$716 billion defense budget.......Wow...

[HunterSdVa29]

Why are the choices always only shit, or vomit?
I don't understand why so many people go this route, as if we only can go full on Commie, or full on Neo conservative.

The US doesn't fucking need to spend $700+ billion on the military, and it wouldn't (and isn't, nor ever has) spend $700+ billion on welfare.
This is a waste of fucking money, and all sides should be outraged by it.

Education , health, infrastructure, and technology are the pathways to success, not dropping bombs and flying expensive ass jets and drones over deserts to kill goat fuckers.

whatever you say man

one can easily make the case the reason the EU and members of NATO can even get away w/ like zero defense and no real military to speak of is b/c of our spending....

Same goes for their HC and all the R&D and innovations that come from the US market

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Why are the choices always only shit, or vomit?
I don't understand why so many people go this route, as if we only can go full on Commie, or full on Neo conservative.

The US doesn't fucking need to spend $700+ billion on the military, and it wouldn't (and isn't, nor ever has) spend $700+ billion on welfare.
This is a waste of fucking money, and all sides should be outraged by it.

Education , health, infrastructure, and technology are the pathways to success, not dropping bombs and flying expensive ass jets and drones over deserts to kill goat fuckers.

 

[Quipling]

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/01/26/is-the-pentagon-getting-a-raise-in-fy19/


Jesus fucking christ.......The soviet union come back? WTF?

Military: Hey, White House, can we get $600 billion? I need to buy some planes and shit.
White House: $600 billion? What do you need $700 billion for? Here, take this $719 billion and split it with Boeing.

 

[Rod1]

Same goes for their HC and all the R&D and innovations that come from the US market

Go ahead and make the case.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Go ahead and make the case.

it's exponentially easier to fund HC when you aren't the one innovating anything nor incurring the R&D costs

Kinda odd that most of that comes from the US, the one major Western country that doesn't utilize UHC or single payer

 

[Rod1]

it's exponentially easier to fund HC when you aren't the one innovating anything nor incurring the R&D costs

Kinda odd that most of that comes from the US, the one major Western country that doesn't utilize UHC or single payer

Source?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Source?

common sense?

 

[Rod1]

common sense?

Earth is flat, its common sense, since if it wasnt flat then people would simply roll down and fall into space.

 

[Roaming East]

Considering I spent time as an E4 and then moved up the chain I can say with complete certainty you are wrong. The "mafia" spends more time trying to find short cuts and complaining than doing actual work. The idea that they have any detailed knowledge about OR rates, supply chains, lifecycles, or serious maintenance is laughable. Most of them can't balance a checkbook.

The fact that think a Colonel has more insight into the unit than an XO or CDR tells me exactly who you were in the unit. The COL stops by for formations and promotions. The rest of his time is spent in meetings. Or adjudicating Article 15's for E4's who keep fucking up.

that speaks more to your career field than anything else. I went in as Weather in the USAF. Our initial training has a 70% washout rate just due to the academic pace of the AFSC. needless to say, the guys and gals in the squadron werent your typical flightline monkeys out getting hammered every weekend and fist fighting in the dorms. I then progressed to the CWT side of the house where again, highly select and limited amount of personnel meant that the capabilities of my guys was better. I had to operate in a squadron environment where 36 active personnel were manning stations designed for 54 people, doing 24/7 3 on 1 offs for over a year and STILL managed to get the outstanding unit award while maintaining 90% AEF deployment availability. The Col commmanding my unit was a rated flyboy who wasnt even f-king WX so when i say our over arching command staff really didnt have a fucking clue what we did, im not blowing smoke.

But hell, have the SOWT guys barely understand what we do anymore.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Earth is flat, its common sense, since if it wasnt flat then people would simply roll down and fall into space.

Thats a patently ridiculous comparison by default as its demonstrably untrue

I only typed that, btw, b/c i was leaving work and didn't have time to source it

For example (from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/ ) in 2009 40% of all articles published in scholarly journals on biomedical reserach came from the US, no other country is even remotely w/in the realm of being close

Germany and Switzerland actually sold more pharmaceuticals than the US last year, mad respect, which makes it more odd that many of their research HQs for their companies are located in the US w/ US Educated scientists in charge of RandD
Over half the top 20 medical device producers are located in the US....

Our share is slightly reducing, but if anything that's the result of too much regulation, the R&D tax credit being temporary unlike other countries, Obamacare added a 2.3% extra tax on all revenues (not profits) from medical device producers killing some of their RandD budget, etc...

Or as the President of the Galen Institute put it: "The United States remains the undisputed leader in biopharmaceutical research for now, but our continued leadership is far from guaranteed. While other countries fight ferociously to lure biotech jobs and medical breakthroughs, our outdated regulations and burdensome taxes put the biomedical sector at risk."

 

[Quipling]

Thats a patently ridiculous comparison by default as its demonstrably untrue

I only typed that, btw, b/c i was leaving work and didn't have time to source it

For example (from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/ ) in 2009 40% of all articles published in scholarly journals on biomedical reserach came from the US, no other country is even remotely w/in the realm of being close

Germany and Switzerland actually sold more pharmaceuticals than the US last year, mad respect, which makes it more odd that many of their research HQs for their companies are located in the US w/ US Educated scientists in charge of RandD
Over half the top 20 medical device producers are located in the US....

Our share is slightly reducing, but if anything that's the result of too much regulation, the R&D tax credit being temporary unlike other countries, Obamacare added a 2.3% extra tax on all revenues (not profits) from medical device producers killing some of their RandD budget, etc...

Or as the President of the Galen Institute put it: "The United States remains the undisputed leader in biopharmaceutical research for now, but our continued leadership is far from guaranteed. While other countries fight ferociously to lure biotech jobs and medical breakthroughs, our outdated regulations and burdensome taxes put the biomedical sector at risk."

Weird how despite shouldering so much of the research costs, they still spend more on marketing them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rketing-than-research/?utm_term=.a8140b563bea

 

[HunterSdVa29]

one could also simply look at past Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine....

one country stands out as dominating that list
since 1933 98 of the 182 came from the US

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Weird how despite shouldering so much of the research costs, they still spend more on marketing them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rketing-than-research/?utm_term=.a8140b563bea

well ya
nobody had Restless Leg Syndrome before they made that shit up

yet mad people still go bald or get acne......odd

 

[Rod1]

Thats a patently ridiculous comparison by default as its demonstrably untrue

I only typed that, btw, b/c i was leaving work and didn't have time to source it

For example (from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthe...innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/ ) in 2009 40% of all articles published in scholarly journals on biomedical reserach came from the US, no other country is even remotely w/in the realm of being close

Germany and Switzerland actually sold more pharmaceuticals than the US last year, mad respect, which makes it more odd that many of their research HQs for their companies are located in the US w/ US Educated scientists in charge of RandD
Over half the top 20 medical device producers are located in the US....

Our share is slightly reducing, but if anything that's the result of too much regulation, the R&D tax credit being temporary unlike other countries, Obamacare added a 2.3% extra tax on all revenues (not profits) from medical device producers killing some of their RandD budget, etc...

Or as the President of the Galen Institute put it: "The United States remains the undisputed leader in biopharmaceutical research for now, but our continued leadership is far from guaranteed. While other countries fight ferociously to lure biotech jobs and medical breakthroughs, our outdated regulations and burdensome taxes put the biomedical sector at risk."

If the US did absolutely ZERO research on a given year, healthcare costs would be reduced by 5%, and as a percentage of the GDP it would be 0.8%.

So the best case scenario where 100% of all medical research in the world is done in the US, US healthcare costs would be reduced by 5%.

In reality out of all research coming out of the US only a fraction ends up being usable research (a lot reaching dead ends) a lot of it is carried with public funds and a lot of it is useless (creating a "cure" that already exists just to patent it).

Also as you pointed out 40% of the research is done elsewhere so the rest of the world still is producing more research at a lower price.

Common sense aint so common apparently.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

If the US did absolutely ZERO research on a given year, healthcare costs would be reduced by 5%, and as a percentage of the GDP it would be 0.8%.

So the best case scenario where 100% of all medical research in the world is done in the US, US healthcare costs would be reduced by 5%.

In reality out of all research coming out of the US only a fraction ends up being usable research (a lot reaching dead ends) a lot of it is carried with public funds and a lot of it is useless (creating a "cure" that already exists just to patent it).

Also as you pointed out 40% of the research is done elsewhere so the rest of the world still is producing more research at a lower price.

Common sense aint so common apparently.

i never said our research is why our costs are so high, that's only part of it much of it is administrative and straight up greed

but it sure is extremely easier to fund for something like UHC when A) your personal and sales/VAT tax rates are substantially higher, B) Defense costs are almost nonexistent, certainly not the NATO standard that most of these countries fail to meet, and C) much of the research and innovations aren't done in your country yet you still benefit by being able to produce generic versions of those medicines and equipment

Common sense is quite common hence the literal name, no clue what you're getting at

 

[HunterSdVa29]

not like the effects of standardizing costs and coverage under ACA actually hindered some of our innovations....oh wait, the Forbes article points that out, we 'only' have about 38% of published articles in 2016

it's almost like that would be exacerbated greatly under a true UHC system. Inherently when you remove the profit motive from an activity, the innovation is going to stagnate/bottleneck/not be as productive b/c why wouldn't it?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

There's also the Nobel prizes, which aren't a US based prize remember....

did you peep those, care to explain that?

 

[Rod1]

i never said our research is why our costs are so high, that's only part of it much of it is administrative and straight up greed

but it sure is extremely easier to fund for something like UHC when A) your personal and sales/VAT tax rates are substantially higher, B) Defense costs are almost nonexistent, certainly not the NATO standard that most of these countries fail to meet, and C) much of the research and innovations aren't done in your country yet you still benefit by being able to produce generic versions of those medicines and equipment

Common sense is quite common hence the literal name, no clue what you're getting at

A) Actually the US government spends as much as % of GDP as a lot of European nations in HC, so its not about taxes, its about collective bargaining.

B) France and the UK have nukes, so its not like they are going to be invaded by Russia anytime soon. Eastern Europe does benefits from the US defense umbrella, but its not like they would need to spend a big amount to get a good defensive force.

C) There is tons of research and innovation in Europe and Europe will respect US patents.

 

[Rod1]

not like the effects of standardizing costs and coverage under ACA actually hindered some of our innovations....

Source?

 

[Rod1]

There's also the Nobel prizes, which aren't a US based prize remember....

did you peep those, care to explain that?

How are nobel prizes related to HC costs?