It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Open Challenge to All...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:09 PM
Alright, here it is:

I've bounced back and forth on health care reform for several weeks now. I think it is undeniable based on the evidence that "something" needs to be done to control the skyrocketing cost of health care in the U.S., but what exactly and when to implement such changes are topics of valid debate.

I also think it's inevitable that something will be passed and both sides will claim victory; the Dems will say they passed sweeping change regardless of it's effectiveness, and the Repubs will say that they were able to oppose the most sweeping of the proposed changes and thus protected us from the misery that "socialized medicine" would have brought. To both sides it seems that this is more about using the debate for political clout in the 2010 election cycle than actually getting anything done. Political Grandstanding if you ask me.

So, with that as my perspective, I set out a few weeks back to read everything ATS has to offer on the subject, and to watch both sides of the news. That way, I could attempt to make a truly informed decision, and use it to influence support in my community. Turns out, there's a lot of stuff out there, but most of it's garbage.

I originally supported reform (despite my own political leanings towards the right) because I thought it would bring down overall costs and provide options for people like myself who are self employed and have to pay for our own health insurance.

Then, as I read about provisions in the bill that said that there would be mandates on small business owners to provide insurance for ALL employees, I changed my mind. It looked to me like the Dems were once again ramming trough legislation that was good on the surface, but would hurt most those it purported to help. It appeared that once again the burden of this change was going to fall at the feet of the middle class. I can't go for that!

Next, all the hand wringing began in earnest by the far right, and the lies that were told were too much to handle. To be honest, the ignorant cries of SOCIALISM, NAZISM, DEATH PANELS, etc were just too much to bear. (If there's one thing I hate about being a republican, it's being lumped in with these people. There are still Republicans that think the William F. Buckley model of informed intellectual dialogue with one's opponent is the best way to discuss issues of the day - not many I'll grant you - but there are a few of us left.)

So, there I was, torn between a legitimate concern about the proposal (that seemingly no-one wants to discuss) and my own disgust at the way the right chose to handle the debate by playing to the lowest common denominator and using the old stand by of scare tactics and name calling. Machiavellian maneuverings seem to be the order of the day for the new republican party since the Dick Cheney Karl Rove crew took the reigns back in 2000. What to do, what to do?

So, I put it to your dear ATSers, let's hear some real debate. My only rules are: 1)No diatribes about socialism or death panels, and 2)No using sources that have already been debunked. If you want to go carrying pictures of Obama in an SS uniform with a Hitler 'stache, please do so on some other thread.

But, if you want to have a discussion with an intelligent informed conservative about why I should or should not support health care, either as it is proposed now, or how you think it should be proposed if you could propose it your way...well then let's talk. Keep it clean and intelligent. Who knows this type of debate might spill over into other areas as well....

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

I was going to challenge you, until I read what you wrote. I agree, with every thing you wrote, it just boils down to the fact that the American people, cannot AFFORD to be further burden with more TAXES. Especially, during one of the greatest recessions, since the 1930s.

No matter HOW WELL your intent is to try to help the POOR, we just can't afford any more government.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Gateway]

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:23 PM
real simple. Health care = money

money is our fuel needed to sustain life in america

america is a machine

we give power to it

Opressed people stay hungry and make for good slaves....

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Gateway
Thanks for the response, and for reading the entire post first. I tend to agree, restructuring 1/7th of the economy might not be such a good idea at this point in our history. It will likely happen anyway at some point, but right now there's a lot at risk if the plan fails.

Alright everybody, there's one idea from an obvious opponent of health care (I refer to your avatar
)and the exchange was made without anger. See, we can do this...

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by Project In Vitro
So, I take it you're anti-government by the slave reference? But, are we being oppressed by health care or by a lack of affordable health care options. I'm really not trying to be smart *ss, I just didn't quite follow your post.

*edit for spelling and grammar*

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:06 PM
I just think that it will ultimately cost more than what they are leading us to believe. Haven't seen a project yet where government hasn't underestimated.

How much did they say the war was going to cost us in the beginning?

Bad economy is also a good reason.

BTW, how well has Medicaid, Medicare, VA, and Federal Employees Health Benefits Program done in lowering health costs over the years?


posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM
To be honest I have listened to both sides of this argument for a long while and I do see points on each side that make sense.

Yes the American health care system has to be revamped and changed. Right now it is obscene, the personal cost for basic health care and health coverage. Insurance companies are raking in billions off of hard working people, only to pull the rug from under them when they need it.

They cause medical services to be priced out of the reach of normal tax payers who are lower to middle income. Come on , have you ever stayed in a hospital for more than a day? $40 for a f****** aspirin? Really?

Getting sick or injured should not equate to a fiscal catastrophy for the average working family. It is unfair to have medical insurance that sick people cannot afford and then have medical procedures that, if performed with no insurance, will bankrupt people for decades.

The pharma companies and the insurance scum need to be reigned in. No more record prophits on the suffering of American families, enough is enough. I saw this first hand in my own family. My mother worked her entire life and paid into the system without ever taking one single dollar of support or help. When she retired they discontinued her health insurance.

She became ill with CPD which is a chronic breathing disorder. At the time she was bringing in roughly $2,500 per month from social security and her retirement pension and her health insurance that covered her doctors visits and prescriptions (which she needed to breathe) was running upwards of $900 per month.

THAT is criminal and wrong, and there are millions of families and old folks out here who are suffering the same hardships. Ever have to decide between getting your prescriptions filled and eating for the month? There is your incentive to reform this mess. Wealthy people who already have lots of money and well working health plans don't care about the rest of us who have to struggle under this hateful and unforgiving system.

One the other side, my biggest rgument against the currently proposed health care overhaul is simple.......the costs are too high and the fact that they have taken no measures what so ever to prevent illegal aliens from coming here and exploiting American tax payers for free health care. If they could manage to prevent exploitation and rampant abuse of the system then I would be all for a change, if not socialized health care outright.

BTW...for anyone who wonders...I am one of the millions of Americans without health insurance of any kind. How do I get by? I dont get sick, and I dont see a doctor unless I am on deaths door step. Why dont I have health insurance? Because I am self employed and as such I cannot afford the monthly premiums, even though I make a good living.

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by jam321
So true on the costs front.

As far as Medcaid, Medicare, and Federal Employees Health Benefits go, there are lot of conflicting reports. The vast majority of participants in those plans are satisfied with the level of service provided, and are certainly helped out with the financial burden. There is no exclusion for pre-existing condition, and once you're covered you tend to stay that way on those plans. So that's the good.

The Bad is that they are not efficient and mostly going broke. In some instances there are complaints that there is not as much choice as private plans would offer, but realistically I think that has more to do with private Doctors and Hospitals choosing not to take part in those programs to protect their own bottom lines.

As for the VA, I can speak from personal experience. As a veteran, and one who can't afford private insurance, I use the VA as my only health care provider. I have to make appointments in advance, and yes sometimes the wait can be long. But if it's an emergency, I just go to the local VA hospital and go to the ER. Doesn't cost me anything except the co-pay on prescriptions. I had 104 degree fever last winter with an exceptionally bad case of strep, and went to the VA ER. Took me awhile to be seen, but I've waited at a private hospital with a concussion and broken bones for longer, and once I was seen I was treated quickly. I was home in few hours and well within 48 hours. Not bad for gov't health care, imho.

Of course I've heard the horror stories from Walter Reid and other Veterans Hospitals and it's disgusting the low level of care some seem to be doling out. That just hasn't been my experience though.

The problem I have is that if I take Obama at his word, which is that he will not sign a bill that doesn't pay for itself, then the concerns over adding to the deficit are ill founded. The Government is the boy who cried wolf in this scenario. How often have they claimed, "oh, this won't cost a dime"? Only to add billions to the deficit. I just have a hard time trusting them.

Then again, those programs mentioned above weren't designed to pay for themselves the way this reform is "supposed" to. Is comparing them really relevant and fair?

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by BlackOps719
Your absolutely right about getting sick being a “fiscal catastrophe.” The medical Journal, “Health Affairs” is on record with a study that finds that over half the bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to exorbitant medical costs. (Follow this link and search “bankruptcy” and the article is the first listed)

What’s worse, is that of those bankruptcies, nearly half of them involve people who HAD INSURANCE. They were just “under insured.” That’s pretty scary!

However, I agree that the costs of this reform are too high, especially on the middle class. But, I think you might be happy to find out that your concern about illegal aliens may be ill founded. Today on a conservative radio show Obama answered that very question. He said that none of the proposed bills, and nothing the White House has proposed has mentioned any coverage for illegals. Of course, we already pay for illegals as it is, when they go to the ER and then don’t have insurance or an ability to pay. They still get care (if it is serious or life threatening) but we foot the bill when hospitals offset the illegal’s lack of payment by raising the overall costs. If the overall costs were lowered by more people (non-illegals) being covered, it might save us money on the illegals in the long run.

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Then again, those programs mentioned above weren't designed to pay for themselves the way this reform is "supposed" to. Is comparing them really relevant and fair?

They're relevant because everything is based on the concept that this reform will provide better quality healthcare and reduce the cost of healthcare. I think the above programs can illustrate that rising health cost cannot be contained merely on expectations or beliefs.

Over time, these steps will help to produce a health care system that works better and costs less.

We know we need reform. We know the costs are just going to go higher. How to do it is the biggest obstacle.

The way I see this bill, 47 million will get help and the rest of will get a government promise that our premiums and health costs will go down. And you know what government promises are worth. I really hope they take their time to find a compromise that all can benefit from.

I also find it awkward that the bill, or at least I haven't heard, deals with state mandates put on health insurance coverage.

I found this to be interesting.

While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. We estimate that
mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to more than 50%, depending on the state and its mandates. Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Cadillac would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable car options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by jam321

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios
Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Cadillac would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable car options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.
Ahhh, but isn't that the point? If there is a way to lower the cost of the Cadillac so that no one has to walk, then wouldn't that be a valid alternative?

The question then becomes, do you believe that this plan can lower costs to such a level, and can it do so with out unduly burdening small businesses and middle class? If it can, then the mandates are OK. But that is where the "track record" argument becomes important, because the government doesn't have the best record of being able to deliver on it's promises.

So, unfortunately it appears no Cadillac, just Fred Flintstone feet!

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:56 PM
It is by the lack of health care options that we are opressed!!!!

A lack of health care options pertaining to your salary bracket... Our health care providers(the business) are limited in the options they can make available to us. If all the options were provided and affordable to us than our providers wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business. it would cut revenue. The administrations F.D.A etc wouldn't allow it. Even they answer to the Monetary System. You see the dominoes in affect?

One of many ways to Oppress a people is through Health care.

Oppressed people = a land Subdued by it's authorities

I'm really serious when I tell you that we have bought into the illusion that all of our systems operate independant. Call it Health care, Housing, Food, Energy etc Religion, Politics, Education.

Unity among the governing authorities

Divisions among the people

It's all Misdirection

When people speak up and ask questions

Our answer consists of imaginary numbers due to this and due to that... Lack of money.... our economy..... Wall St. etc these political debates are staged for the fueling of the illusion which makes us feel like we are free tyranny. and whats funny is that politicians even buy into the Facade. It is mass Deception.

We Have been asleep Long enough! It's time we Wake Up!

Here is wisdom:

Our Economy: (The United States Empire)

I predict "The U.S. Dollar is being attacked, and it will collapse, and bring down all the paper Money in the World"

Paper Money It is being replaced with Invisible Money that you can't See! Intangible Money, YOU can't touch it!!!

"It is electronic money"

The dangerous thing about electronic money is: that it is controled by the banking systems around the world and the jews control the banking systems... This is not an invalid statement, this is the Real Truth/Fact

We already deal with digital Money, because the Majority of us never touch our earnings

We Just Follow The Digital Numbers

Is it pre-planned? Or just gotten out of hand!

Either way it doesn't make a difference when we now who owns the federal reserve and Who Literally owns money!!!!!!!

unlike the past today's currency is not backed up by gold and silver!....

It is built on Interest and temporary Illusionary value within your mind...

Therefore what you are witnessing today is only the beginning...

The first of several economic collapses in the near future and in the years to come...


Israel is about to wage a Big War!!!!

When Israel is surrounded by armies Know that the end is near!!!!!!!!!

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
I would hate to think that somebody died just because of 'government policy' wherever they are from. 'illegal' or otherwise. forget the money. if we all chipped in we could provide health care for all on this planet. (ie. we have internet, we are comparatively 'rich').

money is an illusion. the health industry is using our fear of death as a tool of profit.

just eat the best food you can and deal with life youself.

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:34 PM
Artephius, I owe you an apology.

When we last spoke on that other thread, I assumed you were trying to start a forum on health care that was as restrictive as the one we were on. I see I was mistaken in that assumption, and apologize. I would love to participate in this thread.

The biggest problem I have with present manifestations in health care reform is that they all treat the symptoms, not the problem. The problems, as I see them, are:
  • Continual abuse of the system by people who either don't realize they are abusing the system or simply don't care that they are abusing the system. By this I refer specifically to those who darken the halls of the local ER at the slightest concern. This only raises costs for everyone by requiring more personnel and equipment to treat a growing influx of cases that never should be at a hospital.

  • Rising malpractice costs are creating a financial hardship on doctors, especially the general practitioners who are the first stop (excepting, of course, the problem mentioned just above) for a person who needs care. Of course a patient who has been harmed should have legal recourse, but the awards given and the frivolous nature of many of the awards given recently have driven this required insurance through the roof.

  • A consequence of the above concern is that doctors are forced to handle more patients to cover this cost and are tempted to take kickbacks from the large pharmaceuticals. As money colors the relationship that is being built between doctor and drug company, it is far too easy to become lax on ensuring that the medications being prescribed are properly tested and applicable to each unique situation. They tend to prescribe more drugs, as well as limiting their time with each patient. Neither is conducive to a properly-operating medical system.

  • As much as I feel sympathy for those who cannot afford health insurance, I simply believe there must be some payment made for medical treatment. Anything less is either demanding that doctors work for free or charging others for the care of the indigent. Either is wrong. Some form of governmental involvement in collections must be integrated into any reform that has a chance of actually improving care for everyone.

  • There is something that offends my sense of morality when a third party, in this case insurance companies, have the ability to make medical decisions via policy declarations, and even have the ability to cause one to be refused acceptable levels of medical care. No insurance company has ever healed a single ailment. So why, oh why, are they the ones who are given such benefits under a medical reform plan?

There are more points, but I believe those will suffice for now. My major concern to the present plan(s) is not so much a blanket statement that our medical system is perfect as-is (it isn't!), but rather a concern that the needed fixes are being ignored while the very causes of many of our ills are being encouraged more.


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck
Thanks for coming and checking out the thread! I agree with some of the problems you present, but disagree on the point about rising med. mal. insurance. I realize that it is rising exponentially and is, statistically speaking, out of control. But I disagree with the notion that the awards are "frivolous." There are certain jurisdictions (Florida/California) where there have been some outrageous sounding awards for damages, but when viewed in context of the case, I think you'll find that they were reasonable under the circumstances.

I'll use the famous "McDonald's Hot Coffee Case" as an example. I realize it is not a Med Mal case, but it has become the poster Child for those that support tort reform in general, so I think it has relevance. In that case, the lady who was burned, had 3rd degree burns all over her genitals, and had to have skin grafts down there. Pretty serious stuff for a simple coffee burn. She was awarded a huge amount. But it wasn't for her pain/suffering and actual damages, it was for "Punitive' damages. These were awarded by a jury of regular citizens to teach McDonald's a lesson: if you choose to brew, and then serve to customers, your coffee at a temperature 3 times the human consumption level, all for sake of corporate profits because you can get more coffee from the grounds at that temperature, then fine, you go right ahead. But when one of us (your customers) gets burned with that lava java, we are going to spank you with a verdict so high your head will spin and maybe you will think about the safety of your paying customers with the same diligence that you eye corporate profit. AND IT WORKED! Mickey D's no longer brews or serves their coffee at those temperatures anymore. Furthermore, on review, the judge reduced the verdict to a much more reasonable amount. But no one ever mentions these FACTS when they discuss these "crazy" jury verdicts coming from "out of control" courts.

I'll give my stock answer to all calls for tort reform:
The insurance companies want you to believe that tort reform is the answer. They have paid millions of dollars to advertise that the "Evil Lawyers" are nothing more than blood sucking vampires that steel money from your pockets by suing innocent Doctors. Stop believing their lies!!!

Lawyers that sue Doctors do so almost exclusively on a contingency fee basis . They don't get paid a dime unless they win the case. Filing a suit costs a lot of money. Preparing for trial costs a lot of money. Taking the doctors deposition costs a lot of money. See a pattern here? The lawyer foots that bill and only gets that money back if they win. In order to win, the Doctor had to have done something wrong. Thus, filing frivolous lawsuits would be insane and financial suicide.

The insurance companies do not want to pay when the Doctor screws up. Who can blame them. But they have no problem cashing that doctors check every month when she pays her premium.

I dare you to ask a judge about frivolous lawsuits. If you can find one active judge that says frivolous suits are costing the people of his or her state money, I will star every post you have ever made and flag all your threads. You CANNOT do it, because judges throw out cases without merit. Period. No merit - no claim. Case closed, so to speak.

Further, check any state that has passed comprehensive tort reform and find out if anyone's premiums have gone down. Not one I guarantee it. The premiums in those states have risen right along with the national average. The only thing tort reform has done in those states in limit the amount an innocent injured party can receive in compensation for those injuries. That, and limit how much we as consumers can hit back at a negligent corporation with by awarding punitive damages.

Tort reform is nothing but corporate immunity and IS an insurance company LIE.

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:09 AM
Here is some info on malpractice claims paid out in 2007. It is organized state by state so one can see the average amount paid per claim.

Give some feedback on this thread if there is something missing from the data or what you think about the data.⊂=102&yr=18&typ=4&rgnhl=1

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by jam321
So, the national average is over $300,000 per claim. That's a big number, indeed. But I believe it is also misleading because you can't really look at averages in these type of cases. These are individual instances of malpractice and need to be judged on a case by case basis.

I mean if they screw up your stitches and you get an infection its probably no big deal. They fix it, they cure the infection, and if you sue you get some money for the time out of work and for pain and suffering and maybe even a little bit in punitive to tell the Doc to pay more attention next time. $300,000 would certainly be outrageous in that case.

But if they do the same thing to someone who has diabetes or an immune system disorder, and the infection leads to amputation or death, then $300,000 doesn't sound like that big of a number. Thus, there are two cases of the same incidence of malpractice, where the outcome for the specific patient is very different. Therefore, averages, in my opinion, skew the argument by only looking at the dollar amount and not the harm done in each case.

Truth be told, $300,000 per claim is reasonable in my opinion, because most people don't even make a malpractice claim unless they have been seriously injured. It's just not worth the risk and the hassle the insurance companies put people through to try and collect.

People always say that the claims are frivolous and the awards given are outrageous, but then when the doctor "accidentally" amputates the wrong foot, or leaves a medical tool in their chest cavity during surgery, all of a sudden those same people don't want anyone, other than a jury, to dictate how much their injuries are worth. Why would you want the insurance lobby to dictate the worth of anyone's injury? Isn't that a case of the fox guarding the hen house?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

I believe you misunderstand me to some degree. I am not in favor of a cap on malpractice claims; rather I am in favor of a system to self-regulate malpractice claims based on a free market as well as a method to make sure that those doctors who accidentally amputate the wrong foot on a regular basis are not allowed to amputate feet any more.

As far as the McDonald's coffee case, that was both a show of how the system has gotten out of control and how people will blow something up well beyond it's true scope. Your facts are basically accurate (I do take issue with the thought that the coffee was three times normal consumption temperature, although I have little doubt it was hotter than it needed to be), but you do appear to ignore the responsibility of the woman to maintain control of an item which she should have known was hot. This case involved some amount of responsibility on both sides.

The award was lessened to a reasonable level; that is indeed true. And that is why I don't use this as an example much. It is also an example of proper jurisprudence by virtue of the adjustment.

Some time back I came up with a rough plan that I believe tackles both problems I have mentioned with respect to this subject. In my plan, I used regional judicial boards, each one composed of a specific number of individuals from specific areas of society, chosen at random like a jury call, and serving only limited terms to avoid collusion. These boards hear initial cases involving medical issues exclusively, and no attorneys are allowed for either side. It can be thought of as partially binding arbitration; the medical professional is bound by the decision of the board and cannot appeal, but the plaintiff can appeal to the standard court system.

Any case involving alleged misconduct by any medical professional must be heard by the board before it can proceed to the regular civil courts. It would be much easier for a person who was injured to bring a claim since there would be no fees and precious little paperwork to file, and no attorney would be allowed to speak for them (or for the medical professional). On the other hand, once the case is heard by the board and a judgment is rendered, the plaintiff would still be able to then take the case to the court system just like today.

Obviously, any doctors on the board (and I would require a certain number) would be interested in keeping the case out of the court system, but they would also be interested in minimalizing the award given. So these two forces would serve to naturally bring about an award that was acceptable to the plaintiff, but also not back-breaking for the medical professional. Thus, by using market forces, the awards could be toned down without the worry that someone would be injured and not compensated. And this alone would be cause for insurance companies to reduce malpractice insurance.

Another benefit would be the ability to track doctors who regularly make heinous mistakes and remove them from the profession. This as well should decrease malpractice insurance rates because the insurance companies are now limited to having to pay out only a small number of awards before their client is no longer in need of any such insurance.

As I said, the above is a rough idea that has gotten, unfortunately, almost no recognition. But I believe it holds more merit than the 100+ page bill now bouncing among the walls of the US Congress.


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
It looked to me like the Dems were once again ramming trough legislation that was good on the surface, but would hurt most those it purported to help. It appeared that once again the burden of this change was going to fall at the feet of the middle class. I can't go for that!

You covered my concerns right here.

The "Crisis mentality" of "something has to be done." Is no justification for putting yet even more burden on the ever diminishing middle class disguised as "reform". We already spend billions of taxpayer dollars on healthcare and then we pay for ourselves out of our pockets.

It is simply another step in the ongoing effort to remove the middle class from American society and buy votes to do so in the process.

There is not one politician in Congress or the Senate who will ever return to the middle class as a citizen and have to bear these burdens. Nor will they be forced to use this "reform" as they've already legally exempted themselves and have free high end healthcare for themselves.

I wasn't always middle class and not everybody ends up there but if they whittle it down to simply poor and rich then what are we trying to accomplish here?

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by jam321

I noticed one thing interesting about the data concerning average payouts:

  1. U.S. figure includes total payments for the Armed Forces in Europe ($980,000), Armed Forces in the Americas ($2,150,000), Armed Forces in the Pacific (165,000) and Micronesia ($245,000).
  2. U.S. figure includes average payments for the Armed Forces in Europe ($490,000), Armed Forces in the Americas ($2,150,000), Armed Forces in the Pacific ($165,000), and Micronesia ($245,000).

(Formatting for BB Code by me)

According to this, the USA does indeed rank much higher in average awards than other countries, at least where military personnel is concerned. Either that, or more severe cases are being brought within US borders, which I find very unlikely to be the case sufficient to account for such a huge difference.


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in