Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #139 - timmywankenobi (10/03/2013) [-]
HEY AMERICA !!! did you know that if you spent 10% of your military budget on health care you could have universal health care. but then again who needs cancer treatments when you an have shiny new stealth jets right ?
User avatar #179 to #139 - capslockrage (10/03/2013) [-]
Your numbers are way off.
User avatar #186 to #179 - timmywankenobi (10/03/2013) [-]
hmm no I don't think so.
User avatar #188 to #186 - capslockrage (10/03/2013) [-]
It would take way more than 10% of our budget to take care of healthcare, and even then that's with taxes to help it, which is bad for most people.
User avatar #192 to #188 - timmywankenobi (10/04/2013) [-]
I disagree the US military budget is absurdly enormous.
User avatar #194 to #192 - capslockrage (10/04/2013) [-]
Yes but you fail to see how expensive universal healthcare is.
User avatar #143 to #139 - ananamouse (10/03/2013) [-]
extremely undermanned as it is...maybe if they pulled their dicks out of so many different locations around the world they could cut back more...
User avatar #151 to #143 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
dude, we keep funding the refurbishment of tanks, that the army has already said they don't need anymore (as many as we have), that among other stupid **** the military has asked the politicians to stop funding could probably make up the 10% difference.
User avatar #165 to #151 - ananamouse (10/03/2013) [-]
I remember reading about that
User avatar #145 to #143 - timmywankenobi (10/03/2013) [-]
undermanned yes, underfunded **** no. the US spends more on the military per year the the next 4 biggest combined.
User avatar #146 to #145 - ananamouse (10/03/2013) [-]
true, but do they pay their enlisted people enough to live off of???? there are a lot of military families on food stamps and wic
User avatar #147 to #146 - timmywankenobi (10/03/2013) [-]
I think it depends on the person rank and stuff but usually veterans get shafted.
User avatar #162 to #147 - ananamouse (10/03/2013) [-]
I have friends that are only E4's and have two kids and they have to get government assistance to get by every month
User avatar #160 to #147 - ananamouse (10/03/2013) [-]
my s/o is an E5 and he does okay. I'm a disabled vet and I get 60% of E4 pay once a month. Together we make enough to get by and live comfortably.
User avatar #168 - fruitsalaad (10/03/2013) [-]
Non American here, can someone please explain this 'government shutdown'?
User avatar #172 to #168 - capslockrage (10/03/2013) [-]
The government is stopping funding for all government agencies, it happened in 1996 and people don't even really remember it so it's not really that big of a deal.
#189 to #172 - tyroneisanigger (10/04/2013) [-]
All NON ESSENTIAL government agencies and employees.

Police and Emergency services are still applicable. I know this guy that work's at a military arsenal basically his job is to test certain chemicals and predict the outcome (in case there was ever a chemical/biological/nuclear attack and he's now laid off because of this.
My point is it affects many more people that we typically think of.
#173 - ggggotmethisname (10/03/2013) [-]
can some please explain this whole government shutdown to me
User avatar #185 to #173 - nucularwar (10/03/2013) [-]
One group of rich old douchebags cares nothing about the American people. Their worst enemy is ANOTHER group of rich old douchebags who care even less about the American people.
They get paid to sit around in a big room and argue about things that don't actually affect any of them.
User avatar #182 to #173 - fuckingtrolls (10/03/2013) [-]
It'll have no effect to you unless you're a park ranger or a tourist who wants to see the Washington monument
User avatar #181 to #173 - pebar ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
Senate: fund my shenanigans
House: we'll fund some of your shenanigans
Senate: no it must be ALL shenanigans
House: we can't afford all
House: let's just take a time out and settle down
User avatar #171 - Leopard (10/03/2013) [-]
Or just move to Canada?
User avatar #183 to #171 - fuckingtrolls (10/03/2013) [-]
Don't give them to us
User avatar #148 - missrainbowdash (10/03/2013) [-]
let's all declare war on the USA!
User avatar #175 to #148 - capslockrage (10/03/2013) [-]
Hah, yeah and most likely get destroyed in the process.
The USA outspends every other country combined on our military, not only that but most countries, even though they hate the USA, will be missing out big time without it.
User avatar #149 to #148 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
That would be a very bad idea on your part. js
User avatar #155 to #152 - ilovehitler (10/03/2013) [-]
or maybe joyous satan
User avatar #154 to #152 - ilovehitler (10/03/2013) [-]
just saying
User avatar #153 to #152 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
just saying
User avatar #156 to #153 - missrainbowdash (10/03/2013) [-]
what does that mean though, you have to forgive me, I'm russian I don't understand slang
User avatar #158 to #156 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm just saying, that would be a very bad idea on your part. better?
User avatar #159 to #158 - missrainbowdash (10/03/2013) [-]
eh, Ithink we could take you
User avatar #164 to #159 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
I highly doubt it. we have millions of hunters who are very good at staying hidden, tracking, making long range kill shots. The FFL dealer I go to actually specializes in long range (1000meters +) shots, and it a very good tracker too. He took some game a few months ago in Africa from 987yard (range finder was used) with one shot. that is the kind of thing you can expect, as for the rest of use we have a **** load of small arms (bullpup rifles, pistols, knives, smoke grenades, etc) for CQC.

and this is AFTER you get through our currently active military.
User avatar #166 to #164 - missrainbowdash (10/03/2013) [-]
a few atomic bombs would wipe that out, though it would mean our deaths too lol
User avatar #180 to #166 - thegamerslife (10/03/2013) [-]
We have a lot more bombs than I think even the majority of our higher ups realize. plus we have the capability to blow up your bombs before they even got to a distance to do anything but fallout over the ocean. even if you managed to outspend us this time, we still have a lot of veterans who can lead our armed citizenry and you would barely get feet on the ground before your body count became to high to be acceptable.
User avatar #176 to #166 - capslockrage (10/03/2013) [-]
We would take out your nukes before you could get us with them, and obliterate you in the process.
#161 - Common Pepe (10/03/2013) [-]
My fellow Americans, I do not want national healthcare, because then I would be paying for... My fellow Americans health. People in this country break bones left and right And if my taxes are raised to cover them then that's ****** to me, it's not my fault they do dangerous things.

So maybe national healthcare works elsewhere, but if this area had the same citizens and new government, healthcare would still be bad.
#167 to #161 - poontanglife (10/03/2013) [-]
Legit complaint bro...
Its sad that people give so little for those who have nothing though, Im glad i live in a country where we help those who cant help themself.
User avatar #46 - Bravechampion (10/03/2013) [-]
Why do you want government healthcare? Why would anyone want government healthcare? Just by your own for better quality.
User avatar #65 to #46 - akkere (10/03/2013) [-]
Not saying Obamacare is a perfect or even a good solution in its current state, but - Because through government healthcare there are some provisions that can help people get better quality care and coverage.
The most notable example being the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions being rendered illegal.

In truth, there should be a balance between the private and public healthcare (as well as balance in economic status in general) that allows for problems to be minimized across the board.
#57 to #46 - grapefruity (10/03/2013) [-]
People who can't afford healthcare want government healthcare...

I always find this funny, since the healthcare is still funded and the treatment is solid. It is just more equal across social classes, due to healthcare being so important (No one wants to see people die because they can't afford something). Taxes fund the healthcare, which then becomes a service like schools (Free for all people)

This means the treatment is solid, however, your service before and after (Such as food/drink, bedding, staff friendliness) may suffer because of it, due to them not having your individual comforts in mind and are focusing on helping both you and other people.

Both styles have their advantages and disadvantages, it just depends how you weigh your life and the life of those around you. Personally, I feel letting someone die because they couldn't buy treatment is only a step or two away from an execution, but I can see the appeal in paying for high quality accommodation and individual service.
User avatar #68 to #57 - yusay ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
Hospitals must still admit you if you require emergency treatment, regardless of if you're insured or not.

They don't just lock their doors.
User avatar #131 to #68 - grapefruity (10/03/2013) [-]
But emergency doesn't cover diseases with long or expensive treatment periods, the cost of treatment would be too high to do without insurance.

It is just my opinion, but I would prefer less comfortable treatment for myself who CAN pay for better to help the people who couldn't afford it. Life is a gift, it should be preserved no matter the size of your wallet.

They don't lock the doors, but they aren't treating anyone who walks in either. As I said, both systems have their ups and downs, and it all comes down to what you want as a individual. And to avoid further confusing such as below, I don't know or care for the ACA bill. I am talking europe/canada's free healthcare system.
User avatar #66 to #57 - heartlessrobot (10/03/2013) [-]
Actually, if you've looked into the healthcare plan, most hospitals don't accept it, and it won't cover a lot of procedures where it is accepted.
User avatar #123 to #66 - grapefruity (10/03/2013) [-]
Not referring to the bill currently being passed in America (Obamacare, ACA, etc), I am referring to the NHS and free healthcare in other countries.
User avatar #70 to #66 - yusay ONLINE (10/03/2013) [-]
Do you happen to have info on what hospitals currently accept ACA insurance and what procedures it covers?
User avatar #71 to #70 - heartlessrobot (10/03/2013) [-]
Sorry, someone posted a link to it on one of the earlier government shutdown contents.
User avatar #51 to #46 - tehlulzbringer (10/03/2013) [-]
no one on funnyjunk works
User avatar #11 - Gandalfthewhite (10/03/2013) [-]
may as well come over to London then. we have most of the same **** (maybe not sports wise)
User avatar #25 to #11 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
Didn't the UK ban porn, or you have to have a porn license or something?

That means the UK has a database of porn-watchers... yeah, I'm sure the UK Gov't never infringes on their citizens right to privacy.
User avatar #129 to #25 - Gandalfthewhite (10/03/2013) [-]
well if they have banned it then i haven't noticed
User avatar #19 to #11 - shadowsynergy (10/03/2013) [-]
Yeah but no guns or pot.
User avatar #130 to #19 - Gandalfthewhite (10/03/2013) [-]
believe me, there's pot. And we stab each other like real men
#128 to #19 - Gandalfthewhite has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #127 - derpdy (10/03/2013) [-]
Actually forget the government!
User avatar #125 - aedai (10/03/2013) [-]
And the hookers! Don't forget the hookers!
#120 - Common Pepe (10/03/2013) [-]
sounds like jebcys
User avatar #50 - tehlulzbringer (10/03/2013) [-]
whoo! socialism!
#42 - feelythefeel (10/03/2013) [-]
Yatta yatta proletariat yatta yatta bourgeois blah blah glorious eternal leader. If you're going to talk about overthrowing the bourgeois, mind actually doing it eventually?
User avatar #38 - mrwalkerfour (10/03/2013) [-]
ugh im not saying healthcare isnt a good idea i'm just gonna say it isnt a case of obama just going

"okay free healthcare tommorow guis have fun" there is ALOT to sort out, financing it, maintaining it, etc its not an easy thing, especially for such a large country like america
User avatar #35 - chieftain (10/03/2013) [-]
The last one had blackjack and hookers and look how far that got you.
User avatar #24 - achimp (10/03/2013) [-]
Oh, the irony strikes like me like my axe of logic and reason to OP's poorly constructed treehouse of logical fallacies and ignorance.

Healthcare. Privacy.
You DO realize of course, that we are giving up at the very least, SOME part or other of privacy to the government for the sake of "coverage" under the Universal Healthcare Law, right? It's simply the nature of involving the government in your health - as they are involved to an extent that remains to be seen, they know more about you.

My understand is that the IRS will also be involved. Have you ever been audited? Every inch of your financial history is examined with a fine tooth comb; your privacy destroyed. Now, include your MEDICAL history in that as well and factor in that everyone now puts their lives on the internet, privacy is virtually gone.

We all have these poetic notions of a society where its citizens have completely private lives, but everyone has free healthcare provided by the government, or guns are banned, and no one goes hungry.

Your and my opinions on government involvement notwithstanding, the simple fact is that the more products and services your government provided, the more involved the government is with your life, and the less privacy you have.

If you want to have a reasoned debate about gov't involvement, or Obamacare, or my arguments here, I would be more than happy Just keep it respectful; I've gotten into one too many debates plagued by emotions (on both sides) that resulted in an avalanche of red thumbs.)
User avatar #23 - szymonf (10/03/2013) [-]
but isn't the first the reason the government shutdown

inb4 it's still insurance
#10 - Common Pepe (10/03/2013) [-]
come STRAYA'
 Friends (0)