Argentina Military: News

Yes, I have that issue and series of books... they came out in the 1980s, I also had the multi part magazine on the Falklands War specifically...

There was mention of a Sea Harrier being shot down on a ground attack mission and speculation that it would have been something like a Strela that did it due to the engine nozzle arrangement on the SH, but I have since seen claims it was a Roland missile that brought the aircraft down.

Can't be sure of the truth of course, would not surprise me for them to claim it was the European missile rather than the Soviet one for propaganda purposes...


BTW your article does not start well...

To make a short explanation, many say that the SA-7 were better than the Blowpipe, but in reality it is not, and compared with the Stingers less effective still, the summary of the generations of portable missiles would be:

1st Generation: only engage in the nozzles of the aircraft (e.g. Redeye, the SA-7 Strela)
2nd Generation: in addition you can shoot in front of the aircraft attackers (e.g. Stinger, Igla).
3rd Generation: in addition guided to GO, have the devices UV led ,which increases their percentage of takedowns. (E.g. Latest version of the Stinger B, SA18,Mistral)

Blowpipe is not good at all, it wasn't effective in Afghanistan either, and the generation list is wrong, Igla and Igla-1, which are SA-16 and SA-18 respectively are third generation, with SA-14 being second gen.

So called western experts went on about how wonderful the Sea Harrier was, but honestly against the Soviets it would have suffered, because most Soviet air to air missiles of the period included long range IR guided missiles... ie the standard BVR AAM of the MiG-23 was the R-23 and then R-24 upgraded missiles in both SARH and IR guided versions. The same for the R-40 missiles used by the MiG-25 and the R-27s used by the later MiG-29s and Su-27s.

Even with flares the Sea Harrier would be horribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles and as I mentioned the SA-7 was not a current MANPAD in the Soviet/Warsaw pact in the early 1980s... they had already replaced it with the SA-14 and by the mid 1980s were putting Igla and Igla-1 into service.... when they captured Stingers in Afghanistan they found they were inferior to the missiles they were already making... the main upgrade to the Igla was in the 2000s with the Igla-S which improved the seeker a little but most importantly added a proximity fuse system to the missile to make it effective against small targets like drones or missiles.

If Argentina had MiG-23 in service instead of Skyhawks and Mirage fighters it would have been rather interesting... though the Soviets would have had to have released the R-23 or R-24 missiles for it to have a decent effect, normally export MiG-23s had AA-2 missiles or sometimes AA-8... neither of which had amazing performance, but carrying R-23 or R-24 BVR missiles, they could have fired the IR guided missile first and then a delay and then a SARH missile... the IR guided missile should get a lock at a good distance because the Harrier almost always has its engine nozzles visible from the front... while manouvering to evade the IR missile they would lose speed and need to use max engine power making them vulnerable to get hit by a follow up SARH missile.

They could have carried two SARH and two heavy IR guided missiles at a time with a centreline fuel tank to maximise time in the air.

There is enormous bias on the internet regarding Soviet and Russian equipment... normally the ignorance comes from ignoring their position and requirements... they needed interceptors more than they needed fighters so when the MiG-25 was first seen it was assumed to be an F-15 type aircraft, but that was their Su-27 family.

The F-15 is a clear example of actual copying by the US... they actually decided to make a plane directly based on a Soviet plane and take the risk that better US this and better US that will result in a better aircraft, but what they ended up with was a different aircraft, a fighter instead of an interceptor.

To be fair the range of anti ship missiles the Soviets had was extensive, but would require Argentina to buy the whole ships or subs that carried them... or very large aircraft like the Tu-16 or Tu-22M3... which would have been expensive, their Kh-35 was not ready for use in the early 1980s, and their main anti ship missiles were too big to be carried by tactical aircraft.

No, their problem was that Britain took the latest model Sidewinders out of HATO stocks and use them when they were not supposed to... the US of course OKed that.

The Lima and Mike model Sidewinders they used allowed them to be launched from any angle with a good chance of a hit, but of course they tended to manouver to get a tail shot to increase the kill probability.

The Argentine pilots were incredibly brave and very skillful and got a few kills on ships using bombs which is not actually as easy as it sounds.

They often flew in low behind the radar shadow of the islands so they could roll in and sneak attack the ships in harbour or close to shore without alerting the Sea Harriers.

The fact that it was a small carrier with only helicopter based AEW meant it sat further off shore and away from the conflict area to keep it safer, and the low flight speed of the Harrier meant the ships it was supposed to be supporting didn't really get properly supported.

If they had a fixed will full sized carrier they could have used Phantoms and Buccaneers, which would have been much more capable and effective in the air superiority and attack roles respectively... they probably would not have lost any ships at all.

GarryB wrote:If they had a fixed will full sized carrier they could have used Phantoms and Buccaneers, which would have been much more capable and effective in the air superiority and attack roles respectively... they probably would not have lost any ships at all.

Yeah I think the whole Harrier program was a bit of a mistake. In terms of actual combat capability it was a dud. I mean it is an interesting concept but not that viable in practice. The fact it did as well as it did says much about the pilots more than the aircraft really.

The Atlantic Conveyer was a container ship and was not rigged for launching aircraft... it as transporting aircraft to be deployed to land to operate from there.

The fear of them being sunk led to them sitting further back from the islands, which reduced their effectiveness in protecting ships and ground forces.

If they still had the older fixed wing carriers in service with Phantoms even if they did sit further back it had proper AWACS platforms to give a much better air picture and would have eliminated the radar shadow the islands created that some Argentine pilots used for their attacks... the shadow is created by the ships radar being blocked by the islands so enemy aircraft flying at low levels behind the island can't be detected by ship radar.

They of course could be detected by AWACS platforms carried by the older bigger carriers.

Lack of air to air training for the Argentine pilots was certainly an issue, but as I said, if they had MiG-23s with BVR missiles the Harriers would have been at a very serious disadvantage.

The MiGs could have used their speed and launched missiles from standoff ranges and never gotten within 10km of the Harriers... giving the MiGs a chance of a hit and the Harriers no chance at all to get a hit.

MiG-23s can also operate from fairly rough grass strips too so they could have operated from the island...

But it was not to be.

BTW the US was being very careful not to get involved... it was already helping Britain because it had signed agreements with central and south american countries that in return for doing what they say that the US would protect them from European colonial powers... which they clearly didn't.

There would be no carriers lent to Britain... losing a carrier might have stopped the conflict.

The real difference was on the ground and it was mostly that British soldiers were trained to kill.

In war time it has been found that only a small percentage of soldiers actually aim at the enemy and try to kill them because most people are simply not natural killers.

About 2% are psychopaths who are happy to kill and have no problems with that.

Western military forces do rather well in war because the training creates psychopaths that try to kill their enemy, which is great during a conflict but leads to problems when they come home and have to come to terms with what they did and what they lost...

During the period HATO was in Afghanistan the suicide rate for western soldiers in situ and after coming home was higher than the numbers killed by the enemy and accidents combined.

The west has worked out how to train people to kill people... but they don't seem to have bothered to work out how to deprogram these guys afterwards to help them deal with what they did and the people they killed... especially as by then it will be clear the reasons for the conflict were never what they were presented as being to get them to go

Perhaps the plan is that once Kiev gets their aircraft and they don't do any better than the Fulcrums and Flankers they already had... in fact they do worse because they can't be dispersed to rough airfields, then perhaps HATO as a whole will OK the sale to Argentina without UK objections because the UK will pretend that if the Russians can shoot them down then so can they...

Argentina not getting into BRICS was a major mistake. The BRICS nations, namely Brazil, China, are Argentina's top trade partners.

Exports:


Imports:


Continuing this servile attitude towards the Anglosphere serves Argentina no useful purpose.

Argentina also exports crude petroleum to the US, and imports refined oil products. Which is totally retarded.

lancelot wrote:Argentina not getting into BRICS was a major mistake. The BRICS nations, namely Brazil, China, are Argentina's top trade partners.

Continuing this servile attitude towards the Anglosphere serves Argentina no useful purpose.

Argentina also exports crude petroleum to the US, and imports refined oil products. Which is totally retarded.

Well the current argentinian president is just an american stooge. He does not have the interest of his people at heart.

I can understand that the previous government was not ideal and made several mistakes, but not at the level of this Elvis wannabe.

Especially the crazy stuffs about privatisation without control remind me about Russia in the 90s (but also Italy). Strategic infrastructure should never be privatised and there is no problem  to have the state own a controlling share of large strategic companies, especially of they employ a lot of people and occasionally need state help.

What happened in most of places where this privatisation was done is that large companies or infrastructure were sold for a small fraction of their value after the state invested so much in them.

For infrastructure also what it happens is that the new private owners are only interested in taking the more financially advantageous part and completely disregard other parts important for the people but maybe which were loss making.

This has been already mentioned by Garry and other users also in other threads.

I e., in case of railway taking only the connections between the main cities but disregarding the one for the smaller cities and villages.
Normally for the state this is not a big problem because the losses are compensated by the gains obtained from the main cities connections, but if only those are privatised, than the sistem fails

Or in case of other important sectors, like energy, emergency services or hospital and doctors when managed by the state there is a surplus of people, hospital bed places, etc, in respect to normal condition.

This is not "financially efficient", but is fundamental in order to be able to cope with emergencies, natural disasters, wars, etc.

The problem sometimes is that for state controlled infrastructures and companies some stooges are put in leadership positions just because of good connections (but is not really different in private firms) and sometimes people believe that if you get a place in a state company then you do not have to work seriously anymore, since is almost impossible to be fired.  

This should be changed so that similar protection should be done to workers and manager in both private and public companies and also at the same time also allowing firing incompetent managers and workers if they want just to abuse the system .

The issue is that it is very difficult to reverse such privatisations, also because normally they are done with the support of foreign states like USA, which controls many activities in the country.

I do not have an example right now about Argentina, but in the case of Brasil, the company embraer is completely dependant on western part supply for their aircrafts. They would not be able to do like Russia and spend a lot of money and several years to build new alternatives for all of the imported subsystems and recertify them (which means all new component testing +new aircraft testing).

I believe the Elvis wannabe is trying to make Argentina even more dependent by the west, so that reversing his actions will be much more difficult and painful.

Even in Russia Putin could not do it directly, otherwise he would have had a revolution in the first few years of his "reign".
He could only try a compromise with the oligarchs, and punishing only the ones that did not accept any rules like khodokovski. (That is, paying taxes in Russia , no profit money brought abroad, investing in the companies they own and properly paying the workers. At the same time an additional restrictions of no participation in media or politics was added for those that got their gains "illegally in the 90s (and only for them)).
He had to wait until the western sanctions came in order to remove most of the dependency from the west, and it was not an easy, fast, or painless process.

For Argentina it will be difficult to regain sovereignty until USA deep state continues with this world dictatorship (for which most USA citizens are also victims).
Probably Argentina will have to wait first the collapse of the western world system...which does not mean entire collapse of USA, but at least the stop of its world dominion policy.

Without the current president, maybe Argentina would have had a simpler way forward within BRICS, but maybe not everything is for the worst. People need to live for themselves the consequences of their actions and their choices, otherwise it would have been like if Russia had intervened directly to save Yanukovich government in 2014. Crimea and Donbass would still be Ukrainian, a corrupt government in Ukraine would still be sucking tens of billions $ from Russia each year and a large part of the Ukrainian population would be angry with Russia because it was deprived of their opportunity to have "western democracy". And the sanctions from the west would still be there and maybe most of them would have been anticipated to when Russia was not ready to withstand them.

P.S.

I believe as well that many skilled workers in USA in the metallurgical sectors or heavy industries are not that different from Donbass citizens and are also ostracized by their own state.

Eugenio Argentina wrote:Argentina could handle itself.
It is the eighth largest country in the world in size.
It has a lot of natural riches and is not blocked like Cuba, to take an example in Latin America.
That is why it draws more attention when "progressive" governments arrive that call themselves left-wing, but make a lot of excuses to not break once and for all with our Dependency.

Well it is the same thing in Italy, we passed in several years to some governments led by the centre left, some by a mix of the alternative left and centre right, one by a EU bureaucrat (which was one the main responsible for the privatisation of Italian state assets in the 90s, when he was the director general of the Italian Treasury, and later of the financial destruction of Greece when he was the head of the European central bank) and finally one led by a so-called fascist sympathiser (Giorgia Meloni).

There is no difference at all among them. Whatever they said before coming to power all of them pursued the same anti Italian and pro EU and pro American democratic party policy (or better called pro American deep state).

Meloni Is basically the same as the former leader of the centre left party (Letta), i would dare to say that she is basically Enrico Letta with a blonde wig, and the current leader of the democratic party is a woman whose only "merit" is being a relatively young bisexual (Elly Schlein).

We have never had a leader that tried to "rebel" against foreign interference since Bettino Craxi (which was processed and forced to leave Italy (to avoid jail) in 1992 during a large judicial investigation into political corruption called "Mani Pulite". This same process proved itself to be based upon fake data and the people who came in power afterwords were actually much more corrupted then the previous generation, but also much more pro globalism and anti Italian.
Probably Craxi had been condemned because of the Sigonella Crisis (which happened in 1985), during which he did not allow American military to act in Italy without permission from the italian government.

Really that issue was absurd. The crisis would have never existed if America (president Reagan) had treated Italy like an ally instead of treating us like slaves.
A simple phone call from Reagan to Craxi before all of that would have been enough.

Anyway, for Argentina's military, the best for them would have been to invest in cooperation with Russia to develop some systems, or to adapt russian ones, similarly to how India cooperated with Russia for Brahmos missiles and for military aircrafts.

However, with the current sanctions and situation, Argentina cannot afford to cooperate with Russia without being banned from each trade with the west, from which it is completely dependent.

Maybe if Argentina decided to replace completely trade from the west to trade from China and Russia until the west drop the sanctions...

Possibly once Russia will be completely independent from western Import it will be able also to propose an alternative to all nations that fear the American sanctions.

Privatization serves the globalist parasite oligarchy.   The state does not need to own and run every business including the corner grocery store, but some sectors
are best managed by the state.   This includes electricity generation and highway construction.    In the Kanadian province of Ontario, we had a neoliberal stooge
called Mike Harris in the 1990s who privatized Ontario Hydro (the electrical power company).   This has not resulted in any improvement and only resulted in higher
prices.   Also, the debt of Ontario Hydro got downloaded on the rate payers (this includes individuals and not just companies).    You would think that with
privatization things like debt would be the responsibility of the new owners.    We also had sweetheart deals for toll highways but the road infrastructure is neglected
and congestion is approaching critical mass.

Thankfully in Russia the neoliberal koolaid consumption was stopped in 1998 by Primakov and Putin did not return to it.   Argentina is infested by an oligarchy and
what you see is machinations to keep their gravy train in motion.   Once you see the pattern, the problems become clear.   But most people are distracted with
left vs. right theater.   Both sides are corrupt and serve the interests of the parasite owner class.    People who extoll these parasites as entrepreneurs are retards.
A lot of left and right "thinkers" engage in reductionism and worship childish models of reality.

I don't like to enter into the childish ideas of many forums, where they spend their time dreaming about the weapons that Argentina should buy.

You need to get your economy booming and improve things for your people so you are spending spare money and not savings or future debt for your military.

Any country has potential if you work together.

But here's an example: if we buy Western ones, the most we can aspire to is (apparently) some 40-year-old F-16s or some SEMs, of a similar age.
Now, if we buy Russian, there are no impediments. If we have the will and the money, we could acquire MiG-35, Su-35 and even Su-57.

Of course I am biased, but also with Russian weapons you could set up local production of things you could use in volume and possibly set up support centres for other countries in your region to send things to be repaired and overhauled.

The core problem is to be smart. Don't licence produce 5th gen heavy fighters because when you only make three or four dozen they will be eye wateringly expensive and those skill wont be much good for anything else.

Joint development and production on the MiG-UTS, or the Baikal light aircraft that you could make in numbers and use in your country and export in your region.

But of course military cooperation is only a tiny part of it, commercial cooperation... Russia is an enormous country and has issues out in the hard to reach places with villiages not connected to road or rail or electrical grids... and the Russian economy was terrible in the 1990s with the west actively making things worse for their benefit... there will be ideas and solutions that might work in Russia but not in Argentina, but there will be other solutions that can work anywhere. Looking at all the factors and interests and issues and I am sure Argentina will become successful. It would be much easier through BRICS, but I am sure they will understand the enormous pressure your country is under from the US, so joining later is better late than never...

This leads to the proposition that these sectors that do so much lobbying, due to the Western side, are traitors to the Homeland.

There were people in Russia who believed what was best for the west was best for Russia in the long run... because the west runs the world so you keep the rulers of the world happy and you should benefit... but Russia never did benefit... they did all sorts of good things to help the US and the west and got no respect for it.

They allowed HATO to ship things through Russia and neighbouring countries to support their operations in Afghanistan because they thought they might actually do some good there... this is all forgotten now of course... like promises not to expand HATO were forgotten too.

Russia has realised the west is only interested in the US, and only the 1% in the US... the US as a whole didn't benefit from 20 years in Afghanistan... it was the 1% that benefited from that circus... which is why they stayed for 20 years.

Argentina has to realise the west does not run the world... the west is not the world... this Ukraine debacle makes that clear... even with the help of all of HATO and the EU and G7, the Ukraine is losing and losing horribly... and by that I mean it is losing several generations of men... a demographic disaster for the country...

The west went into that conflict with supreme confidence... it will be decided on the Battlefield... and they were right... it will be... because Russia can't trust any country in the west to keep its word.

Argentina also exports crude petroleum to the US, and imports refined oil products. Which is totally retarded.

Russia can certainly help with refining capacity for Argentina so they can process their own resources and sell finished products instead of raw materials.

For infrastructure also what it happens is that the new private owners are only interested in taking the more financially advantageous part and completely disregard other parts important for the people but maybe which were loss making.

This has been already mentioned by Garry and other users also in other threads

An airline is an example. Here in New Zealand to get access to the Australian market the Aussies forced us to buy a failing Australian airline to be allowed to fly to Australia, which automatically gave them access to our air market. New Zealand is a long narrow country with 2/3rds of the population in the north and so of course the Aussie airlines flew to our main centres and took customers from our airline, but our airline had to service the entire country... many places there were very few customers so obviously the airline was taking a loss because regions would complain about a lack of air service even if it was only a trickle of people actually flying on a regular basis.

It is simple a challenge for the national airline to monitor the traffic and to use aircraft suitable for the normal flow with aircraft available for use if there is a sudden spike. Having a 747 flying to a tiny corner of the country to pick up a group of 5 people and you are not going to last long as a business. Of course with a new covered stadium built allowing 747s to land at the local airport means the bigger bands can come and play.

The problem sometimes is that for state controlled infrastructures and companies some stooges are put in leadership positions just because of good connections (but is not really different in private firms) and sometimes people believe that if you get a place in a state company then you do not have to work seriously anymore, since is almost impossible to be fired.

There is the other factor of the right wing governments of rich people who are pissed off at state owned assets like hospitals and try to underfund them and undermine them so when they fail they can claim state funded things don't work and you need private enterprise to really get the best out of it.

They end up selling sectors to their mates who pay very little for the asset who then often fire everyone and hire back 1/3rd of the staff and skim off the profits... normally by the third of fourth year they are making more in profit than they used to buy the damn thing, and of course all complaints about the service and performance actually getting worse is suppressed or ignored... because taking it back and making it a state owned enterprise is communism...

The real annoying thing is that most of the time the actual buyers of the state owned assets in any country are always foreign. I seem to remember the first owners of New Zealands Telecom network were Canadian, but they asset strip and then sell it on for an enormous profit each time it is hard to keep track.

It is enough to see that they did not buy almost any Russian weapons, as Chávez did in Venezuela.

This is a military thread, but trade with Russia is about so much more than just weapons... even just learning to be independent from the west... Russia has gone from an energy exporter that imported most other things, to a country that can produce its own food and process its own energy into everything it needs, and clearly has the production capacity of weapons and ammo to defend itself too.

Imagine a situation where the UKs economy drops away because of the decisions its governments have made against its own peoples interests to satisfy the US mainly, and an Argentina that eventually joins BRICS and increases trade and production and grows and develops as a country that has positive growth rates for the next 30 years... the people on the Falklands might choose to change their allegiances...

With a bit of Russia oil technology, an Argentine company might win contracts to explore for oil around the islands and bring money... you could bet once the oil is flowing the British will move in and try to take over... they did that with the Rugby World Cup... they didn't think it would work so they let Australia and New Zealand and Japan organise the first one. Without Japanese money making it happen there would be no Rugby World Cup. You wouldn't think that the way it is run these days.

What I mentioned about the pro-Western lobbies was maintained during the leftist governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner.

Most of your equipment in the Falklands war was western so I suspect your military has a history of western gear and cooperation with western countries, and that would colour the views of those retired soldiers who are likely military advisors to your governments.

In the Indian military there are those that favour French and foreign weapons, and those that seem to favour Soviet/Russian stuff... it probably depends on what they used in their careers.

For the same reason Apple computers often do very special deals for schools and universities because they know that if you train on a type of computer then you get used to it, so if you move to business then you are more likely to favour the familiar... but obviously in business the new rookie recruits in the IT department never get to select the new computers.

And that also gives support to Milei, which he takes advantage of to get closer to the USA, Israel and other Western countries.

They might drop you a few scraps from the table, but they wont let you develop and grow. If they are trying to contain Russia and China there is no way they will let Argentina live the American dream... especially when only 1% of Americans get anywhere near that.

This is the game they try to play with everyone...

It has a lot of natural riches and is not blocked like Cuba, to take an example in Latin America.

Not blocked yet. If they think you will turn to BRICS you might find you suddenly have US/Cuba like relations unless you give US companies concessions to access your mineral and material wealth...

There is no difference at all among them. Whatever they said before coming to power all of them pursued the same anti Italian and pro EU and pro American democratic party policy (or better called pro American deep state).

There is an excellent British TV series called "Yes Minister" and it follows the career of a guy called Hackett who gets into politics all wide eyed and thinking he can fix everything and everyone will be happy. The follow on series is called "Yes, Prime Minister" and follows his career as prime minister. Once in power he finds out all his great ideas to fix things have been tried multiple times before by smarter people than him and they all failed. The programmes often started with a problem or an issue and the politician claims to know better while the civil servant suggests another course of action. All through the episode the politician tries to implement his idea and eventually gets it in place and it fails as the civil servant advised at the start and the only solution to save the day is the implement the idea of the civil servant which works out to be the best band aid to the problem and let someone else fix it later on.

Going into a job saying what you will do is horseshit, because when you get there you find it has been done before and never works and what they end up doing is covering up the issue or passing it down to the next slob to do this job because most of the time there is no solution.

Meloni Is basically the same as the former leader of the centre left party (Letta), i would dare to say that she is basically Enrico Letta with a blonde wig, and the current leader of the democratic party is a woman whose only "merit" is being a relatively young bisexual (Elly Schlein).

Here in New Zealand we have National and Labout as the two main parties and there is very little difference between them despite Labour claiming to be left and National claiming to be right.

Very much a case of two types of shit. Cat Shit and Dog Shit... no real choice at all. Both parties have privatised things and blamed the other party for everything that went wrong, but National is the more right wing of the two. National once held a referendum to decide if they should continue with privatisation and the result was about 75% of the population said no. They kept going anyway because the referendum was nonbinding.

You ask the people for advice and you ignore it because it goes against what you want to do.

A bit like setting up a shooting range that faces a primary schools playing field and asking an engineer if this paper is thick enough to be safe for the kids to play in the field while people are using the shooting range. The engineer says no, but you already bought the paper...

However, with the current sanctions and situation, Argentina cannot afford to cooperate with Russia without being banned from each trade with the west, from which it is completely dependent.

I would like to see them boosting their economy and trade with BRICS nations and then get back into BRICS because BRICS is only going to get bigger and with more trade partners it can only be good for the Argentine economy.

Maybe if Argentina decided to replace completely trade from the west to trade from China and Russia until the west drop the sanctions...

That is the problem for the west.... BRICS offers all the technology that the west can provide, but also trade with far fewer barriers... as BRICS expands getting cut off from western trade might actually be a good thing because importers get used to trade links and trade conditions and when the west severs those links from their end then your importers and exporters have to explore alternatives, often with rather better terms than they were getting.

Possibly once Russia will be completely independent from western Import it will be able also to propose an alternative to all nations that fear the American sanctions.

I believe the purpose of BRICS is to create a pool of developing and growing economies that can work together to fill any gaps that western sanctions might create so they become western sanction proof. So it is not Russia replicating all of the technology and material of all the west, but BRICS as a group getting together and working together and trading together to replace the west as a block.

The state does not need to own and run every business including the corner grocery store, but some sectors
are best managed by the state.

Healthcare is something everyone needs, and when it is run by the state it wont be quite as efficient as if run by private enterprise, but a state run health service is interested in people being healthy and able to work, while a privately run health service is interested in income... treatments rather than cures...

State healthcare could be run much better than it is in Kanada. Roger Moore did a documentary on this subject called Sicko. France has its act together to
much greater degree than Kanada and I believe the UK. But the problem is that it is corrupted as another feeding trough for corporations. Big Pharma
sodomizes taxpayers with extortion level drug prices. They just recycle the same shit to avoid expiration of patents. A huge fraction of the cost of the
system is to service Big Pharma. If people would be informed on proper food intake, nearly all of these pharma products would be unneeded. The elderly
are herded into "polypharmacy" where they take a chain of drugs which serve to treat symptoms of the previous drug in the chain and not the actual disease.
This is not an exaggeration, look it up.

I cannot praise the Kanadian system. Waiting times for basic procedures (MRI, etc.) are absurdly long and getting longer. This must be corruption since
there is no way MRI machines and their operators are even a blip in the total cost of the system (*). This looks to me like an attempt to create discontent to
eventually privatize the system. The US is "efficient" because it does not have such nonsense waiting times, but then the US spends way more per capita
on health care than Kanada. The US system is a profit racket. Beware of visiting the USA without health insurance. You can easily blow over $100,000
with even a simple stay at the hospital (i.e. no major surgery).

(*) We also have cases where money given by the federal government for equipment (MRI, etc.) is diverted by hospital administrations into salaries. This is
banana republic level of mismanagement. These salaries are not increasing the service level to the public.