Wow, I don't know how this can be a good article, since this is one piece of a big FUD writing.

So, all of these changes will be negative to Americans? If left-wing supermajority will be bad, then how about what did the six-year right-wing supermajority brought to Americans? You may argue that the article never said the changes will be 'bad', but we all can feel a strong negativety from the tones and word usage, like this "Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined." Wow, such a nice way to create fear.

I just don't see this article is 'good.'  By the way, even us poor Koreans have universal healthcare system. That's pretty much standard for all of well-developed countries except USA.

You may get it, but there's a good chance you won't. To give you an example, in the UK we currently have the labour government in power. To appeal more to the electorate, they decided to rebrand themselves and no longer be the strong pro-Union party that they were historically. The result is that while unions have caused some problems over the years they've been in power, they haven't strengthened them specially, and have often been opposing them in some areas (since you're much more likely to have a striking union in a public sector of the economy than in a private sector).

Now the main point of this? Well this same party receives something like 90% of it's funding from the Unions (I can't be bothered to check the specific figure, but it's definitely around there). So, even though they were historically the party of the unions, and are funded almost entirely by the unions, they have still recognised that increasing the role of trade unions isn't actually a good thing. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with the Democrats even with a super majority, since hopefully they would recognise that such a move would damage their chances in future elections. People might support a union cause when they first hear of it (usually it's about striking over insufficient pay), but as soon as the strikes start affecting them personally, that support will vanish, and they will turn on those they hold responsible (which in this case would be the Democrats if they had strengthened the power of the unions dramatically)

Now there's a solution to outsourcing if I ever saw one... NOT.  Not to mention a lovely enhancement to our global competitiveness.  The equivalent of trying to shovel your way out of a hole.  If we're lucky, they'll suffer an acute attack of common sense before doing this (make that real lucky).

I know, it sounds counter-intuitive, hey. But the word on the ground seems to suggest that when a hospital is run for profit, corners are cut on standards. Not huge ones by any stretch of the imagination, but you get better nurses (higher pay and slightly fewer working hours) and the exact same doctors (the shortage of trained doctors is such that they tend to work everywhere they're needed) in most public hospitals in Australia. And considering how important good nursing care can be, that may well be a deciding factor in your choice of institution.

But it's a much smaller market, so it's entirely possible this divide is just a result of that rather than an innate advantage of public hospitals in a mixed system.

Single-payor means 'single-boss' - which means the needs and desires of the boss (the state) trump those of individuals.  Much of the time they are in sync, a large chunk of the time they are not.  You've already seen what can happen with attempts at social engineering courtesy of  Mr. Frank & Friends - do you really want that same crowd in charge of healthcare, all of healthcare?

And for those who dont want to pay for it.  Big difference.  And in the end, the only way to solve the inherant problem is to nationalize the whole program.  While some may argue that the abuse, inefficiency and cost over runs are not on the government side, one only has to look at any government program to find that those 3 sisters are the SOP of government run programs.

Sounds like a job for charity.  Let those who believe as you do pay for it. But it's pretty ridiculous for people to act like it's compassionate when it's all being paid for by a tiny % of the population.

No, I had understood it all. Off course there will always be corruption over it. But just because there is some trouble don't mean you should shoot the whole shebang down. There will always be more honest people who genuinely need those coverage than crooks who will abuse it. And it would be sad to make the honest pay for the greed of the few.

Charity are usually localised, and better endowed in areas where the economy is doing better, there are more people with more money to give.

In places generally poor, or where the economy is going down, there would be less donations, and quality of the healthcare would be greater lessened. Charity just don't fit the bill when it comes to medical coverage.

I call it "projected idealism".

Projected idealism is any belief that says that in order for the world to become better SOMEBODY ELSE has to do something, specifically something that oneself is not asked to do.

Showing compassion by increasing other people's taxes is one example.

Another typical example is the global warming activist who finds all sorts of ways that other people could save electricity if only they cared.

My pet peeve: The (typically German) Christian minister who calls on Israel to turn the other cheek (or in general stop defending herself). Those peace activists are never in the situation where shooting back is the only thing that stands between them and genocide.

Projected idealism is the form of idealism I hate most. Second is "protected idealism".

Protected idealism is any belief that claims to know how to make the world a better place and only works because others do not believe in the same ideology. (But to be fair, if EVERYBODY else did, it would work too, in some cases.)

Pacifism is the best example. A pacifist can only stay away from defending his country and life because other people fight for him.

Opposition to the American government is another such idealism. The only reason we can demonstrate against the evils of America's government is because America fought to establish and defend our right to demonstrate.

Protected and projected idealism are luxuries most people cannot afford. They are symptoms of the rich, western world.

Your premise is flawed.  There has never been "Carte Blanche" just a revision of the regulations.  Replacing bad regulations with worse ones is not the answer.  And less regulation was not what killed the economy (it is not dead).  But socialism sure will drive a stake through the heart of it.

Leauki,

The subject of pacifism is a tricky topic indeed!

I believe and support that my nation, Canada should have a capable military for defense and I have bared arms as a member of the Canadian Forces in the past, and done so voluntarily. However, I was against sending troops to Iraq, so does that make me a pacifist even though I have actively participated in the defense of my country?

As you yourself have stated, no war is truly necessary, but it can become so if one is threatened. Please indulge me by considering an analogy-

Let's say that one day you're sleeping in your bed at home and suddenly an armed intruder kicks down the door. You're the victim of a home invasion. You just happen to have a firearm (let's say you sleep with it under your pillow) in which case you defend yourself, and more importantly your family, by shooting the beligirent intruder. On the world stage this is the case that is always used to justify the existence of armies- if we don't have one, then someone's gonna kick down the door and do whatever they want. Nobody likes a soldier until the enemy's at your front door, blah blah blah.

So, the question then becomes what is a legitimate threat and what is not? Yes, there are died in the wool pacifists out there who believe that all weapons in the world should be melted down and we should all join hands singing, but I have found those types to be very few and far between. Most people, in my opinion, are not pacifists,  nor do they want to see the military go into action unless it's absolutely necessary.

So, again, the question is what constitutes a real threat, at what point are we justified to use force?

Just because you have the means to defend your home from an invading criminal, does that mean you should go out into the street and actively rough up anyone who you think looks odd or suspicious or might have the capacity to try and harm you? After all, the best defense is a good offense is it not?

The truth is if everyone did that there would be no society. We would all be rogue paranoid folks attacking each other, with the justification that attacking a stranger in the street means one less person who might have come to harm you later.

Consequently, doing this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that only increases the violence and conflict as everyone starts "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them back here"

Sometimes, very rarely, in history, this is actually justified and yes, by all means folks should go and clobber the other guy. WW2 was one example, although in theory it might have been avoided had Germany not been so utterly trampled economically and politically in the 20's and 30's which created the right conditions for a strong man to take over.

But one can argue, nonetheless, that by the time 1939 (or the years preceding as he took other countries piecemeal) had come around military action was indeed necessary to stop Hitler.

However, as with actual home invasions, events like this are few and far between, therefore, there are very few instances in recorded history in which the use of military force outside of one's own borders can be justified!

I think you are correct on this- it's human nature, and also explains why car mechanics can easily fleece many customers for extra cash for problems that don't really exist.

At the end of the day, as a species we're largely uninterested in how things work or what's going on. Hence why voter turnout is generally very low. We all just want to have our little slice of life to live and expect that so long as we look after our part of the picture other people (leaders, scientists, diplomats, economists, civil engineers) will all look after their part of the picture diligently and society will hum along just fine.

This applies to pretty much everything. For example, I take for granted that I will have clean water that I can drink without getting sick, but yet when it comes to the intricacies of water treatment and transportation I'm a complete idiot. So for me to go to a townhall meeting and scream about the evils of a new pump station going in another part of town would be foolhardy as I really wouldn't know what I was talking about.

And so it goes with the general populace. We tend to leave the politicking to the politicians and when something like military intervention in a distant land comes up, many folks either

1) Don't want to know, or are mystified by the whole thing. "That's the governments call. If they say we need to go, I guess we gotta go. Pass the beer nuts, the game is starting soon"

2) Already have an opinion without the facts. These folks tend to be polarized by ideology and refuse to consider the situation on the ground, falling back to the position that sides with their beliefs regardless of the facts. ALL sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this sin. You have peaceniks that believe that all conflict of any type is inherently wrong and anyone who engages in it is guilty of crimes against humanity. You have environmentalists that believe that all hunting is wrong and hunters should be tried for capital punishment. On the flip side, you have folks that believe that most criminals should be punished with the death penalty or at the minimum stripped of all rights and thrown into gulag conditions to "teach them a lesson" and, yes, the much used evil corporate stereotype that sees only profit as the goal with no consideration for other human beings (Enron and the loss of life they caused in California would be one example)

3) Want to know more facts before making a decision. However, don't really want to take too much time out of their life so rely on mass media and 30 second sound bytes to explain the situation. This is most people I believe.

4) Want to know more facts but don't believe or trust a 30 second sound byte to adequately explain what's going on, and want to dig deeper. This is definitely the minority.

And of course, there's a blend of the above on some sort of scale. If I've missed one, please feel free to add!

As to your analogy, summarized in the last part-

This is a good analogy which sumarizes the case for invasion, and kudos to you for presenting it so well. In fact, I used to believe it. Remember, I originally was in favour of the Iraq war and believed this story wholeheartedly.

Is Mr. Moustache a bad man who needed to be dealt with? Absolutely.

But the story needs to be changed so that there are many men similar to Mr. Moustache who also abuse their families. But so long as they paid tribute to the mob they were left alone. The police, admittedly, are corrupt as they are controlled and largely vetoed by several large crime families who do business with many Mr. Moustache's across the city.

In this particular case was Mr Moustache abusing his family? Yes, undeniably. However, it should be noted that some of the members of his "family" he wasn't related to in any way and were forced to be part of his house by another gangster with a british accent many years ago.

It was this same gangster who also kicked down the door in concert with some other mobsters, namely the Don who was going to put an end to Mr Moustache's refusal to pay tribute accordingly.

Remember, across the street Mr Moustaches cousin (or very distant cousin) Mr. Bedouin has also been running around town blowing up people houses. In fact, some of the members of his house were responsible for blowing up some office buildings at the heart of the city, but since he's got extensive business dealings with the mob, they largely protect him from the police while making a relatively half-hearted attempt to get the people actually responsible for the act.

Now, I hope you're seeing where I'm going with this analogy which could be expanded on a great deal as could yours.

At the root, however, is a disagreement as to the nature of the situation and the particulars behind it.

Remember, the Iraq war was not sold to the American people on humanitarian grounds. If it was, the U.S and co would have to go and invade a lot of other countries, many of them allies, in order to set things right. It was sold on the fear of WMD's which ended up being nonexistent.