One half of the division between two things that have been parced (i.e. divided) In effect I was making an argument that included the statement that corporate competition for the post office really is very different then corporate competition in medicine, the two are distinct. That's also what you said, so we're essentially in agreement here.

That's half-true. A socialized system would provide care for people that had not taken good care of themselves, but one way you and I are different is that I don't mind footing the bill for people who have behaved self destructively in the name of also footing the bill for people who have not behaved as such yet are still sick.

A system where we punch everyone in the face because some people shoplift is essentially what we have now. I want us to have the reverse, a system in which we treat everyone's injuries despite the fact that some people shoplift.

First of all, it sounds like you think the problem is Crack. Secondly, under a good socialized system where we treated drug use as a medical issue and NOT as a criminal issue, we might have a hope of keeping those Crackheads from existing to begin with.

Really? Because you said this:

You see that line about how the Americans would "lay around and have the tax payer foot the bill" that implies you think that more people would become unemployed as a result of socialized care.

If that is not what you are implying, then it means you think the 5-10% of the population now that is unemployed would be there either way, which is not much of an arugment against socialized care. You're basically saying it doesn't actually matter.

I have not stooped to name-calling once in this whole debate. You just did.

Obviously not, nor do I think everyone homeless is neccessarily the unforgivable human refuse that conservatives seem to think they are. The idea that there are incenstives or dis-incentives to be homeless is a tired idea, and the same goes for its application to socialized care.

However I will agree that my example was based on a local grudge I have with conservatives in my city, and should not have been thrown into this discussion.

Consider it cheerfully withdrawn.

Okay, I can agree to that. I will support whatever you suggest to fix the individuals who you think make this impossible.

Here I disagree. Lack of healthcare IS a crack in the foundation. If we fix that, we'll end up addressing many side problems. I will list them if you request it, but you seem perfectly intelligent, and I think you can figure 'em out for yourself.

Can you not see how hopelessly circular that is? Healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture because we don't have it, and we don't have it because healthcare for everyone isn't part of our culture.

They aren't. Americans pay virtually the lowest taxes in the world of any industrialized nation.

Affirmative action isn't even a reality anymore, we've done away with it. And after much debate with myself, I've decided I'm glad for that... it was well intended, but it had the unfortunate effect of making it so that no minority could ever get a job without their qualifications being questioned by everyone around them, even if they were perfectly qualified. But this is a vastly different issue then what we're discussing here, since it has literally no weight upon taxes or healthcare.

As for welfare, our meager doll makes up a scant 1% of our federal budget and 2% or less in most states. It's laughable to lay societal ills at the feet of numbers like that.

While I hate to hand-feed you arguments that will be useful for your side in other discussions, we have some of the lowest unemployment here of any country. One of the trade-offs Americans have gotten for having such corporate favoratism is high availability of jobs, even if many of those jobs are total shit. If we're so lazy, why do so many of us work for so little?

This I find hilarious. So what you're saying, is that the reason we should not switch to a system in which some people don't pay into it because they're lazy, is because we need to defend our existing system in which some people work too hard because others are too lazy? Once again, it sounds like you're arguing that the only difference between a sozialized system and this system is that everyone would get access to healthcare. There'd be the same number of lazy fucks either way.

No, but the protestant work ethic did shape the system in which all of us work. "American" values tend to line up pretty neatly with the protestants that originally formed our laws.

Of course I do. You seemed to be suggesting American laziness was a key sticking point for the debate. I feel that if I can dispell from you the arbitrary idea that we're lazy, I can move the healthcare discussion forward.

Okay, what ways? We're less taxed and less regulated then most countries, and we even have a good number of freedoms that many others do not. How is our government pressing down on us in the big picture?

The first part of this is a very good point, and the best I can say to defend myself against it is that I seek the best medium possible. I do not want to live in any system that blindly rewards everyone at every crossroad, nor do I want to live in a system in which the unlucky are penalized. A good system has to be a marriage of the two, thus I say, set the minimum bar at health and well-being, then let the smart and lucky and hard-working get rich as they do now.

Your second part again relies on the idea that people in need deserve to be where they are, that I categorically reject. Some of us make worse choices than others, but that is not the only reason for the downfall of individuals, and conservative policies make it so much harder to pull one-self back into grace.

Immutable means unchangeable.

I agree with you here, but I think that has far more to do with two things:

1. We can't agree what we want government to do. The reason I come to boards like this or talk to people about these issues is that I'm trying to create greater consensus for the idea that government can and should do more for us. Not everything, not communism, just more than it's doing now.

2. Government programs that are designed to help people are starved for cash. An old republican tactic has been to cut somethings budget, decry that it no longer does what it used to do well as a result of those budget cuts, and then cut that budget even farther ad infinitum.