Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[Famine]

Foolkiller: we're all (very) familiar with your libertarian positions. While I appreciate the intellectual consistency of truly libertarian views, that doesn't mean I believe they are a good model for the current world. They strike me as increasingly self-indulgent & immature in the face of a world population approaching 7 billion.

And yet they are consistent, treat everyone fairly, punish no-one and allow one to gain from the system exactly what one puts into it. It's quite the opposite of self-indulgent and immature.

 

[Tornado]

Oh, & while the U.S. Constitution may have been a remarkable achievement at the time, it's the height of naivete to believe that a document created over 200 years ago by a small group of rich, white men in the particular circumstances of that time, should continue to provide all the answers for problems that arise in the very, very different contemporary world.

And yet nothing in the modern world seems to prove this.

 

[FoolKiller]

Foolkiller: we're all (very) familiar with your libertarian positions. While I appreciate the intellectual consistency of truly libertarian views, that doesn't mean I believe they are a good model for the current world. They strike me as increasingly self-indulgent & immature in the face of a world population approaching 7 billion.

You are going to have to explain why you think this for me not to 1) take insult and 2) think you have no clue what you are talking about.

Really, considering that I am opposed to a health care reform plan that would actually benefit me, I have no clue how I am being self-indulgent or immature.

Oh, & while the U.S. Constitution may have been a remarkable achievement at the time, it's the height of naivete to believe that a document created over 200 years ago by a small group of rich, white men in the particular circumstances of that time, should continue to provide all the answers for problems that arise in the very, very different contemporary world.

Have you actually read it to realize that it is a document design to limit government and provide freedom of the individuals by preventing the government from becoming the same kind of authoritarian entity which they fled from (and looks suspiciously like what we have today).

In what way does contemporary society mean that we must abandon self responsibility and individual freedoms for the "greater good of the people?"

By the way those "rich white men" were elected to represent a group of individuals. Very few other government founders can claim that.

And if you wish to argue that the Constitution is out dated then what exactly do you suggest we do with the United States, as that document is what the structure of our government is built upon. I am sure, from your Canadian perspective it doesn't matter, but then I am not quite sure how much concern or knowledge you have of what the Constitution actually means or says.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^I remember my AP US History teacher saying America was founded by a bunch of slave owners wanting to be free.

I never really thought of it like that.

 

[Biggles]

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, especially to self-sufficient young men, but I don't think it speaks to the issues faced by billions of people around the world today, struggling to survive. The pursuit of money & power corrupts & has the ability to manipulate & distort the public interest so completely, that it undermines the (otherwise reasonable) virtues of personal responsibility.

The U.S. constitution was rationally based at the time of its creation, but in practice, American democracy has been so corrupted by money & a whole variety of corporate lobbying & other special interests, that it has lost the respect of most of the world.

The role of successful government is to find the right balance between individual liberty & responsibility, & the collective good. The citizens of every other developed country in the world have decided that the correct balance is represented by a public health care system. I believe that the U.S. will end up there too, but not before every weapon in the arsenal of the pharmaceutical companies, medical industries & insurance companies has been exhausted to defend their own self-interest & profit.

 

[Famine]

I don't think it speaks to the issues faced by billions of people around the world today, struggling to survive.

How so?

 

[Tornado]

The U.S. constitution was rationally based at the time of its creation, but in practice, American democracy has been so corrupted by money & a whole variety of corporate lobbying & other special interests, that it has lost the respect of most of the world.

Largely because they haven't been following it.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The U.S. constitution was rationally based at the time of its creation, but in practice, American democracy has been so corrupted by money & a whole variety of corporate lobbying & other special interests, that it has lost the respect of most of the world.

But how is throwing money at government healthcare different? It just gives the government more ways to screw us over.

 

[Joey D]

Foolkiller: we're all (very) familiar with your libertarian positions. While I appreciate the intellectual consistency of truly libertarian views, that doesn't mean I believe they are a good model for the current world. They strike me as increasingly self-indulgent & immature in the face of a world population approaching 7 billion.

I don't believe the Libertarian model is perfect either, in fact I think a lot of their ideas assume a utopian civilisation. But that's for another thread. Perhaps we can continue this discussion here:

Libertarian Party – Your thoughts?

Oh, & while the U.S. Constitution may have been a remarkable achievement at the time, it's the height of naivete to believe that a document created over 200 years ago by a small group of rich, white men in the particular circumstances of that time, should continue to provide all the answers for problems that arise in the very, very different contemporary world.

I think parts of the Constitution are a bit of a mess too but if you updated it, you would still get a small group of rich white men creating a document. And then it still wouldn't be followed and would still be argued over till the cows come home. It's probably best just to leave it alone and read it to see how modern problems can fit into it.

 

[Sureboss]

I know. But if you're going to class every member of the UK as a taxpayer for these purposes, it must also be extended to the comparison between per capita NHS costs and private healthcare insurance premium. Since no public body receives money from any specific tax, this makes sense.

So the policy costs £75pcm (with £200 excess) for three taxpayers whose proportional NHS contributions would be £354.



If you're going to exclude the child as they aren't an income tax payer, you must also exclude the 10.7m children from the population.

So the policy costs £75pcm (with £200 excess) for two taxpayers and one non-taxpayer whose proportional NHS contributions would be £3,448. But this way makes less sense.

There's no way to jig this about so that the NHS costs less in extra taxes than a private health insurance policy.



Indeed, but you have no choice whether you pay for it even if you disagree with it.

Surely a main factor for cheaper health insurance policies is that there aren't many of them?

I think the NHS should be a standardised system (if not privatised), I think all the hundreds of trusts is leaking horrific amounts of money with no reasonable results. Correction of squint and all glasses I had as a young'un were under NHS.

Personally I've never had a problem with the NHS outside of dentists, £17.50 for a 5 minute check up. Thank god it's twice a year.

 

[the Interceptor]

But how is throwing money at government healthcare different? It just gives the government more ways to screw us over.

Not that I would support the planned introduction of government healthcare, but what I couldn't quite embrace as of yet is why so many Americans have the feeling that being in the hands of profit-oriented private companies is somehow okay, while giving money to the government only leads to people being betrayed.

Sure, governments screw things up all over the place, that happens everywhere every day. Yet, I do not understand how the wish of a totally free, self-regulating market ruled by private companies is better. In the end, those companies are after money and will do many things to obtain it, discarding the interests of Joe Average if it increases their profit.

 

[Joey D]

Sure, governments screw things up all over the place, that happens everywhere every day. Yet, I do not understand how the wish of a totally free, self-regulating market ruled by private companies is better. In the end, those companies are after money and will do many things to obtain it, discarding the interests of Joe Average if it increases their profit.

We are essentially in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation in my opinion. I feel the core American ideals have been changed and skipped over for so long that we are facing a bad situation no matter how you look at it. People thought Obama was going to fix it, although I'm not sure how one man can fix all of America's problems.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Yet, I do not understand how the wish of a totally free, self-regulating market ruled by private companies is better. In the end, those companies are after money and will do many things to obtain it, discarding the interests of Joe Average if it increases their profit.

Personally, I don't really want a completely free market. But the thought of the government basically controlling the whole industry scares me. After the bailouts and all that, it seems like the government is just throwing around cash like it's nothing. It's hard to trust people with so much power.

 

[Biggles]

But how is throwing money at government healthcare different? It just gives the government more ways to screw us over.

The idea that the government is there to "screw us over" is an idea propagated by the Right to consolidate the influence, power & profitability of big corporations - in this case the "health-care industry", pharmaceutical companies & insurance companies. Although it always pays to be be sceptical of big government also, I would rather put some confidence in elected officials to act in the best interests of the public, than corporations whose only motivation is to make a profit, or even worse, create huge salaries & bonuses for the executive elite who control the management boards of these corporations (see the financial "melt-down").

The Canadian health care system is far from perfect, but people in Canada continue to overwhelming support the idea of a universal health-care system. As a measure of this Tommy Douglas, the man seen as principally responsible for Canada's adoption of universal health-care, was recently voted "The Greatest Canadian" in a nation-wide poll.

 

[Tornado]

The idea that the government is there to "screw us over" is an idea propagated by the Right to consolidate the influence, power & profitability of big corporations

Oh boy.

 

[chepe371]

Weird, that sounds just like what I have, but my pay stub says insurance instead of taxes. Oh, and I can choose not to pay it and not use it if I want to save some money.

Imagine that: I have a choice that I can make of my own free will, for now.

AHAHAHA, picture this scenario

Fool KIller: "I want to save up some money, let me cancel my insurance"

Fool Killer goes out to buy 42 inch LCD, gets rear ended by a car, has back and neck damage and possibly a concussion.

Fool Killer: "Oh snap, i wish i had my insurance, but i wanted this TV so badly."

Mr.T: "I pity the Fool that aint got no health insurance!"

Fool Killer: "Woe is Me!"

Fin.


And, in Quebec, i dont know about all of Canada but we have to pay for calling an ambulance (about 180$ CAD) unlike in some USA health care systems where ambulances are part of the coverage but some abuse of the right and it ends up costing all the people in the same system.

Many many people in border towns keep canadian citizenships to take advantage of health care.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

AHAHAHA, picture this scenario

And he should have the right to make that decision.

Although it always pays to be be sceptical of big government also, I would rather put some confidence in elected officials to act in the best interests of the public

I bet the majority of politicians act in their personal interests. Hell it's not like they'll be using their proposed system anyway.

 

[FlareKR]

What the Dems are trying to do is push this bill down our throats like bad medicene. Want them to control health care? Look what they've done to Amtrak, the Postal service, even GM, they've practically destroyed the company! It still has to go through the Senate, and they'll change the bill again, and then another vote from congress. If it passes (hopefully not) it won't be this year.

 

[homeforsummer]

Surely a main factor for cheaper health insurance policies is that there aren't many of them?

I think the NHS should be a standardised system (if not privatised), I think all the hundreds of trusts is leaking horrific amounts of money with no reasonable results. Correction of squint and all glasses I had as a young'un were under NHS.

Personally I've never had a problem with the NHS outside of dentists, £17.50 for a 5 minute check up. Thank god it's twice a year.

I've also never really had a problem with the NHS, but then I've not often had to use it and when I have, I've was legally a child and going into A&E and therefore a priority of sorts.

I've also never had NHS glasses. Again, when I was in full-time education they were free from a high-street opticians, and now that I'm not I have to pay for them... but then my eyes aren't changing much any more anyway so it bothers me not.

However, I can see what Famine is on about - every taxpayer in the country is paying a fair amount of their taxes for a service that won't necessarily be of the highest quality or the shortest time possible. And the more you earn (so the more you pay in your taxes), the worse value it becomes. I'd prefer the fixed-cost method of paying for your own health insurance through a company like Bupa and getting the highest-quality service.

Of course, I'm not sure Bupa and other private services could handle the health demands of the whole country, but then they also only treat actual health problems, rather than having to treat junkies and Saturday-night drunks. Both of which, in my humble opinion, are problems that the individual themselves should pay for.

If anyone says that Bush caused 9/11, then you are out of your mind! Lots of people are saying that about Bush. If you agree, GET OUT OF HERE!

You really don't understand the nature of free speech yet, do you? Or politics in general, it seems.

 

[Omnis]

AHAHAHA, picture this scenario

Fool KIller: "I want to save up some money, let me cancel my insurance"

Fool Killer goes out to buy 42 inch LCD, gets rear ended by a car, has back and neck damage and possibly a concussion.

Fool Killer: "Oh snap, i wish i had my insurance, but i wanted this TV so badly."

Mr.T: "I pity the Fool that aint got no health insurance!"

Fool Killer: "Woe is Me!"

Fin.


And, in Quebec, i dont know about all of Canada but we have to pay for calling an ambulance (about 180$ CAD) unlike in some USA health care systems where ambulances are part of the coverage but some abuse of the right and it ends up costing all the people in the same system.

Many many people in border towns keep canadian citizenships to take advantage of health care.

Yeah, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are not on the same page as FoolKiller. We're talking about managed care. If he got his neck broken that would be Catastrophic, which is the only true form of health insurance that can be purchased. Managed care is not insurance.

 

[Rage0329]

For this thread i have to add these quotes:

A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American.


Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God.


Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.


No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive.


All by Walter E. Williamson

 

[Biggles]

What the Dems are trying to do is push this bill down our throats like bad medicene. Want them to control health care? Look what they've done to Amtrak, the Postal service, even GM, they've practically destroyed the company

This is a great example of simply bad-mouthing the government in a knee-jerk way. How has the government destroyed GM? GM spent the last 30 years fighting any legislation to increase the safety or fuel-efficiency of their vehicles. GM & to a large degree the other "Big Three" spent all their energy building, & persuading the public to buy, big SUVs & trucks. When oil prices went up, the bottom dropped out of their market. In the meantime, the Japanese had focused on building smaller, more efficient, safer vehicles & took a larger & larger share of the auto market, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world.

Management at GM dug their own grave through their own stupidity & short-sightness, & then the government (which means you, the taxpayer) had to pull them out. (Oh, & apropos health care: GM like many large corporations would support a public health system that spreads the costs of health care among the population as a whole).

You know people in other countries are also sceptical about the influence of big government, but they also understand that government control can be preferable to control by completely unaccountable multi-national corporations.

 

[Public'sTwin]

even GM, they've practically destroyed the company!

As in General Motors? GM is not being managed by democrats.

 

[Duke]

Yet, I do not understand how the wish of a totally free, self-regulating market ruled by private companies is better. In the end, those companies are after money and will do many things to obtain it, discarding the interests of Joe Average if it increases their profit.

...until they are so ignorant of Joe Average's interest and needs that they wither and die because they are not making a product Joe Averages wants to / can afford to buy. If it costs too much money and isn't worth it, it doesn't get bought when people are paying for it themselves.

But government products are cheap (free) to vote for because you are paying with somebody else's money - somebody richer than you. So the majority of people can keep completely unsustainable products alive just by voting in large blocks, against those who ultimately pay for it.

 

[Tornado]

GM & to a large degree the other "Big Three" spent all their energy building, & persuading the public to buy, big SUVs & trucks. When oil prices went up, the bottom dropped out of their market. In the meantime, the Japanese had focused on building smaller, more efficient, safer vehicles & took a larger & larger share of the auto market, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world.

No. Just no. His statement was admittedly way off base (well, 50% way off base), but countering it with an equally incorrect one doesn't do your argument any favors.

(Oh, & apropos health care: GM like many large corporations would support a public health system that spreads the costs of health care among the population as a whole).

I hope you realize that that doesn't mean anything.

You know people in other countries are also sceptical about the influence of big government, but they also understand that government control can be preferable to control by completely unaccountable multi-national corporations.

Which means it is a good thing that most Americans know that the opposite is typically the actual scenario.

 

[Biggles]

No. Just no.

I admit, you've got a good point there.

Which means it is a good thing that most Americans know that the opposite is typically the actual scenario.

Fortunately, it's common knowledge that the contrary is, in fact true.

I hope you realize that that doesn't mean anything.

There you go again.

 

[FoolKiller]

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, especially to self-sufficient young men, but I don't think it speaks to the issues faced by billions of people around the world today, struggling to survive. The pursuit of money & power corrupts & has the ability to manipulate & distort the public interest so completely, that it undermines the (otherwise reasonable) virtues of personal responsibility.

You know, I challenged you to keep me from thinking that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you have just shown me that you don't. Do not confuse libertarianism with neo-conservativism. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's claim to Libertarianism is not actually what Libertarians think. They are neo-cons.

Check in on true Libertarians and you will see discussion between the differences of capitalism (not what you are discussing) and corporatism (the corruption you speak of). I do not think that what has been seen out of the banks over the past 100 years is good, nor do I support the health care status quo. These are perfect examples of cronies and looters who have been empowered by the government.

Out of curiosity, what prevents anyone without a physical disability from becoming self sufficient young men and women? I mean, I came from a small farming town of under 10,000 people and had a very severe heart condition. I have to be selective about my job choices in order to be sure that my health care needs will be met. I didn't come from some well off family where everything was handed to me. I got here through student loans and personal determination. There is nothing I have that any average person couldn't achieve.

The U.S. constitution was rationally based at the time of its creation, but in practice, American democracy has been so corrupted by money & a whole variety of corporate lobbying & other special interests, that it has lost the respect of most of the world.

So America sucks because it got away from the Constitution, so obviously it is out of date? I'm confused. America hasn't been following the Constitution properly for over 100 years and if they have lost the respect of the world in that time then maybe it isn't the Constitution that is the problem.

The role of successful government is to find the right balance between individual liberty & responsibility, & the collective good.

If individual liberty and responsibility were properly respected the collective good would take care of itself.

The citizens of every other developed country in the world have decided that the correct balance is represented by a public health care system.

And at the time the United States was founded based on individual liberty and responsibility the rest of the world was of the opinion that monarchies and dictatorships were the best way to rule.

Just because the majority thinks something is good doesn't make it so.

I believe that the U.S. will end up there too, but not before every weapon in the arsenal of the pharmaceutical companies, medical industries & insurance companies has been exhausted to defend their own self-interest & profit.

I believe that one day we will have a 10th amendment revolution and the United States will strike down all federal policies not backed by the Constitution and give their powers to the states. That or we will become just another socialized authoritarian country of automatons.

but what I couldn't quite embrace as of yet is why so many Americans have the feeling that being in the hands of profit-oriented private companies is somehow okay, while giving money to the government only leads to people being betrayed.

Because using a profit-oriented private company requires voluntary consent of both parties. The plan behind this bill passed in the House today is without any consent.

Yet, I do not understand how the wish of a totally free, self-regulating market ruled by private companies is better. In the end, those companies are after money and will do many things to obtain it, discarding the interests of Joe Average if it increases their profit.

If Walmart treats you like crap to a degree that even their low prices aren't worth it would you keep shopping at Walmart? If a hospital discarded your interests would you keep going to that hospital?

Note: My example requires a free market health care plan, not what we have now.

The idea that the government is there to "screw us over" is an idea propagated by the Right to consolidate the influence, power & profitability of big corporations - in this case the "health-care industry", pharmaceutical companies & insurance companies. Although it always pays to be be sceptical of big government also, I would rather put some confidence in elected officials to act in the best interests of the public, than corporations whose only motivation is to make a profit, or even worse, create huge salaries & bonuses for the executive elite who control the management boards of these corporations (see the financial "melt-down").

Here is a question: If the elected officials are looking out for our best interest why are they not using it themselves and why are they enforcing it with the threat of up to five years in prison if you don't participate (the same as armed robbery, I might add)? And why did these evil profit hungry insurance companies manage it without that threat?

Oh, and when I looked at the financial meltdown I saw the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department standing behind the executive elite. I wonder what those guys are doing there, I mean they are looking out for my best interest, right?

AHAHAHA, picture this scenario

Freedom doesn't bias against bad decisions. I have that free choice to make, but I don't. Like many Libertarian principles, I support your choice to do those things, but I don't necessarily think you should make that choice. But I am not so stuck up to think that I am smart enough to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. I just want everyone to have the ability to make those choices.

 

[Tornado]

I admit, you've got a good point there.

Fortunately, it's common knowledge that the contrary is, in fact true.

Not wanting to drag this off-topic any more (and because I doubt you would have paid attention to it anyways), I simply have to ask why you seem to think that corporations are so awful and that government is so saintly in comparison. Particularly when the one that is usually held to task isn't the one with elected officials.

There you go again.

So the fact that the horrible, evil unaccountable big corporation would rather have taxpayers pay for health care than do it themselves and cut into their horrible, evil unaccountable profits somehow does mean something? Do tell.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ok, for everyone who posted here so far. Just, "Just" say if you are a democrat or a republican.

In Michigan, we do not declare ourselves as a part of any political party. While I typically associate myself with the Republican party, they don't like people like me anymore.

My parents are republicans. I am a better republican. They are surprised about what I say when I talk politics because they never thought a 13 year old would be really amazing at complaining about the democrats terrible work as usual. I am a very good republican.

This view depends largely on what your definition of "a good Republican" is. The party has essentially been hijacked by a bunch of crackpot neoconservatives, practical politics and an actual vision for the country have gone completely out the window. I was raised in a traditional Eisenhower Republican home, and come from a more intellectual line of conservatives who make their decisions based on rational thought, not religious morals. Unfortunately, the East Coast Republicanism I grew up with is dead, and not likely to return.

When does the Senate plan to vote on this?

At the earliest? Next weekend. However, with so many issues on the table, including other Funding bills, the actual Senate vote may not come for months. If the Republicans are allowed to drag it on until we get awfully close to election season, things could be rather nasty for those of us who are in favor of the legislation.

I'm just curious. Is Ron Blakojavich someone however you pronounce his name, have any updates on how bad he is doing at his job. And what about Al Franken?

1) The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, was kicked out of office nearly a year ago and is facing federal corruption charges. If you're willing to use him as a barometer for the Democratic party, you must not keep track of the Republicans very well either.

2) Al Franken, by most accounts, is doing very for his first term in the Senate, particularly when he has held no political office previously. Arguably, he is likely one of the least-corrupted politicians in either house, regardless of whether or not you agree with his politics. What point are you trying to make here?

I wouldn't get too excited until the house and senate agree on legislation. AFAIK that hasn't happened.

Obviously we cannot afford the enormous government we have, government healthcare will not help matters.

The version the Senate will likely pass will end up being more conservative than the House bill, and once consolidation happens, things may be very different. Either way, the passing of the legislation is very important, regardless of whether you view it as a positive or a negative. However, I do agree with Danoff's final point... Financially, we can't afford it. Unless we're willing to give up something else (A couple of wars? Corporate tax loopholes? TARP?), there needs to be another way to pay for it.



RE: The Actual Bill

Anyway, this thread is full of lulz. There are a lot of interesting points being made in favor and against the legislation, but it will be up to the average American to decide as to whether or not they agree this is the right direction to take. The politicization of the entire process, unfortunately, has not allowed for a proper discussion of reform, which does everyone a disservice. Too much of any discussion has essentially been based on assumptions and anecdotal evidence, clouded further by perceived political preferences.

Its well known that I'm in favor of the bill, so I'm not sure what everyone is expecting me to say here.

 

[Biggles]

You know, I challenged you to keep me from thinking that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you have just shown me that you don't. Do not confuse libertarianism with neo-conservativism.

As I have already said: I am well aware of the fact that you are a libertarian & not a neo-con. I have more respect for a truly libertarian point of view as it has a level of intellectual clarity & honesty that moronic "neo-cons" like Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin don't even begin to approach. The fact is, it's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't share it.

If individual liberty and responsibility were properly respected the collective good would take care of itself.

Unlike you, I don't believe libertarianism is a workable political philosophy in the modern, highly complex, densely populated world. In practical terms, in a world inevitably corrupted by money & power, individual liberty & responsibility is NOT properly respected.

And at the time the United States was founded based on individual liberty and responsibility the rest of the world was of the opinion that monarchies and dictatorships were the best way to rule.

You know that's not true. Many people in Europe (& presumably other parts of the world) longed for freedom from tyranny & autocratic rule.

That or we will become just another socialized authoritarian country of automatons.

Thank you for your generous characterization: yes, here in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark etc. etc. we are just a undifferentiated bunch of socialized automatons. It may seem anathema to you, but the fact is that generations of working men & women actively fought to achieve "socialized" government programs. Yes, many people who are not "automatons" actually believe in the concept of "collective responsibility" - actively promoting the well-being of the community as a whole. (In Canada, there was recently a national poll to vote for the "Greatest Canadian". The winner was the politician Tommy Douglas credited as the driving force from the 1940s, 50s & 60's in establishing universal healthcare.)