Again, please accept my apologies.

Also, thanks for “having our back” in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m hoping we can put someone more like Kevin Rudd in office this November.

Whilst we’re on topic tho – you might notice that we’ve recently elected a government who is pulling us out of Iraq, so good luck with that one but were gonna tough it out in Afghanistan and finish what you guys started because someone’s gotta do it whilst you guys look after the more oil rich countries.

Cheers,

Bill

P.S. Watch who you call idiots.

It makes me laugh when I read about you idiots. “Oh no, we can’t look after our people because then we wont have enough people to kill people”. You guys are hilarious.

Much love,

Australia

Yes, and in order to pay for their sub-par quality healthcare, they have to tax their citizens at such high levels that their people are too poor to support their domestic economy. The European and Canadian healthcare systems lack the quality of the American healthcare and they are overstrained as it is.

Healthcare is not a right. Rights are more abstract concepts. Saying healthcare is a right is like saying the Second Amendment entitles everyone to a free gun.

Anything that depends on the services of someone else cannot be right.

It’s supposed to be where if you need a doctor, you pay for them yourself, and for really expensive healthcare costs, you buy health insurance. But unfortunately, the states (which regulate their health insurance companies) have seriously impaired the American health insurance industry, so now it is being priced too costly.

This needs to be fixed. Buying health insurance is not like buying car insurance.

National healthcare won’t do it. You can’t change the underlying reality of the problem. National healthcare is just another way to ration healthcare. California, the 6th largest economy in the world, tried to implement a universal healthcare program recently, and it was axed because it was determined it would bankrupt the state. There is no way anyone can make such care available to all 320 million Americans. Costs would explode and skyrocket out of control.

California sets the standard. If they could successfully implement a universal healthcare program that was cost-effective, I would be for national healthcare perhaps, but the reality is the economics don’t allow it.

Massachusette’s universal care program has also run into cost overruns.

However, enlistment certainly won’t reach ‘panic’ levels, as a volunteer force will still be in fine shape. One could even make the argument that although the size may decrease, the skill and passion may somehow increase without the “input” of those simply looking for health benefits.

This article even said that after the DRAFT was discontinued, enlistment fell by 50%. Not 100, 50. And that’s after a draft. I think a trade-off in medical benefits is much less to worry about.

Hopefully, this doesn’t turn into another idiotic Republican “talking-point”. (You can barely call what they do talking)