Political Identity Crisis

Actually, the Republicans made it pretty simple for me, when they turned over their party to the religious right and corporate corruption.

Do you pay insurance?Insurance is socialism, by definition.Some things are best done as individuals. Some things are best accomplished for everybody when done collectively. Only an idiot would claim that one or the other way was all you needed.

If you're going to benefit, shouldn't you have to pay? Much of what you consider "state-coerced" socialism are situations where it's not possible for you to opt out of the benefits; you'll benefit regardless. In those situations basic fairness demands that you not be allowed to opt out of the payments, either.

Right, but suppose he works 2 years and then is permanently disabled. Now, he draws SS for life. Over the rest of his life he makes way more than the $6000 he's paid so far.It's insurance, not retirement. You just said that you supported insurance. It's not for retirees. It's insurance for all workers.

Oh, I think they'd cost much, much more. In fact, it's proven that they would cost much, much more. Social Security is the most cost-effective way to provide what it provides.

Actually, everybody is. Studies prove that the more often people see the doctor early on - something they can only afford to do if they're insulated from the health care costs - the cheaper health care becomes for all the rest of it.Which makes quite a bit of sense. The vast majority of medical conditions are such that they can be treated a lot more cheaply, or even prevented, by early detection and diagnosis. But doctors can't diagnose via ESP. Your plan, which leaves people out in the cold until the last possible minute, means that conditions aren't treated until they become serious, which means a lot more expense for you and I to shoulder.More people going to the doctor actually drives costs down, not up. It's a lot cheaper to treat a heart attack by preventing it with medication than by a 6-hour laproscopic surgery. Early detection, which can only happen when people are insulated from medical costs, means that we all shoulder a lot less expense. And people are healthier, too.Canada has universal health care; as a result they spend one-sixth of what we spend per capita, while consistently delivering superior medical care, because people can afford to go to the doctor when they start to get sick as opposed to when they can't ignore it any longer.

Because less and less Americans are being adequately covered by health insurance. More and more Americans are shouldering health care burdens that insurance used to cover, and as a result, they're going to the doctor less.What's happening is exactly what I described, and what you would expect to see happen even more if a system such as Bush's "health care savings accounts" would be put into place. And it's exactly what would decrease under a civilized nation; i.e. one that has universal health care.

And not even them, usually. Half of the people who file bankrupcy were bankrupted by unexpected health-care costs; half of those were people with the same high-deductable insurance Bush describes and personal savings, and they were wiped out anyway.Not to mention, the national savings rate is less than zero. The American people don't make enough to save anything.Kinda off-topic, though. I mean, I guess if you hate sick people, keep voting Republican. That's the take-away message here.

I could be wrong; I could be conflating some numbers, or misremembering the ratio; or I could be conflating the ratio between the Canadian system and American Medicare/Medicaid and the ratio between the Canadian system and the entire American private healthcare system, including all the private hospitals and the insurers and HMO's. What's the comparison, there? Canada vs. Medicaid or Canada vs. everything in the US? If you consider the whole American apparatus, and factor in the massive profit margins for insurers, HMO's, private hospitals, and the like, the idea that we spend 6 times what you do doesn't faze me.Re: quality - I wouldn't consider a program that covers everyone and a program that covers less than everyone - much less - to be the same in quality, regardless of how well-treated wealthy individuals in either system might be. I mean, a rich guy in sub-saharan Africa can get top-quality medicine if he really wants, but nobody would describe the health care in those countries as "quality", or "adequate", or even "above barbaric."

Do you think those are the only health problems that Americans have? Obesity and diabetes? Moreover, it's not those diseases, but the complications of them, that are health issues. And those issues can be mitigated by early treatment.So, yeah. That's what's causing Americans to suffer ill effects from those things - a lack of adequate health care. What proves my point is that the poor and lower middle class are astronomically more likely to suffer these things; the exact people who can't afford health care. I'm working on it. Not that you would know, because you never do any, but research takes time.

There are cultures that eat worse than Americans and cultures that excercise less; yet they don't have nearly the problems that we do.Certainly, lifestyle is a fair bit of the problem. Doctors help their patients develop healthy lifestyles. But the vast majority of this "Americans are fat and lazy" meme is an attempt by the right to shift the burden of worsening American health from the people actually responsible to the victims themselves. Nobody does die from AIDS. You die from an opportunistic infection caused by immunodeficiency.

Have you ever heard of France? For god's sake they smoke there, too. Like chimneys. If anybody should be matching America pound for pound and heart attack for heart attack, it should be the French, with their croissants and fois gras and creme broules. I believe in personal responsibility. What you believe in is some kind of sick lassez-faire moralist abdication - the only people responsible for bad things happening is the people to whom they happen.As though blame was important in the first place. Seems to me the issue is what we should do about it, not who is at fault for it.

Boy, you'll just make up any old thing to avoid being proven wrong, won't you?

Get used to warm sodas. They'r pathologically opposed to ice in drinks.

Because I like Coke. What, I'm not entitled to enjoy the things I like simply because something different is avaliable?I studied in Paris for a month, and it was an amazing time of gastronomic and oenologic discovery. I remember every morning, on the walk to classes, stopping by the patisserie for a fresh pear tart for breakfast. Like it was yesterday I can remember the taste and texture of the finest baking in the world.But, sometimes I had a cheeseburger, Coke, and fries, because I like those things too. I'm no food heathen; I'm a foodie from a long line of Italian foodies. But still, I consider the bacon cheeseburger to be the finest achivement ever created in any of the world's kitchens.So, that's why I would drink soda in France. Because I like soda, and as you say, food is about pleasing the senses, and my senses are pleased by the tingle of heavy carbonation and the bite of high-fructose corn syrup.