How to sell national health care to the right wing.

[wurzel]

With a history lesson:

Putting aside "who started it"!

In 1914 Germany was at war with Europe and its empires. It beat them to a standstill. Only the entrance of the Americans saved the Europeans and defeated the Germans.

Twenty years later the Germans did exactly the same thing over again. And again, only the intervention of America saved Europe.

How did the Germans do it? In 1890 Bismark instituted a German national education and national health care system. This meant that when they went to war the Germans had an educated and healthy population to fight that war.

Britain, on the other hand, had to recruit from a poverty stricken and uneducated population that had every disease (rickets, tuberculosis, typhoid etc) known to man. It could not in fact field an effective army. (Remember they had to walk across No-man's land at the Somme? And got mown down!. That is because they were not fit enough to run.)

Britain finally learned its lesson and instituted national health care after WW11. Incidentally that is why Pres. Truman also wanted a national health care system in the USA after WW11.

A country without an educated and healthy population cannot defend itself. It is a matter of national security and should be part of the defense budget.

[Greyhound]

1. Why bother? They have made it crystal clear that they will not support it.

Never ever under any circumstances.

There is no way to change a mind that is determined not to change.
:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

2. That Will Not Work, Sir

People with even elementary knowledge of the Great War will tear it to ribbons.

England fielded a very effective army over the course of the Great War. The 'Kitchener Mob' expended at the Somme was an all volunteer force, mostly comprised of men well above the lowest ranks of the proletariat, and after a year's worth of training were in excellent physical shape. The method of approach in the opening hours of the Somme, in close line formation at the walk, was dictated by two factors: first, the inexperience of the soldiers in combat, which in the usual military understanding dictates keeping men near their officers and sergeants, and second, the distance between the lines which had to be crossed in full pack, since re-supply of advancing forces was known to be extremely problematic at the time, and the plan was for an extended advance through what was anticipated to be a devastated position that would offer little resistance. That last, of course, proved not to be the case, and the result was a field day for machine-gunners.

[wurzel]

3. Bullshit, Sir.

Britain never had an "effective" army. Unless it was using machine guns against spears. I don't know what you mean by "men above the lowest ranks of the proletariat". Unless you mean they were shop assistants. And they were as unhealthy and underweight as everyone else. The Germans were no more "experienced in combat" than the British, but there is no record of them walking into machine guns. The reason men were kept so close to officers is the same reason officers had hand guns.

[The Magistrate]

4. Not Worth Pursuing, Sir: It Would Be Necessary To Make Up Far Too Much Ground In Your Education

The balance between amusement and drudgery would turn too decisively in favor of the former....