Hard question to answer, one supposes we will know more after the electio.

I think everything has a cause.  The reasoning behind the cause is not fully understood and you cannot fully understand that reason.

It is not a right, it has never been a right.  Now if you want to make it one and justify it, thats fine.  But then you will also ration it.

One reason no innovative medicine comes out of Europe is because they ration it, they ration the growth and development.  You have the citizen "slugs" who must wait for the proper treatment.  And you have the upper class who get the best treatment because they can afford it.  In the end the only difference between rationing based on price and rationing based on politics, is that he rationing based strictly on politics, usually sucks.  French doctors hate working in France (they are paid roughly what your teachers in the US are paid), and many do come to the US.  German healthcare workers hate the system and there are constant strikes, and they can't find enough people to fill the needs of their population and they literally tax the hell out of people in order to cover it.

US rationing which is partially through price, tends to have a better standard of care, though it doesn't cover all of citizens (85% are covered).  So in the US we have a higher standard of health care for 85% of the population and the issue lies in how to handle the 15% (some of whom opt out in order to take home more pay - an option not available in Europe).  Throwing out our medical system would be the worst mistake because Americans by and large reject the European system of healthcare.  Americans tend to enjoy making their own decisions and using their money as they see fit (I know its a radical thought in socialist countries). 

So from our point of view (the US), rights, are especially important and enumerated and not everything that is convenient or desireable is a right.

So lets look at the rebuttal:

1-Our ancestors did not dream of a future where their medical was covered.  They dreamed of a future in which they could make their own economic decisions and make their own way.  Europe was a paternalistic hell hole for them, that is why they left.

2-We do work and we do pay taxes.  But the taxes we pay are not a guarrantee for full medical coverage, and based on that reasoning we might as well pay all of our income to the government and then make economic demands, but that means giving up our rights to choose.  Every time we want the government to do something, it means we have to give up some individually based right.  If you want the government to have the right to medical care, then you give up your right to choose your doctor, to choose your treatment, to choose much of anything (unless you are, of course the wealthy who don't have to worry about poor healthcare).

3-Our ancestors did not dream of "managing" the western boon.  They dreamed of being part of it, of allowing the unfettered individual free to make their own income.  Western boon was managed in Europe, that is why they left.

Americans don't trust government, they almost never have.  Europeans have always trusted government, they always will, whether that government is benovelent, as many are, or a fascist nazi program (which many have been and will be again), Europeans tend to do those things the government wants.  It is their nature, it is their "group think".

But lets talk about socialism:

In the US socialism is not considered a virtue.  Group think isn't a virtue.  In Europe it is the norm.  For univrsal healthcare to work, the population must be easily malleable.


It has nothing to do with "first dibs".  It does have something to do with the right to choose, including the rights of individuals outside the US.  Socialism sees things as limited and sure, someone could have "dibs" since the healthcare was very limited.  There is no "first dibs" (which indicates the idea of a limited abilty to provide healthcare).  In fact all who can are allowed to come and take advantage of the healthcare available.

At this point one is forced to ask.  Canada, and Europe, with all of its taxes to ensure a great "quality" of healthcare to its people, why is it the best treatment for cancer in the world - a major killer in Europe and the Americas is in the US?  Why do they come here, why is innovation dead elsewhere?  If it is simply a question of investment, then why is Europe failing miserably in that investment with no innovation to show for it, and in the US, new drugs and treatments coming forward all the time?  If you have cancer, you are better off in the US than Europe or even Canada.

France, not surprisingly, has not made the cancer survival rates public.



UK Telegraph

So how does Europe cover all those people.  Well, a bureaucracy will tell you that some drugs are covered and some are not.  The decision is not based on effectiveness, but cost.  Cheaper drugs are easier to deal with.  In the UK 41% of the Brits have to wait more than 4 months for surgery.  And European health systems have emphasized preventative health care less and less.

 
Somewhat telling.

I read the book over a year ago.  Not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps that it does go a long way to showing there was indeed a Jesus figure, who was treated as a historic reality and misquoted. 

So is someone telling us that an actual historical figure was misquoted (which can only happen if the person existed), or that no such person existed, therefore the book itself is a waste of time. 

Why do they always paint themselves in a corner.

Distance and population do play a huge part, as does health care as in quality.  When I worked in Peru they boasted a dentist in almost every village, I would let some of them clean my toe's much less root around in my mouth.

And in some countries they are satisfied with considerably less because they don't know better.

I am not sure what Canada's medical liability laws are, or how they are set up, but it would seem to me that some Canadian doctors coming to the US to build a practice are willing to take that exposure as opposed to exposure in the frozen North.

I will have you lapped by the end of this year. 

'nuff said, I am going back up to where the air is clean and pure for this "newbie".

Try not to project your own doubts on others.  You are unaware of the life experiences of some here who have experienced those things you call "offensive".  Some have had such life experiences and still feel close to god.  So your charge is really just you speaking about yourself and expounding your own doubts and hoping (dare we say you have faith) that other people think as you do.

Fortunately they do not.  Generally such terrible things as tsunamis, and even on a personal level, rape, has often been overcome though strength in a higher being, while atheists usually crumble, because for them there is nothing for them to hold on to when emergency comes.

Why, I wonder are the Jews who survived the deathcamps overwhelming stronger in their religion and their belief in god?  Based on the logic you present, they should be "offended" in god, but aren't.  Are the survivors all religious fanatics that should have been killed?  Or is it a strength of character that might make you feel uncomfortable?

The reason I ask, is because tragedies tend to strengthen belief systems not destroy them, and atheists might repent of their call towards a deity when they are in a foxhole, but the memory resides in their weakened faith.  The vast majority who experience tragedy have a stronger faith because of it.  Are they also fanatics?

You can only hope and have faith.  The reality does not fit well with your proclamations, but then they haven't in the past either.

If you did that you'd be a Mormon.  Those guys have an unpaid clergy and work at it all the time.  No money, no compensation, only constant work. 

There are people in other churches like that too, but not to the overall degree of unpaid people doing all kinds of work.  Wife comes from a big Mormon family, but we don't feel like kicking the tires on that one.

Is depression a choice or a disease of the mind?  Amazing how the right chemicals can make us see brighter days.  I always wondered why the Jews in the deathcamps didn't commit wholesale suicide.  They had reason to, more than just about anyone else in history, and yet, most of them wanted to live more than anything else.

Can you believe it!  I am listed as a newbie.

Well, I have been busy and disgusted simultaneously.  What can I say.

But I think i might just hang out up here in the rarefied air for a while.

I am very neutral on the upcoming elections myself.  I kind of like Romney, mainly because there is little to dislike, but I am also suprised as Hillary's strength.

Finally I am disgusted with the republicans here in CA, they are one hell of a dysfunctional group.  Saw it myself when I was invited to Sacramento this past week to discuss water issues (something I tend to be familiar with in my career).  While the republicans in CA are right about building dams, it irks the hell out of me that they cant compromise in other areas in order to provide for a better future for CA growth.  I was suprised how they were ready to commit hara kiri rather than seek common ground.

Mind you the dems in Sacremento also seem to be just slightly to the left of Mao themselves.  I can't believe one legislator told me that CA would continue to grow, that they would de salinate the water.  I asked him where the power would come from.  He replied, "wind farms and bio fuels". 

I tell you its madness.

In essence the last election was simply a set up for the presidential election.  There are a number of issues being floated in order to prevent one party of the other of gaining control.  Any issue is seized upon by the other side.  The last election was just an opening salvo, not a change in policy.

Nothing like the Balkanization of Spain to ensure a rapid fall of the country of Spain.  No wonder they were so easily conquered by the Muslims. Divided by language and custom they no longer presented a united front against an oncoming and apparently superior culture.

Whereas the Romans took two centuries to conquer a united Spain, the Muslims did it in less than a generation.  History is repeating itself once again.