And we're going back. I wonder if there could ever be a time when everyone agreed it was OK to go to the moon instead of saying the money should be spent elsewhere?

I'm not asking you for anything. If you you have reason based points for why I'm wrong on health care (I never said anything about the environment...) then post them for everyone to see. I have no problem with me or anyone else using "ad homenien" characterizations of others - as long as they first reason their points. Still waiting for you (and everyone else) to do that.

I've obviously overestimated the integrity of the other people leaving comments on YTMND. I might as well be having a back and forth with elmo and the cookie monster. I've made my point with reason. Everyone else seems content to reduce a complex issue to a vague punchline. Ex: "corporate government is the cause of our sickness." ok, w/e that means.

I don't place much stock in ambiguous ranking which claim the US is "#18" in the world, etc. I don't know what they base their criteria on, but I doubt it has anything to do with the quality of our med schools (harvard, hopkins, mayo, etc), or the fact that we lead the way in research / development. Mortality rates are due to other factors, such as other countries having much higher abortion rates - its not because our Doctors suck, as you imply.

Health care is expensive in the US for a lot of structural reasons, but the bottom line is that not enough ppl get it because there isn't enough to go around- its a limited resource. Equalizing access through a universal plan won't solve this fundamental problem, it will only spread it around. Structural changes must be made to promote competition to reduce cost and make healthcare a more attractive field to go in.

Some of the hostile comments I've received to this very reasonable point I've made are concerning / strange at best. Its obvious some of the responders don't know what they're talking about, yet they maintain such angry convictions in favor of socialized medicine. Naive advocacy is reckless.

In this case, your understanding of whats practical for you requires that this same practicality be applied to everyone. What this YTMND implies is subjective, but certainly supports socialized medicine - and does so with the race card - which is effective as it also suggests any dissenters' feelings toward race are suspect. My down vote comment was for the downvoter, I never said it was you - which is why I made it separate from my other comment.

Even communities shouldn't have the right to make certain collective decisions which obligate everyone to participate, even those originally opposed. Boundaries exist. Making someone (or everyone) else unnecessarily dependent on anyone for an indefinite period of time crosses the lines of personal responsibility and practicality.

FYI - you discredit your own position by down-voting dissenting opinion.

Health care is not a right. People have the right to PURSUE good health, the way they have the right to pursue happiness. But health care isn't some intangible that we can assign ourselves as being a liberty or entitlement - its a service provided by someone else and no one is entitled to the productive efforts of anyone. Neither of your comments addressed my original point about whats practical versus popular.

Why is universal health care a good idea? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a program that only covers those who absolutely can't support themselves, instead of an all inclusive universal plan that would likely be overburdened, especially considering the way Americans consume? Any unnecessary plan obligating your financial participation without your consent meets my definition of socialism. No, I'm not afraid to call socialized medicine what it is.

Disagree. There are too many ppl much better than this guy. Sorry.