybe, untrue hardly! America IS the greatest country ever created. If you don't have enough national pride in your own damn country, don't condemn me because I have enough national pride for mine! I'm NOT a NEW-WORLD-ORDERIST, nor do I proscibe to a one world government! If GOD wanted everyone to be equal in everything, he would have made us ALL EXACTLY the same!

That's all I have time for now... more later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


They were conquered by another world power (the Romans) with previous knowledge of Egypt's geography, which allowed them to prepare for it, plus the Egyptian deserts are nowhere near as harsh as the Russian winters, and nowhere near as vast as the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The Romans weren't the first to conquer Egypt. The Egyptian Middle Kingdom ended when a race known as the Hyksos invaded. Nor were the Romans the second or even the third people to conquer Egypt. Following the Hyksos was a period known as the New Kingdom which lasted until the collapse of the Twentieth Dynasty. After this Egypt was ruled by the Libyans, the Sudanese, the Assyrians, Persians, and finally Alexander. All of these came before Egypt was conquered by the Romans in 30 B.C. All this is to show that the Vast impenatrable deserts and Nile cataracts did not prevent the conquest of Egypt.

Also the United States WAS invaded by Britain in 1812.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


There was a 3 day differential between the dropping of each bomb. The Japanese had PLENTY of time to unconditionally surrender before the second bomb was dropped. The fact is, they wanted to fight. That was their culture.

Further, the US had little idea about the actual effects of the first bomb, so a second was dropped to ensure effectiveness. Also, the second bomb was made of different materials.


Just wanted to share this. Kinda hard expressing youself in a foreign language in debates like this, so i'll type a part about history regarding the A-bomb from a book. In a previous message i did not express myself correctly or was misunderstood. This is somewhat safer.

Reference: The WestPoint Military History Series- The second world war. 1984 Page 200-201.

"..They would use the bomb if the Japanese did not respond to a demand for uncondidional

surrender. This ultimatum was issued from Potsdam, the site of the Big Three Conference (i.e. Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt*), on July 26. Although the Emperor and some Japanese officials were willing to accept, the military were not; and the Japanese Premier's statement to the the press that the Potsdam Declaration would be ignored was taken by the Americans as a rejection. On August 6, the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. On August 9, just as the Japanese discerned the nature of the explosion , a second bomb hit Nagasaki. Russia declared war on Japan the same day. On August 10, japan asked for peace.

In retrospect, some Americans have viewed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with misgivings. why didn't the ultimatum mention the bomb and the intent to allow the Japanese to keep their Emperor? Why Nagasaki so soon after Hiroshima? why the bomb at all? All the anwsers are not known, and some that are known are less satisfying. What is known by all us that the Second Great War ended with awesome portent."

Just wanted to add some nuances. It just isn't back or white.

You mentioned that Russia was an ally, this is true on paper:

"But the Americans at this point had an ambivalent attitude toward Russia. They would not oppose her entry, but neither would they seek it, so they did not even consider waiting for the effect of Russia's eventual declaration of war"

* i added that.

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Mano Faber ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Castro has negotiated population exchanges with the US before.

That's a very interesting way to refer to the Mariel boatlift and Elian Gonzalez.

The only other population exchange that I remember is Castro's agreeing to take back the seven inmates that rioted in Louisiana a few weeks after Elian Gonzalez washed up on shore. Prior to the inmate riot, US State Department spokespeople said that the Gonzalez affair was a Florida family court issue, but after "secret" meetings with Cuban diplomats, the Cubans agreed to take back the rioting inmates and the State Department changed their tune regarding Gonzalez. A Clinton State Department spokesperson said that there was no deal made for Gonzalez, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some facts and quotes I found about the cuban health care system.

One of the beliefs of socialism is that providing free health care to all citizens is the government’s responsibility. The Cuban government considers its health care system to be one of the revolution’s greatest successes.

With over 60,000 trained physicians—54.6 per 10,000 people, (Pan American Health Organization [PAHO] 1998), Cuba has the highest doctor-patient ratio in the world (Randal 2000).

Like the rest of Cuba’s population, women’s life expectancy is high and comparable or even superior to that of more developed countries. The average life expectancy of women is 74.3 years, according to a statistic by PAHO.

The doctors’ goal is for at least 99 percent of all births to take place in the hospital, said Dr. Elena Martinez, a doctor at the Antonio Maceo polyclinic. Home birthing is not permitted (E. Martinez, personal communication, July 6, 2000). In fact, Cuban doctors have been so successful at this goal that the World Health Organization lists their percentage of deliveries by trained professionals at one hundred percent.

The embargo limits Cuban women’s birth control options and affects access to crucial preventative care. A recent study by the American Association for World Health found that the impact of the US embargo tightening since 1992 has “been particularly severe on women, children, the elderly, and people with chronic disease” (“Cuban health” 1997).

According to one World Health Organization official, “Cuba has invested more in health services than almost any other country, and it has a higher health profile than the United States” (as cited in Kirkpatrick, 2000). Several studies contradict the U.S. State Department’s assertion that Cuba—not U.S policy—is to blame for the crisis.

In short, the cuban health care system is one of the best in the world even though it doesn't have access to all the new advanced technological equipement.

source: http://www.designerwebs.org/CubaTripEducation.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I fail to see how ANYONE can not say that the USA was a PRIMARY FACTOR in the defeat of Hitler! Not only were we supplying OUR OWN ARMIES, but also supplying half of the allied armies as well! (do we need more statistics for that??)


Again, I repeat, the US did not enter the war till 1941. It had been going on since 1938 (not sure on that date, but right around there). We had 3 (again, approximately) additional years of build up without losses. ANY country in the world could produce that significance of excess arms and troops with 3 years of preparations. The USA /was/ planning on entering the war at some point. When was the only question. The Japanese decided that. Therefore I state again, that it was NOT US economic policy that won the war, but fresh troops and supplies.

I again state that we should drop ALL discussion about WWII. This used to be a discussion about modern day politics and WWII has no relavence to modern day. The entire world has changed since then. 60 years will do that.

Back to present day:

quote:

Land areas with equivocal benefits:

Anywhere in North America.

Anywhere in South America.


Anywhere in North America that is not the USA, is primarily cold, dry or mountainous. Mexico does not have close to the quality of food production land that we do, primarily because it is so dry. It also has (for the majority of it's land) the southern end of the Rocky Mountains. Canada, while having some viable landmass, has vast areas of absolute arctic landscape. Central America is predominantly jungle.

South America has no equivalent area to ours. It is the 4th largest land mass, under N. Amer, Africa, and Asia (not in any order). The largest section of flat land available is also known as the Amazon Rain Forest. Nearly uninhabitable due to diseases like Malaria. Waters are infested with Pirahna and a high quantity of poisonous snakes, not to mention microbial problems. Most of the rest of South America is dominated by excessively tall mountains (The Andes). Evidence to this fact is indicated by the total (2000) population of the entire continent, 350 million (Encarta). Roughly what the USA alone had in 1990 with far less land area and extremely less political division.

Although these areas (both N&S Amer) may contain high amounts of natural resources. Outside of the USA, the land is mostly inhospitable for one reason or another. So I don't think either of those areas could possibly have developed into a nation like the USA, except for the USA itself.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reference to the national budgets points out that despite the fact that the USA is roughly 67 times richer than Cuba, it is Cuba that provides more adequate medical care to its people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They really don't provide better care.


Umm...I'm sorry. But you have absolutely no evidence to back up saying that they do not provide better case. Whereas the quote from Menchise DOES have evidence supporting his claims. His evidence may be biased towards Cuba. But it's better than no evidence. Furthermore, any evidence you read from the USA, will be biased towards USA policy. So it's not really fair to state that his evidence is wrong, when likely, so is yours. I think the only way to judge for certain whether one health care system is better than another, is to use it. I personally have had to deal with the US health care system. It was quick and efficient. However, my city is rated as being the highest doctor to patient ratio in the country. On the otherhand, I think they need to hire better architects! That place was a rabbit warren!!! (not kidding, but definitely humorous). I have also had to deal with the healthcare system on certain Carribean islands (not Cuba). Those were horrendous. Even those provided by the UK (Cayman Islands).

On a slightly different topic involving the same country....

The Elian Gonzalez case is probably one of the single most horrifying things that the USA has done in recent past. It was probably the most significant case of the police (in this case, FBI) abusing their power, with the only possible exception of Ruby Ridge. What pleases me, is that the press was right on top of it. Usually, I despise the press. But in that case, they were right where they needed to be and took the right pictures. They showed the absolute disregard for human life and the rights of privacy that the police actually have.

For those of you not familiar with the final results, Elian was to be returned to Cuba. In lieu of letting the family surrender him, the government sent in armed police to violently take him from them. Several photographs were taken of police holding assault rifles aimed at an unarmed family. It is my understanding that the family had no intention of resisting the court order. This was simply yet another case (to add to the ever growing pile) of police abuse of power.

For those of you not familiar with the Ruby Ridge case (which IMHO was worse than Elian Gonzales), a white supremist did what we hope all white supremists do. He isolated himself in a place where he would not bother anyone. Some time later (years), he was asked by the gov't to infiltrate a white supremist group. To help the gov't take down the organization, because it was breaking a number of laws. They lacked evidence towards this, and they needed help. So they contacted him, and asked for his aid. He was an isolationist, so obviously, he refused. The government would not accept this, and thus they continued to try to pressure him to assist them. One of the methods of doing this, was to attempt to catch him in a criminal act. He was VERY cautious and followed all the laws to the letter. Thus, the only way they could catch him, was to entrap him. Entrapment is a major crime for police officials. It basically amounts to forcing a crime upon the individual. In this case, it was a matter of an agent, who claimed to be interested in a shotgun (a legal sale). He sold the shotgun. The agent said he wanted it sawed off (still legal down to a certain length). The agent pretended to measure the gun, and marked a spot that was just under the legal limit. But it was close enough, that the man didn't notice it wasn't legal. As soon as the gun was sawed and the agent away, other agents moved in on the property. They failed to announce that they were police and just opened fire on the place. The resulting battle killed the man's wife and son, and injured him. He was arrested, and tried. The trial failed horribly because of the entrapment. The agents involved in the issue were NOT(!) held accountable. But in the end, who cares if he won. He had STILL lost his wife AND son! All this because the government was pissed off because he wouldn't help them! Tell me the government (especially the police) isn't abusive of their power.

I'm sorry, you people that are so patriotic need a hard lesson in reality. Our country is abusing it's power right now. If you thought we were living in the land of the free, you thought wrong. The Constitution and it's amendments are ignored on a daily basis. New laws are drafted that blatantly violate people's rights as stated by the Bill of Rights. Your own local city probably has a half-dozen laws instituted that violate your rights. Your state almost definitely does, and the US Government is already well beyond. There's a t-shirt I've seen, that I'm rather fond of. It has the Bill of Rights written on it, with a stamp across it saying "Void where prohibited by law".

If you want more information on either of those cases. Look it up. There is pleanty of material available all over the place. Both were well publicized.

[RANT]

And to those of you who keep telling those of us who are not patriotic to leave. Shut the Hell up! You have NO right what so ever to say that to ANYONE! I do NOT have to be patriotic to live in this country. Just because you are, does not mean we all are. And people like myself keep this government from getting worse than it already is! We rock the boat. We try to change views. We try to make this country a better place than it currently is. I will not support any country that commits crimes against it's own people. Nor will I ever. However, I will try to push that country into STOPPING! I may not like the government of this country, but that does not take away my rights to pursue making that very same government better. The main difference between you and I, is that I don't pull the wool over my eyes each time the government violates someone's rights!

[/RANT]

This rant is not targetted at any of the recent posters. I don't recall any of them saying such things. However, there have been a few not-so recent posters who have held the viewpoint targetted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The Elian Gonzalez case is probably one of the single most horrifying things that the USA has done in recent past.

True, except that this was entirely a Clinton/Reno action, not the USA in general. This was the case of the most corrupt politician in American history corrupting everyone around him, too. He had no qualms about violating the Fourth Amendment, and he had a grudge to settle with Cubans (in this case, Cuban-Americans).

quote:

It was probably the most significant case of the police (in this case, FBI) abusing their power,

The FBI refused to get involved, which is why Clinton got the INS to bring in Border Patrols. It was the Border Patrol, not the FBI, that you saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Umm...I'm sorry. But you have absolutely no evidence to back up saying that they do not provide better case. Whereas the quote from Menchise DOES have evidence supporting his claims. His evidence may be biased towards Cuba. But it's better than no evidence.

No. EVIDENCE is impartial. OPINIONS are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Hitler was afraid that attacking Britain would draw the US into the war too soon.

Hitler wasn't afraid at all. In fact, he virtually dared the Americans to intervene when he declared war on them.

quote:

Well, chief - Canada has the SAME benefits that we do, is SURROUNDED by friendly nations, etc, yet they are not as powerful as we are.

Not quite. The entire northern part of Canada is freezing cold all year round, and Canada's population is one tenth the size of America's.

quote:

Wrong. The US fully EXPECTED to be drawn into the war as early as 1940. There

was heavy mobilization and recruitment efforts WELL underway before the Japanese attacked.

True, but Roosevelt didn't have the popular support for entry into the war until Pearl Harbour. Without that support, deployment may not have occurred.

quote:

I don't believe so. It would depend upon whether or not the capture of Moscow

would cause a cease in Russian resistance.

That was not going to happen. The Russians even went to the extent of evacuating Lenin's coffin as the Nazis approached! They weren't going to give up for a second.

quote:

The other thing to note is that, even when the Germans were fighting during the winter, their supply lines were CRIPPLED, not completely cut-off.

There was also the factor of entire tank units breaking down from the freezing cold. The Nazis lost a lot of equipment without a single shot being fired.

quote:

Perhaps impede - but NOT block.

OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Hitler wasn't afraid at all. In fact, he virtually dared the Americans to intervene when he declared war on them.

I'll research that further, but I do believe that Hitler didn't want the US in the war too soon.

I'll look into it.

quote:


Not quite. The entire northern part of Canada is freezing cold all year round, and Canada's population is one tenth the size of America's.

Fine. But its land area isn't much smaller. And Russia had a cold north.

The US hasn't always had a huge population, either.

quote:


True, but Roosevelt didn't have the popular support for entry into the war until Pearl Harbour. Without that support, deployment may not have occurred.

Doesn't matter. The point is that they were prepared. Besides, I think that, even without Pearl Harbor, the support would have been great enough. That was a different era.

quote:


That was not going to happen. The Russians even went to the extent of evacuating Lenin's coffin as the Nazis approached! They weren't going to give up for a second.

Well, if the Germans would have gotten that far, it would have been conceivable that the Russians would simply have been destroyed, and would cease to exist as a dangerous fighting force.

If the Germans would have prepared for the unique challenges of the Russian winter ... make no mistake ... they would have won.

quote:


There was also the factor of entire tank units breaking down from the freezing cold. The Nazis lost a lot of equipment without a single shot being fired.

An old American war general once said, "You can lose a lot if you've got a lot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Menchise:

Hitler wasn't afraid at all. In fact, he virtually dared the Americans to intervene when he declared war on them.

Originally posted by aramike:

I'll research that further, but I do believe that Hitler didn't want the US in the war too soon. I'll look into it.

My post:

I'll reply to this point with some excerpts of what I've read about Taylorism (Post-capitalist society by Peter F. Drucker ISBN 0-88730-620-9).

Hitler was encouraged to declared war on the US because to field a large force in Europe a large fleet to transport troops was needed (btw the subject is quite similar to your posts in the Arley Burke/Kidds thread, only that times have changed greatly since WWII ). Additionally large quantities of precision optics were required.

In 1941 the US did not have much of a merchant marine and its destroyers were few and quite obsolete. It also had almost no optical Industry.

By applying Taylor's "Scientific Management", that means by applying knowledge to work, US industry trained unskilled workers and converted them in sixty to ninety days into first-rate welders and ship builders. And the same kind of people within a few months to produce precision optics of better quality than the Germans had ever built-and on an assembly line to boot.

Before this Adam Smith had taken it for granted that it took a region at least 50 years to gain the necessary skills to turn out high quality products.

This, more than any other factor, explains why the US was able to defeat both Japan and Germany.

All the earlier economic powers in modern history -GB, US, Germany- emerged through leadership in new technology. Post WWII economic powers like Japan, South Korea etc. all owe their rise to Taylor's training.

Productivity began to rise at a rate of 3.5 to 4 % compound, a few years after Taylor started to apply knowledge to work (quite impressive if you ask me; certainly an explanation for the high growth rates of 1st and 2nd world economies in the 50s and 60s).

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, from what I recall about World War 2, the ONLY reason Hitler declared war on the US is the fact that their treaty with Japan required it. You can find this at britanica.com.

Eclipse confirmed my thinking. The fact is, Hitler did not want to fight EITHER the British or the US - it was initially searching for peace accords with the British after Hitler invaded Poland. The British did not acceed to these accords, in part because Britain and Poland were allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Well, from what I recall about World War 2, the ONLY reason Hitler declared war on the US is the fact that their treaty with Japan required it. You can find this at britanica.com.

Of course this was the reason why he did declare war. But I think the reason why he actually dared to is the above stated. That leads me to believe that he didn't expect the Americans to show up three years later.

quote:

Eclipse confirmed my thinking. The fact is, Hitler did not want to fight EITHER the British or the US - it was initially searching for peace accords with the British after Hitler invaded Poland. The British did not acceed to these accords, in part because Britain and Poland were allies.

Yep. But once the British did reject his offer of peace, it was clear that the war with the US would have started one day. Which also came with the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor. The option of peace with the British and/or the US wasn't one anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I leave for 5 days and look what happens, damn!!! LOL

OK, first a correction on the US Senate, Originally the senators were appointed by each of the states governors and then confirmed by their states legislators, this was so that the House was for the people and the senate was for the states. This was to keep the federal government out of states issues, because any law that passed the house would have to go past the sentators and the senators, being controlled by thier states governments, could kill a bill if it infringed on thier states rights, by making it a popular election instead, it killed this check and balance, see the federal government now!! The founding Fathers did this on purpose, and we of course, screwed it up!!

WWII, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, even the admiral who planned it, knew this was a huge mistake, he said that the sleeping tiger was now awake, he WAS VERY RIGHT!! By attacking Pearl Harbor it forced us to declare war on Japan, that is all we did, but because of the success of the attack, Hitler declared war on us as well, and then of course Italy. That is when we entered the war in Europe.

America was and is the most industrialized nation in the world, we can outproduce just about anyone given the right motivation.

Our economy is a powerhouse, and it always has been, until the government tries to screw with it!! Anyway, we were motivated, had the capability, and we kicked the asses of both Germany and Japan. After Germany surrendered, we were a little too tired to be willing to lose masses of soldiers taking Japan, so we dropped 2 nuclear weapons on them, we knew EXACTLY what they were capable of, see the New Mexico and Nevada Desert if you don't believe me. By dropping the Fat Man bomb, we were telling the Japanese that we could strike one of thier MAJOR industrial areas, which Hiroshima was, and completely destroy it. We told them to quit, because we had another, they decided we were bluffing and told us to piss up a rope, we then dropped little boy on Nagasaki, and destroyed it pretty well too, but Nagasaki was in a valley, so the bomb didn't do quite as much damage as fat man did to Hiroshima. After Nagasaki, we proved that we had more of the weapons that we had dropped on Hiroshima, THAT is when the emperor decided to unconditionally surrender. We DID NOT drop the bombs to test their destructiveness or to see that they worked. WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID AND HOW THEY WORKED, that is why it was the hardest decision Truman ever made!!

I tell this only to let you all know, if the US had NOT gotten into the war, all of Europe would be under the 3rd Reich right now, no if's and's or buts. All of Asia would be under control of the Japanese Imperial government, North America would be the ONLY continent not under thier control. Oh and Italy would have been taken out by the Germans as well, the alliance between Germany and Italy was convenient until Hitler was done conquering the rest of Europe, and then Italy would have been the last target.

The US Won WWII for the Allies, we were the foundation of the entire alliance, just as we are still the foundation now to most things in the world today. Britain would have fallen to the Reich along with ALL of Europe and Africa, Australia would be in the hands of the Japanese, and we would be sitting in North America having an arms race with all of them.

And Gomez is somewhat correct, the US had an excellent spot geographically to be created, but the fact is, our form of government and economy would be a powerhouse no matter where it was, see Japan, they have NO natural resources to speak of, but they are or were the second largest economy in the world. Our geographic location was an advantage, but not the be all end all of why we are what we are.

Now on to healthcare, sure Cuba has a great system, compared to say, Canada's health care system, but it doesn't even come close to the US health care system. Sure those stats are all well and good, but Genetic traits for different races have a lot to do with this as well, as well as the type of economy each country has, in Cuba, lots of Physical labor, US, sit our asses behind a desk and do service type work. Who do you think is gonna live longer?

Our Health care system is the most innovative, the most modern, the fastest as far as surgery is concerned etc. And this Patient to Doctor ratio is BS, Who CARES!!!

Our doctors are better trained, and the nurses take care of the patients most of the Time anyway!! Geez, get with the times and smell the coffee!! We also have the best payed Doctors in the world, see the amount of Canadian Doctors who came south when Canada Nationalized!! Sure Canada has cheaper drugs, but ever heard of price controls? No, the US has the best health care system in the world, bar none!! If I had a heart attack, and needed immediate surgery, I would get it, no if's and's or but's, no scheduling, no, sorry you are way down on the list or whatever, it would be RIGHT NOW!!! even if I had NO health insurance!!! Yes, that is the truth, I would have to pay for it later, but they would save my life first and then figure out how I was going to pay for it!! Yeah, and some of you are gonna whine, that I'm full of it, but the fact is, in a vast MAJORITY of cases that is exactly what happens, the minority is what is reported by the socialist media.

Now, as far as definitions, Walter Williams is a liberal!! YES, HE IS, a liberal is exactly the definition that Menchise stated above, but the left wing socialists perverted it in order to bring them selves to the right, so now when a person in the US says Liberal, it means Socialist. But a liberal is actually a centrist, and a constitutionalist, by definition!!! Weird, HUH?

Anyway, YES, I am an ARROGANT AMERICAN as far as being patriotic to my country and my constitution, but the fact is, I love this new congress, and the senate as well. Got that tax cut through, but the fact is, I LOVE GRIDLOCK!!! When the government doesn't get anything done, it means I am keeping my freedoms that much longer, as long as they are bellowing all thier hot air and can't agree on anything, and can't pass ANY laws!! I am a HAPPY CAMPER!!!

My 2 cents, CYA!!!

120 posts, damn, hey Tac, I got the BIG one On this thread!!! lol

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar - only one thing. I believe that it was little boy that was dropped first. Little Boy used an uranium core, while Big Boy used a plutonium core.

Edit: Confirmed this at Britanica.com.

Other than that, Jaguar, the post is right on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

If I had a heart attack, and needed immediate surgery, I would get it, no if's and's or but's, no scheduling, no, sorry you are way down on the list or whatever, it would be RIGHT NOW!!! even if I had NO health insurance!!! Yes, that is the truth, I would have to pay for it later, but they would save my life first and then figure out how I was going to pay for it!!


I can vouch for this one. Not the heart attack part (never had one, and hope I never will), but there is definitely no list. They don't care if you have insurance or not (although that was not always the case). They will arrange payment methods AFTER the problem is solved. It's all about healing the sick, not worrying about being paid. But this is all at the Hospital only.

As to quality of doctors outside of hospitals...

I can't say they are the best. I think a LOT of doctors are more inclined to give a patient drugs, because it makes them money. A lot of doctor's offices have pharmacies in them now, and they prescribe drugs to the patient with hopes that the patient will buy their drugs in the office. Which means more money for the doctor. Even in the case of doctors with no pharmacy, they seem to do this. Which leads me to believe they get some sort of kickback from the pharmacy. A prime example of this kind of behaviour, is when someone goes to the doctor for a cold. The doctor prescribes penecillin (or a variant). Penecillin is an antibiotic. It kills bacteria. The common cold is a virus. It has nothing to do with bacteria. Worse yet, penecillin kills not just bad bacteria, but GOOD bacteria that your body needs. So why do the doctors prescribe penecillin for a cold? Money. Yeah, they'll give you some hoopla about fighting secondary infections. When was the last time anyone you knew, who got a cold, who didn't get it treated, got worse?

So, in essence, I say that the US healthcare system is good, not great. It's often times far too motivated by greed.

Anyone from Cuba around here? So we can compare specifics? Cause that's really the only way to judge a system. From the inside, as I said before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As to quality of doctors outside of hospitals...

I can't say they are the best.

I can say it: "They are the best". The US health care system is unequalled in the world. When a rich or powerful world leader gets ill, do they go to the Mayo Clinic, or Havana Medical University?

quote:

I think a LOT of doctors are more inclined to give a patient drugs, because it makes them money. A lot of doctor's offices have pharmacies in them now, and they prescribe drugs to the patient with hopes that the patient will buy their drugs in the office. Which means more money for the doctor.

Other than the "a LOT", you may be correct on this. As sad as it is, every profession, be it clergy or physicians have BAD examples. People are still people, despite their education. A M.D. degree does not annoint any sainthood.

quote:

Even in the case of doctors with no pharmacy, they seem to do this. Which leads me to believe they get some sort of kickback from the pharmacy.

This would be highly illegal (see above in reference to BAD doctors).

quote:

A prime example of this kind of behaviour, is when someone goes to the doctor for a cold. The doctor prescribes penecillin (or a variant). Penecillin is an antibiotic. It kills bacteria. The common cold is a virus. It has nothing to do with bacteria.

This is a very big problem related to the patients wanting their doctor to do something, and in America, people generally will get what they want; whether it's "feel good" ineffective government policy or uneeded medication. If you go to your doc feeling like lukewarm canine excrement, and you compassionate physician tells you to just go home, do you know how the average Joe/Jane "feel" about the quality of care? This contributes to more wasted therapy, followed closely by a doc covering his derriere due to possible legal liabilty.

quote:

Worse yet, penecillin kills not just bad bacteria, but GOOD bacteria that your body needs.

Few significant side effects related to an individual taken uneeded meds; the bigger problem is the emergence of antibiotic resistent bacterial strains due to over-utilization of these antimicrobials.

Just wanted to get into the act.

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: thanatos ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dnoyeB!

I have heard that said many times that doctors overprescribe antibiiotics. Yet this has NEVER happened to anyone I know. My 2 year old son, after 2 years I could tell when he was about to need antibiotics. WHy wait and put him through misery. Plus I gotta come BACK to emergency for $50, which borders on saying this trip to emergency was not an emergency which = ~$150-500 if they declare that. They just would ot give the antibiotics I knew he was about to need, or infact needed. Hes fine and everything, but i have never experienced doctors doing overprescriptions.

I need antibiotics sometimes for an acne like condition on my head. It is often difficult to get the antibiotics unless the doctor knows and fully understads the conditon. WHich means I could have to wait a week by which time I may need minor surgery to drain a cyst because of their precaution.

so I hear about overprescription of antibiotics, but here in Detroit area I have never experienced it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...