An ostentatious proposal

[Ziggurat]

You still haven't accepted that access to health care should be a right haven't you? You still think that health care should be reserved for the privileged few don't you?

My personal opinion isn't the point. The point is that your charge of hypocrisy is nonsensical. Regardless of what we should do, military and civilian populations are very different, and for good reason. We don't treat them the same. We regularly make distinctions, even within the civilian population. That doesn't make something hypocritical. You've gotten lazy if you think that this charge of hypocrisy will suffice. It doesn't, not by a long shot. If universal health care for the civilian population is the right thing to do, then you've got to be able to argue for it on its own merits, without reference to what we do with our military. As theprestige pointed out quite eloquently, there is no reason why we must, or even should, try to replicate military conditions within the civilian population.

 

[Ray Brady]

"Shoot the wounded" has been proposed as a military strategy before.

By this I presume you mean shooting your own wounded?

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow your wounded to be captured? That way, the burden and expense of feeding, housing and providing medical care would be shifted to your enemy, helping to deplete their resources.

 

[applecorped]

This thread is Thunderiffic.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah how terrible for me to shine a bright light on a huge piece of hypocrisy.

AMERICA! The land where the military gets health care and a huge portion of the civilians do not.

I see nothing hypocritical about treating soldiers better than civilians. Given what we ask of them, I don't think we treat them well enough as it is. You want military-grade health care: Have you considered rendering military-grade service to your country?

 

[theprestige]

By this I presume you mean shooting your own wounded?

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow your wounded to be captured? That way, the burden and expense of feeding, housing and providing medical care would be shifted to your enemy, helping to deplete their resources.

That assumes that your enemy isn't as hard-pressed for resources, and as hell-bent on victory, as you are.

More than any other resource, the Soviet Union had warm bodies to contribute to the war effort. So they traded population for victory. They had so many warm bodies that they could even use them as a substitute for morale. Militaries that have fewer troops to expend might better spend their resources to maintain high morale.

Speaking of which: Travis, why did you put "morale" in scare quotes?

 

[Richard Masters]

Think of the costs illness and injury bring to our society.

Ambulances, EMTs, nurses, doctors, lifeflights, clinics, hospitals and all those drugs.

Now think of our present debt problems within the government.

What if, instead of treating the injured and the sick we merely transported them to a facility to be exterminated by the most economic means possible?

This not only eliminates the need for hospitals and all medical infrastructure but also frees up an enormous chunk of money. Both for the government and in the private sector. Imagine how doctors, with no one left to treat, will now move and find usefulness elsewhere.

It's possible we could first implement this in the armed forces. There, in battle instead of hauling the wounded out on liters and helicoptering them to MASH units they would be shot. Thus freeing up men and resources for the conduct of battle itself. The euthanized wounded would be replaced by reserves when time permits.

After trial by fire while under fire the social policy could be brought home. America is already a society that doesn't care if huge swaths of it die from treatable illnesses/conditions so getting their acquiescence shouldn't be too hard. Simply tell them the only other options are "socialsm" and they will be on board.

In a few short years a person will find themselves in a new type of society free the scourge of those that need help and assistance. They would feel bolstered knowing they can accomplish anything in this new world.......unless they accidentally trip and break a leg.

Sounds like the Affordable Care Act. I like it.

 

[Travis]

I meant evidence that millions are dying from treatable diseases and conditions.

That's a good question that I don't have a ready answer for.

Do you have any reason to think that, even if it is not the case today, that it shortly will be?

I see nothing hypocritical about treating soldiers better than civilians. Given what we ask of them, I don't think we treat them well enough as it is. You want military-grade health care: Have you considered rendering military-grade service to your country?

I tried to out of high school. I was disqualified for medical reasons (the same ones that now keep me from getting health insurance). I had hoped to become a combat engineer.

Speaking of which: Travis, why did you put "morale" in scare quotes?

I shouldn't have. It makes no sense. I intended to italicize it and I guess my brain went and did its own thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's a good question that I don't have a ready answer for.

Do you have any reason to think that, even if it is not the case today, that it shortly will be?

I presume you mean "won't be" or else your question doesn't make sense to me. I don't have a good sense of how many deaths are due to preventable medical causes, but the total number of deaths in the US in 2009 was just 2.4 million. So 1 million seems way too high. It's hard for me to imagine that 40% of those deaths were really preventable with medical care, especially since only about 16% of the population is uninsured, and the demographic breakdown of deaths and medical coverage by age skew in opposite directions (more young adults lack insurance, more old people are dying).

 

[Mudcat]

Is this like that Irish satire editorial calling to eat babies?