ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz

Crazy expensive F-35B Joint Strike Fighter worth it, just for this video

By David Gewirtz | March 19, 2010, 8:25am PDT

Summary: There are many different ways to determine the ROI (return on investment) for military procurements. But, perhaps, the one most relevant to us techies is this: how cool is it?

There are many different ways to determine the ROI (return on investment) for military procurements. But, perhaps, the one most relevant to us techies is this: how cool is it?

The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) stealth fighter hasn’t yet been the best investment for America’s military. Plagued by exploding costs, production delays, and substantially increased per-aircraft costs, the fate of one of our most strategic future aircraft has been, shall we say, up in the air.

Even though the specified focus of the program is affordability — no, really, that was the original purpose of this thing — the craft still has potential as a serious replacement of old F-16 and A-10 craft.

In fact, what makes the JSF fighter so intriguing is that it’s designed to serve the role as both a stealth bomber and a jet fighter. It can bring home the bacon and fry it in the pan. It can (or will, eventually, when it works) defend itself in the air and wreak utter havoc on the ground.

And, apparently, as of this week, it can also hover. The F-35B variant of the craft is designed to do short takeoffs and land vertically — like a helicopter.

The British are the most famous users of hovering jet SVTOL craft. Almost all of us has, at least once, tried our hand at the Harrier Jump Jet in Flight Simulator or at least seen Harriers in Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 — although the Harrier Strike shown in MW2 is just a teensy-bit exaggerated over what the real thing can do.

Real Harriers can’t vector thrust and just hover in an area for a long period of time. They just use their thrusters in takeoffs and landings.

The U.S. Marines also use STVOL craft and they want a lot of them. They have their eye on 340 of the snazzy craft. Uh, guys, if you get that many, can I have one? Pretty please?

Here’s where I’m willing to sell America’s budget down the river, where I’m completely OK with borrowing $38.4B from China to give the Marines all the F-35B’s they want. Or, you know, maybe we just shouldn’t give AIG execs their oh-so-deserved bonuses this year. Either way, give the Marines their fighters.

But I promised you a video, didn’t I? I promised you just an oh-so-cool piece of video of the very first vertical landing of an F-35. It’s way behind schedule, it’s wildly expensive at $113 million per craft, and I don’t care. Something this cool must be built.

Someone call James Cameron! Screw freaky, over-sized blue people. Can you imagine what 340 of these birds would look like, all landing together in formation? Oh, Baby, hose me off!

I’d sell my neighbor (not the cop, the other guy) for a chance to barf up my lungs in an F-35B ride. What would you do for a ride in an F-35B Lightning II? TalkBack with your answer below. Try not to be too disgusting.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

Secret Service testifies on cybercrime, protective detail, counterfeiting

U.S. Census - are you going to participate?

Topics

America, Craft, ROI, Video, Roi/Tco, Corporate Communications, Finance, Managerial Accounting, Marketing, David Gewirtz

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

RE: Crazy expensive F-35B Joint Strike Fighter worth it, just for this video

birumut Updated - 3rd May 2011

Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
seslisohbet seslichat

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Nice flick but back to reality

Quebec-french 19th Mar 2010

What is and what will the f-35 do that other
aircraft dont .....

Replacement for the f-16 ok but lest have a
game of number
f-35 113 million f-35 : x ration
f-16 15 million 1:7.5 ration
f-15 30 million 1:3.7 ration
f-20 (cancelled tigershark ) 8 million 1:14
ration
from elsewhere
Saab jas 39 grippen 40-60 million
mig-29 29 million
euro figther typhoon 40-60 million eu
dassualt rafale 82 million

So a bit expensive for a figther. Ill put 7 f-
16 again 1 f-35 any day off the week .

As a replace for a-10 please. Its have
limited hardpoint ( internal) a 20 mm cannon
the a-10 have a 30mm god-killer cannon and 10
hardpoint i think ..... not a replacement

a replacement for the av-8II maybe even then at
30 million a bird do the math.

As a export bird well
Brits need its for it carrier and with typhoon
and the hawk nice combo

Italian-Indian-Thai-Spain Because they all
use light carrier type like the Brits.

Indian are going full deck carrier to fit the
mig-29k and there home made tejas ....
ok a nice export bird

to sell to canada are you mad.
We dont have the money . if we wanna have
carrier . Small brit-like carrier will be the
choice and the av-8II the sea-harrier or the
matador variant are way better investment then
f-35.

But Canada dont have nor need a carrier since
1970 with the hmcs bonaventure .

Also canada have winter big winter i would
like to see the vertical fan in winter
condition .......

But as a hot weather toy wow at 113 million
expensive toy but what a toy .

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Actually it should own the F-16's

woot! 19th Mar 2010

Even the last block (generation F16's). The radar system gives the F-35 a much larger engagement envelope than the F-16. It's also faster and has a higher service ceiling.

The F-22 is a clearly better air superiority bird.

A smarter move would be to field more F-22's, fewer F-35's and push the super hornet (F-18) to the air force.

More room for better avionics, better legs, good survivability, etc. Better production cost returns than the F-16 and longer life span due to the avionics issues. The airframe also has room for engine improvements, etc.

The A-10 is a harder bird to replace, but it looks like a combination of RPV's like the predator (and it's successors) and manned aircraft like the F-35 in ground attack configuration will fill this niche.

Smarter munitions, sdb's, etc make this a better way to go.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

nice call

Quebec-french 19th Mar 2010

Put some more i like where your going

0 Votes

+ -

I can't find much fault with your logic.

AllKnowingAllSeeing Updated - 19th Mar 2010

the F4 Phantom years ago proved the logic in a dual branch fighter in terms of cost spread out over more units.

Plus the FA-18 is a dual engine fighter, which I feel is a much better choice then a single point of failure 1 engine aircraft, so having the Airforce use it too I feel would be a good replacement for the F-16

The only thing I would have to think on would be the The A-10: it's a heck of an aircraft with some pretty powerful uses. The darn thing is nearly indestructable!

0 Votes

+ -

Airframe costs

woot! 20th Mar 2010

The Block 60 Vipers are getting near end of life on airframes and there
really isn't a lot that can be squeezed out of them.

I REALLY REALLY like the warthog, but it needs more speed - there's a
whole generation of surface to air stuff designed solely to counter it.

CAS / ground attack is always a tricky balance between, speed, payload,
loiter time, and survivability. Tough to find a good replacement for the
warthog.

0 Votes

+ -

OK...then I'll sell your neighbor the cop. You good with that? (nt)

IT_Guy_z 19th Mar 2010

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Contributr

Re: OK...then I'll sell your neighbor the cop. You good with that?

David Gewirtz 19th Mar 2010

I think you'd probably need to meet him, and then decide. Personally, he's not someone I'd ever mess with. Besides, he's a really nice neighbor (as is the other guy, for the record).

I have one police officer in the house next to mine, one across the street, one down the street, and a judge down the street the other way. It's an interesting neighborhood.

--David

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Crazy expensive F-35B Joint Strike Fighter worth it, just for this video

bhaydama 19th Mar 2010

The VTOL option was intended all along and test flown years ago out in Palmdale - this is not a sudden announcement. I watched a 2003 documentary on the competition between this and a Boeing variant for the U.S. miltary contract on Nova called "Battle of the X-Planes":

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/

The advantage of this plane is it has a high powered horizontal fan built in up front so the engines can not suck-in exhaust when in VTOL mode - the fan, while lifting the front, blows exhaust away from the engine inlets. The Harrier suffered this problem and killed many a pilot. The Boeing competitor was ugly, sucked exhaust in VTOL mode, and fell to the test platform during the competition.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Battle of the X-Planes is a great documentary..

Fark 19th Mar 2010

Everyone should watch it just to see how these planes are made. I especially like the 1 ton slab of milled titanium that hold the cockpit to the fuselage. Awesome.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Crazy expensive F-35B Joint Strike Fighter worth it, just for this video

lschw1 19th Mar 2010

What if its windy like out on the ocean?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Conventional landings too

woot! 19th Mar 2010

It still can do conventional landings if the cross winds exceed the VTOL envelope.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Crazy expensive F-35B Joint Strike Fighter worth it, just for this video

zellich 19th Mar 2010

> Real Harriers can?t vector thrust and just hover in
> an area for a long period of time. They just use
> their thrusters in takeoffs and landings.

Uh, yeah, they can. I used to watch Harrier demo's showing off both stationary hovering and "dancing" (in unison with an Apache) on the St. Louis riverfront during the annual 4th of July fair.

RichZ

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I have an idea.

putty.master 19th Mar 2010

How about we stop spending all our budget on weapons for bombing brown people and garnering internantional hate towards our country. Instead we could, you know, spend some of that money providing decent healthcare for our citizens.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

How about we do both, and get rid of

AllKnowingAllSeeing 19th Mar 2010

racist while were at it.
weapons for bombing brown people.

I like the thought of cutting out BS in the budget, (pork, earmarks, ect) but keeping a strong miltary, and helping out those with their health needs.

So yeah, I like the plane!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

"Brown People."

CycleNinja 19th Mar 2010

It's a reference to a George Carlin routine, saying it seems like we only bomb brown people. It's a dig at the inherent racism of American foreign policy.

0 Votes

+ -

For the record...

brble 19th Mar 2010

...we're already spending more than 3 1/2 times the defense budget on Medicare, Medicaide, and Social Security - how much more do you think it will take?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It all depends

madrucke@... 19th Mar 2010

It all depends uppon *if* we can get Government out of it...

Like the Government laws that actually protect bad doctors from being found out...

Or, the inherent incredible overhead *every* Government Health care program has.

What we couldn't do by slashing defense we will now do by bankrupting the country...

When we *allow* that there will be no benefits for anyone and no country to protect...

Oh that's right they don't even listen to us in Washington anymore. We are unseen and unheard...

Mike Sr.

0 Votes

+ -

In this case, more overhead in private sector.

snberk341 20th Mar 2010

Or, the inherent incredible overhead *every*
Government Health care program has.

In health care there is more overhead in the private
model. For example, several years ago they compared
similar sized hospitals in the US and Canada. In the US
there are huge billing departments to deal with all the
paperwork that each insurance company demands,
plus billing and collecting from non-insured patients.
Same sized hospitals in Canada had billing
departments that were about 1/10th the size. (For the
record Canadian has a 'Universal Health Insurance
System', not 'Universal Health Care' - though the net-
effect is essentially the same.

My doctor, a GP with hospital privileges, has one staffer
to do all the receptionist, filing, and billing duties.

One could argue that there are legions of government
workers being paid to do all this work in a public
sector model. I would argue back that in a private
sector model you have legions and legions of
insurance company employees being paid to manage
all this paperwork. Employees that belong to entities
who have to add a profit margin to the fees being paid
by the patient.

While I am not a generally a proponent of 'Big
Government', I think health-care is something that can
be more efficiently by the public sector.

0 Votes

+ -

might want to consider why the paperwork difference

woot! 20th Mar 2010

Part of the mountain of billing paperwork is a direct result of
government intervention with the insurance companies, both at the
state and federal levels.

The insurance companies don't like the paperwork either, but it is
required largely to regulatory concerns.

Before the government got involved and created the HMOs, etc. the
medical system was largely pay as you go. The costs were incredibly
lower it wasn't until government got involved that the prices shot up.

0 Votes

+ -

Not just for Government regulations.

snberk341 21st Mar 2010

Imagine you pop into a Canadian emergency ward -
nothing too serious, but you need cleaning up,
bandaging, etc. Nurses and doctors are just pulling
things off the shelves and using them without needing
to account for each one. There's no need - we are all
part of the same insurance pool, so there is no need to
account for who uses what.

Go into an American emergency ward. You will get
great care. And there is someone who needs to record
each and every bandage, tissue, towel that gets used in
your care because they need to allocate billing codes
to appropriate insurance carrier. This is not because of
Government regulation - this is just inventory control.

Then all of that extra paperwork is repeated at the
insurance company's end so that they can allocate the
costs to their patient's - sorry, customer's - file.

That's a lot of paperwork, and people needed to create
the records, to reconcile the records, to audit the
records, and to resolve the inevitable paperwork
snafus.

Both Canadian and US medical sectors deal with
government regulations, so there won't be much
difference there.

0 Votes

+ -

I disagree

madrucke@... 1st Apr 2010

You must include Fraid in overgead costs and the Fraud alone in Medicare and Medicaid is much higher in the public sector than private...

Of course that might be because it's their profits and moent at risk and they vigoroously go after Fraud...

The government doesn't even seem to care that they spend as much or more on fraud than actual care...

But, of course we are off topic...

Mike Sr.

0 Votes

+ -

Well...

putty.master 19th Mar 2010

We spend more than 7 times more on our defense budget (607 billion) than the second highest military spender in the world (China at 85 billion). I think there's some room to trim the defense budget without risking our stong military.

Meanwhile, most other developed nations have national healthcare plans that provide decent coverage to their populace.

It really is a simple question of whether we should be spending money on killing people versus spending money on healing people. We should be setting the example here, not lagging behind the rest of the developed world.

0 Votes

+ -

A few points

brble 19th Mar 2010

First, my point was that when you're already spending 3.5 times the amount being spent on defense for types of government care, one small fraction of that defense budget isn't really going to contribute much.

Second, most other developed nations have health care issues that we don't (cancer survival rates are lower in the UK than the US, for example), and their systems almost always operate in the red. My girlfriend's mother is from the UK, and she still has a lot of family living there, and none of them have been very happy with the quality of the care they receive, and one of her aunts in particular has had health issues directly caused by the poor care she received.

Third, most other developed nations have a much smaller populace to provide for, and within a much smaller geographic area, making the cost lower.

Fourth, most of those developed nations have their own military, and in most cases were/are operating right along side the US in those operations bombing "brown people." Except of course in Bosnia, when we and those nations were bombing "white people." Also, the British are fielding a new aircraft, the Typhoon, which costs approximately US$103M each, and is a partner on the F-35, so they are investing in killing people as well.

Fifth, most of those developed nations have had to spend a lot less on their defense over the years because the US bore a lot of the burden for them, specifically when helping defend them against the "white people" of the Soviet Union.

None of that is to say that the US is perfect, and couldn't stand to do a few things differently, but I think your comments view the rest of the world in an undeserved idealistic way, while viewing the US in a not-entirely-deserved negative way.

0 Votes

+ -

A few counterpoints...

snberk341 21st Mar 2010

The first numbers I could find were that Military
spending accounted for 23% of the budget and
Medicare/Medicaid accounted for 19% (Wikipedia). This
does not include Social Security, but if you want to link
to something that backs up your claim of "... 3.5
times..." is spent on "care" over the Military, I'll be
happy to look at it.

Yes, cancer survival rates are higher in the US than
most other places. However, that is an anomaly as for
just about every other chronic condition outcomes are
better in other nations with public health care. The
WHO places the US at #37 overall, and 24th in life
expectancy. Citizens of Greece, Malta, and Andorra
can expect to live longer than Americans.

I'm sorry about your aunt. Having poor medical care is
should not be happening to anyone in an industrialized
nation. She is, however, an exception to otherwise
adequate care. There are far more people in private
sector medical system that have no access to any
medical care until their conditions start to become
critical.

Or, as a doctor told my friend's mother (when they
lived in Arizona) "You are going to get the best care
possible, for as long as you can pay us." She died in
hospital the month after her estate declared
bankruptcy. That's when he moved to a public sector
medical care nation.

0 Votes

+ -

Counter-counter points

brble 21st Mar 2010

I'll address the UK part first, and thanks for your sympathies about my girlfriend's aunt. I only used her aunt as an example, but the rest of her family has had issues as well, like a cousin's son not being properly diagnosed with a developmental issue, and once diagnosed, not given any options for care. And a quick note back to her aunt, she had some dental issues and all they would do is pull her teeth, no option for implants or other possibilities that I know of, so now she basically has no molars.

Also, a co-worker had just moved to the US from the UK a few years ago and said one of the things he liked better here was the health care system. He told me a story of a close friend of his who had been injured playing rugby, and the wait for his knee surgery was 18 months. He was able to pay extra and get it done sooner, but he basically paid twice. Those two groups have never met, so it's not like they have a coordinated grievance against the health care in the UK, so I think they can represent at least one view that's not just an isolated case.

I am sorry to hear about your friend's mother as well, and I hope I don't sound insensitive, but I don't think the info provided is enough to definitively say that it was a lack of health care that caused her death - it's possible she was receiving the same level of care until the day she died. Wealthy people who spend all they can on their own care still die. And for the public option, someone is still paying for it, right? Either the doctors and hospitals are by not charging as much, or everyone else is chipping in to cover the costs. In either case you're basically saying that even though they had nothing to do with a person's health issues, they are responsible for paying for their care, even if they smoked, got injured car-surfing, or whatever. If we all require the same amount of care, then we'll all end up spending the same amount on it. If we don't then a public system essentially punishes people who take care of themselves, or are lucky enough to have inherited better health.

A lot of people like to quote the life-expectancy numbers as an indicator of the health care system in the U.S., and it a way it might be, but not necessarily the way most assume it is. For general life expectancy, a lot of factors could come into play, like lifestyle, parenting, environment, etc., which I suppose the health care system could play a role, but not necessarily. I think a better measure from the WHO data is years lost to non-communicable disease, as that would only include things like cancer, heart disease, and other diseases that require medical care and medication. In that statistic, the US is near the top (i.e., fewest years lost), ahead of almost every country in Europe (last I checked, which as been about a year).

On the budget numbers, I admit to relying on some numbers I heard a Democratic senator quote and then did some overly-simplistic math, and not researching it myself. In doing so I discovered more-or-less what you pointed out, although aside from the info you provided 19% was the most I saw listed for defense. In that chart, for comparison (since it had the highest number), SS was listed as 20.2%, Medicare was 13.6%, and Medicaid was 9.5%, which combined is still more than double the defense budget, so I think my original point is still largely valid - if that much is already being spent, how much would the cost of one defense program really change? (Also, if you add in unemployment and welfare, which is a form of government care, close to 3x the defense budget is being spent on helping people, not hurting them.)

0 Votes

+ -

Oh, I love a good debate....

snberk341 21st Mar 2010

.... and I do mean a good one. No name calling, or insults... thanks!

I have no personal experience with the UK system, so I can't really
comment on it, except to say that there are various ways to run a
public health care system. I *believe* the UK system puts health care
workers (or at least most of them) on the public sector payroll. That
is, they are essentially salaried employees - sometimes called
Universal Health coverage.

Other systems, for example the Canadian one, use a Universal
Insurance system. Family doctors are free to set up their own
practices and see who they want. Each patient they see is covered by a
provincial medical insurance policy, and the province will pay the
doctor based on a fee schedule for each procedure. Doctors are not
allowed to extra-bill the patient for more.

Not everything is covered in this case by the provincial system, but all
acute care is. Doctors are allowed to bill for procedures not covered
by the fee-schedule, for example, cosmetic surgery etc etc. Each
province administers their own system, and there are differences from
province to province, however the Federal government sets minimum
care standards.

Like all systems, there are problems. The biggest ones in Canada are
wait times for non-acute care surgeries, though in the last couple of
years citizens have pressured the governments to do better and wait
times are now much shorter than most quoted figures. That said I
know a women who was diagnosed with cancer last year, and she was
whisked through the system very very quickly. The doctor was
making referrals to specialists, and the appointments were happening
just days later.

The biggest advantage though is that if you are actually sick, the
system works well and doesn't cost you much at all. You go and see
your doctor... there is no "list" you need to choose from. If the doctor
thinks you need more specialized care, they will make a referral to the
specialist they think is best suited to treat you.... they don't have to
pick from an insurance company approved list. If the specialist needs
to admit you, then you go to your local facility or a specialist one -
depending on your condition, and at the doctor's discretion. No
approved lists here either.

Sometimes Canadians are sent to American hospitals - not because
our system is necessarily lacking, but because certain speciality
procedures require a certain population density to make feasible.

And, there are some sports related injury specialists in Vancouver
who have several top-tier American athletes as patients, so the trade
goes both ways. Of course the Americans have to pay (smile).

While you are in hospital all costs are covered generally, except of
course the TV. Hospitals don't give patients different types of care
based on what their insurance carrier pays for. Although I will note
that the basic coverage generally puts you in wards, not private or
semi-private rooms - unless your doctor believes a private room is
the best medical care for you. But many people have 3rd party
insurance coverage that will place them in a private or semi-private
rooms.

I know someone who was hospitalized twice last year, once for
surgery. They paid something like $25 for the TV rental, no co-pays,
and no deductables. All of this for $57 month. Which is set across the
Province and will not be raised for an individual if they use the system
more. They also can't be denied coverage for "pre-existing
conditions".

As I said, it may not be perfect - but we aren't worried about how
we're going to pay for it. We also don't have to stay with a job we hate
just because the employer offers health insurance.

We can cherry-pick back and forth which health outcome measures to
use to compare industrialized national health care system rankings....
but I don't know of a single "basket" ranking (i.e. one that combines
several specific outcomes into a combined number - like longevity
*and* infant mortality *and* time lost to sickness *and* mortality due
to preventable diseases, etc etc) that puts the American system
anywhere near the top. With one exception. Americans - as a nation
- spend more on health care per capita than anyone else. They pay
more to get less under the current system. How can a public system
be worse?

The link between bankruptcy, and then death while in medical care is
a well established one. However and admittedly, it is only a
correlation. I don't think a causal connection has been made yet.
Perhaps there is a factor in the person's life that is causing both the
bankruptcy and the mortality.

You make say that people in a public sector system who don't get sick
are being punished for being healthy. I would point out that can be
poor people are being punished for being born poor, or for bad luck
in their careers, or - just for being sick. Lots of people get sick for no
good reason. Should these people be punished for not being wealthy?

Cheers.

0 Votes

+ -

@snberk341

brble 21st Mar 2010

Yes, it is nice to have a forum discussion that doesn't degenerate into name-calling just because people disagree.

I had begun typing a long response, but this just doesn't seem like the place to get into a discussion of complex social, economic and philosophical points of view, so maybe we should move it to another medium, like email. If you'd like, my email address is my name here, at hotmail.com, so drop me a line if you'd like and I'll type a more detailed reply.

0 Votes

+ -

@brble

snberk341 22nd Mar 2010

Thanks for the offer to continue this discussion.... but I
doubt we are going to change either of our minds.

I think, by having a good and reasoned debate, that
other people reading this thread (the bit about health-
care, not the plane bits) will have more factual
information to make up their own minds, rather than
just hearing the shrill "sky is falling" voices that so
often dominate.

0 Votes

+ -

@snberk341

brble 22nd Mar 2010

Sounds good. I just hate the way this forum works, where we have to keep responding to previous messages because of the limitation on depth of replies, so thought it would be easier using a different format, if we chose to continue.

At this point, I think it's probably just you and I looking at this anyway happy

.

Take Care

0 Votes

+ -

@brble

snberk341 22nd Mar 2010

I think you're right about who is looking. Looking forward to "meeting"
you again on a thread. Take care, too.

0 Votes

+ -

Gotta love idealists!

Dorkyman 19th Mar 2010

Tell you what, let's just cut out our military altogether. I'm pretty sure no one wishes us harm, and look at all the money we save!

Oh, and let's put the government in charge of yet another program, this time healthcare. We all know what a great job the feds do from an efficiency standpoint. Just look at the Post Office. Or Social Security. Or Medicare.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

You forgot to include the military in your list

putty.master 19th Mar 2010

of government run programs.

0 Votes

+ -

What's wrong with idealists?

snberk341 21st Mar 2010

You know - if the US cut their military budget by a full
25% - they would still be spending nearly as much as the
rest of the world's military spending combined.

0 Votes

+ -

Contributr

X-51 Waverider is cooler

christopher_jablonski 19th Mar 2010

I find this hypersonic aircraft more intriguing, even if currently unmanned - http://www.space.com/news/usaf-hypersonic-research-sn-100309.html

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Having watched many a Harrier take off and land...

storm14k 19th Mar 2010

I don't see whats amazing about the vid. Now I do like the advancements (though I don't care for tossing so much money into defense). Also I don't know what happens in MW2 but I have seen a Harrier hover in place for a while. It does have to stop and let the nozzles cool so I'm assuming this plane can hover longer.

Now maybe what would be exciting would be some vid on a plan with alot of manueverability in hover mode similar to a helicopter.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Yeah, the landing wasn't much different...

brble 19th Mar 2010

...than a Harrier, so not much really new there.

The F-35 is capable of higher performance, though that's not really shown by this video.

If I remember correctly, the F-35B prototype was the first aircraft to ever take off vertically, go supersonic, then land vertically, all in the same flight.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Replacement for the A10? Hah.

Vesicant 19th Mar 2010

Not unless the F35 has a titanium bathtub, a depleted uranium cannon, and a few other ... amenities.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

costs . . .

CobraA1 20th Mar 2010

Unfortunately - these aircraft are becoming way too
expensive. Sure, it's nice to have the latest
technologies - but there's something to be said for
KISS design principles as well.

I'm thinking that the aircraft should be tailored for
today's enemies and for specific missions, and not so
much for fighting any enemy and any mission.

It's definitely a cool jet - but I'm thinking that
cool is just becoming too expensive.