Al Queda laughing at American Government

[Argus]

There is not really choice that can be made. Society simply does not have the resources to provide everyone with an infinite amount of medical care.

Oh don't be silly. Of COURSE it does! Society's resources are more than ample for such things. The United States spends $53 billion on pets every year, for example. The average size of the American family home has doubled in the last fifty years. Do they really need all that space given the average size of the American family has dropped by 50% during that time? How much would it save if the size of houses shrank back to what they were? How much money goes on humongous SUVs and bigass pickups that never leave the city, and the gas to power them? How much is spent on sex toys, strippers and porn? How much is spent on alcohol, amusement parks and junk food?

Is having lots of beer more important to society than keeping people from dying of easily treatable illnesses?

No, no. Any western nation has plenty of resources to ensure every citizen has health care. But they might need to sacrifice some other things in order to pay for it, have a little less porn, a bit smaller houses, say, not quite so many bigass SUVs. It's a matter of balancing needs. And I would suggest, being the great forward thinker that I am, that health care is rather more important than many, many other things society spends its resources on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just what America needs...Canadians deciding what U.S. spending priorities should be.

[TimG]

Is having lots of beer more important to society than keeping people from dying of easily treatable illnesses?

Communism is dead. The resources available for pay for collective healthcare are limited by the level of taxes that the population will tolerate. No matter what you think people in Canada have no interest in higher taxes for themselves. The only differences between the NDP and the CPC on this point is NDP supporters want to raise other peoples taxes (an attitude which is even more selfish than spending money on beer).

[Pliny]

Oh don't be silly. Of COURSE it does! Society's resources are more than ample for such things. The United States spends $53 billion on pets every year, for example. The average size of the American family home has doubled in the last fifty years. Do they really need all that space given the average size of the American family has dropped by 50% during that time? How much would it save if the size of houses shrank back to what they were? How much money goes on humongous SUVs and bigass pickups that never leave the city, and the gas to power them? How much is spent on sex toys, strippers and porn? How much is spent on alcohol, amusement parks and junk food?

Is having lots of beer more important to society than keeping people from dying of easily treatable illnesses?

No, no. Any western nation has plenty of resources to ensure every citizen has health care. But they might need to sacrifice some other things in order to pay for it, have a little less porn, a bit smaller houses, say, not quite so many bigass SUVs. It's a matter of balancing needs. And I would suggest, being the great forward thinker that I am, that health care is rather more important than many, many other things society spends its resources on.

It doesn't because there is no ability to formulate a cost-benefit analysis for health-care. It will eventually eat up

all the production. Government initially has no trouble paying for universal health care, then it needs to charge a premium, then it needs to deficit finance as it takes more and more out of the economy then the economy goes into a recession or depression. Then the services have to be cut and user fees implemented. Then the country goes needs to go on an austerity program and then there are riots in the street. Then we live in a police state and everything is free.

[Pliny]

American Woman, on 13 May 2013 - 3:39 PM, said:

We have Obama because I voted for Obama. My vote does count.

You aren't embarrassed that the President for his political gain has lied to you about the loss of four lives to secure

your vote?

[ReeferMadness]

You aren't embarrassed that the President for his political gain has lied to you about the loss of four lives to secure

your vote?

Are you embarrassed about fear-mongering about an organziation that exists mainly as a boogeyman?

[GostHacked]

Just what America needs...Canadians deciding what U.S. spending priorities should be.

Just what we need on the forum, thin skinned Americans.

[Pliny]

Are you embarrassed about fear-mongering about an organziation that exists mainly as a boogeyman?

Fear-mongering? What organization? I guess the WH should be afraid of the facts.

Facts are:

1. Benghazi incident was a planned attack with Al Qaeda ties.

2. It was not a spontaneous demonstration due to a video.

3. Obama, Clinton, Rice all claimed it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration and fed that line to the media and public for political reasons related to the Obama campaign narrative.

4. No effort was made to provide aid during the attack, and that is the real tragedy.

Is this, as I just heard the President claim, just a partisan political effort to besmirch the reputation of Hillary Clinton, others and even the President himself?

The question should be can he uphold the lie that no action was taken to save the Ambassador for partisan political reasons.

[Guest American Woman]

You aren't embarrassed that the President for his political gain has lied to you about the loss of four lives to secure

your vote?

This incident had nothing to do with my vote.

[GostHacked]

American Woman, on 14 May 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

This incident had nothing to do with my vote.

If you think your vote matters and counts, then yes it does have something to do with it. If people did not vote for him, we would not have been elected (twice) and he would not be responsible for this Benghazi affair. But whoever would have been president would have been responsible for the inaction of the President to provide help.

There was a stand down order from high up that contributed to Steven's death. Help never arrived.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/01/benghazi-stand-down-denials-dont-stand-up-to-reason/

Quote

Following numerous White House claims now known to be inaccurate and intentionally misleading, we are repeatedly assured that we will get the real scoop in due time after full investigations are complete. One perplexing issue, among many, revolves around conflicting accounts regarding requests and denials of military aid which might have saved American lives.

Obama is saying it's nothing more than political circus, which to me is nothing more than deflection of responsibility away from himself and possibly Clinton. But as Bush said it once 'There is a time for politics, and ... well it's politics' (paraphrasing. Bush said this when was grilled on stand down orders on 9/11.

[Bitsy]

There was a stand down order from high up that contributed to Steven's death. Help never arrived.

I continue to read about this stand down order but no one has bothered to ask Lt. Col. Gibson who gave him the order. Hicks testified that he was told of the order by Gibson but he obviously did not bother to ask for the source of the order. I think it is time that Lt. Col Gibson is questioned.

High up doesn't cut it for me, Gibson could clear this up by naming names.

[GostHacked]

I continue to read about this stand down order but no one has bothered to ask Lt. Col. Gibson who gave him the order. Hicks testified that he was told of the order by Gibson but he obviously did not bother to ask for the source of the order. I think it is time that Lt. Col Gibson is questioned.

High up doesn't cut it for me, Gibson could clear this up by naming names.

I completely agree with your statement. He should be questioned. Why is he not testifying or being questioned then?

[Bitsy]

I completely agree with your statement. He should be questioned. Why is he not testifying or being questioned then?

Ask Darrell Issa, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman .

The Honorable Darrell Issa

United States House of Representatives

2347 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-0549

DC Phone: 202-225-3906

DC Fax: 202-225-3303

[GostHacked]

Ask Darrell Issa, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman .

The Honorable Darrell Issa

United States House of Representatives

2347 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515-0549

DC Phone: 202-225-3906

DC Fax: 202-225-3303

Great stuff Bisty!!

[Michael Hardner]

Can we have a credible cite on 'stand down' orders please ?

[Argus]

Just what America needs...Canadians deciding what U.S. spending priorities should be.

Well, it's clear Americans aren't capable of doing it on their own.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nah...Canada's lost $3.1 billion is just chicken feed budget rounding in the U.S.

[Argus]

It doesn't because there is no ability to formulate a cost-benefit analysis for health-care. It will eventually eat up

all the production. Government initially has no trouble paying for universal health care, then it needs to charge a premium, then it needs to deficit finance as it takes more and more out of the economy then the economy goes into a recession or depression. Then the services have to be cut and user fees implemented. Then the country goes needs to go on an austerity program and then there are riots in the street. Then we live in a police state and everything is free.

The Americans don't have budgetary problems because of health care but because they cut taxes too much without any commensurate cut in spending. And I would point out that as a SOCIETY they are spending MORE, not less than all those socialized Europeans. They're just spending their health care dollars grossly inefficiently. There is a much higher administrative cost to their private system, and there needs to be a fat cushion for all involved to make big profits.

[Argus]

If you think your vote matters and counts, then yes it does have something to do with it. If people did not vote for him, we would not have been elected (twice) and he would not be responsible for this Benghazi affair. But whoever would have been president would have been responsible for the inaction of the President to provide help.

There was a stand down order from high up that contributed to Steven's death. Help never arrived.

Help being what exactly? My understanding is there were four guys who wanted to take a plane from Tripoli and were told no. There were what, a hundred or so heavily armed attackers?

[Bitsy]

Can we have a credible cite on 'stand down' orders please ?

I am unable to locate a transcript of the Q & A, there are videos available that I can post but most are very long. This is the crucial part of the "stand down" debate. I posted this link previously I find it interesting that Hicks never used the term 'stand down'.

Turner: Now, do you know why they were told to stand down? Did Colonel Gibson give you any information or understanding?

Hicks: I actually don’t know why.

Turner: Is there any reason to believe that the situation in Benghazi was over? There were a number of series of attacks, as you’ve described it to us. Any reason to describe that there was no longer any danger in Benghazi?

Hicks: No, it was every reason to continue to believe that our personnel were in danger.

Turner: Mr. Hicks, Mr. Chaffetz has given me an article that appeared in USA Today just this week. And just as early as last Monday, Major Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the military's account that was first issued weeks after the attacks hasn’t changed. “There was never any kind of stand-down order to anybody.” Now, that’s a pretty broad statement, “anybody.” What’s your reaction to the quote by Mr. Firman?

Hicks: I can only again repeat that Lieutenant Colonel Gibson said he was not to proceed to board the airplane.

Turner: So your first-hand experience being on the site, standing next to Colonel Gibson, who was on his way on that C-130 transport and being told not to go, contradicts what Mr. Firman is saying on behalf of the Pentagon?

Hicks: Yes sir.

Later, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) asked Hicks who gave Lt. Col. Gibson the "stand-down" order. "He did not identify the person,"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/08/benghazi_hearing_gregory_hicks_says_stand_down_order_is_true.html

[Michael Hardner]

Really, there's nothing here then.

[Pliny]

The Americans don't have budgetary problems because of health care but because they cut taxes too much without any commensurate cut in spending.

Agreed. But they can't cut medicare and medicaid or they won't get elected so it will continue to eat a larger share as time goes by.

And I would point out that as a SOCIETY they are spending MORE, not less than all those socialized Europeans.

And all is well in Europe, of course?

They're just spending their health care dollars grossly inefficiently. There is a much higher administrative cost to their private system, and there needs to be a fat cushion for all involved to make big profits.

Medicare and Medicaid are indeed inefficient. Their private health insurance cartel is not the way to efficiency either.

Government health care just grows the State. Now they will tell you what to eat. The exercises you are expected to do daily, blah, blah, blah and on and progressively on.

[Pliny]

Really, there's nothing here then.

Who's Ben Gossy?

[Bob Macadoo]

Medicare and Medicaid are indeed inefficient. Their private health insurance cartel is not the way to efficiency either.

So all large conglomerates (gov't or corps) are inefficient. I don't see Mom & Pop hanging a shingle out on this one. You kinda need some huge reserves to get into this game.

I would disagree that gov't can't do this though. Steven Brill's article showed Medicaid runs very efficiently.

The High Cost of Care - TIME

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136867,00.html

[Argus]

Agreed. But they can't cut medicare and medicaid or they won't get elected so it will continue to eat a larger share as time goes by.

In other words, society insists on having health care. No big surprise there.

And all is well in Europe, of course?

In parts of Europe, yes. Northern Europe is faring much better than the US, and it has generous health care and 'entitlements'.

Medicare and Medicaid are indeed inefficient. Their private health insurance cartel is not the way to efficiency either.

Studies I've seen have shown medicare, medicaid and the Canadian health care systems are all far more efficient and have far less administrative costs than the private US health care system.

Government health care just grows the State. Now they will tell you what to eat. The exercises you are expected to do daily, blah, blah, blah and on and progressively on.

That's just ideological mush. The argument was that was that society can't afford health care and I believe I've shown it most certainly can. It has many resources currently allocated to unnecessary items it could make use of, and the resources it currently uses (in the US) are being wasted by a grossly inefficient private sector system replete with fat profits and huge salaries for the executives.