scandal

I've lived in two countries that have universal coverage - Canada and Israel, and one that does not - the USA.
In Canada I was covered by the province of Ontario's OHIP plan. There were mandatory payroll contributions to pay for it, similar to FICA taxes in the US. It covers all legal residents, regardless of whether they are employed or not. If you lose your job there's no need for anything like COBRA since your coverage continues uninterrupted regardless of whether you are working. You lose it only if you stop maintaining the residency requirements (e.g. snowbirds who spend 6 months out of province in Florida have to pay attention not to lose OHIP).
In Israel I was covered by the Kupat Holim system, similar to HMO and PPO coverage in the US but required for all residents. Again, paid for through payroll contributions but job loss does not imply loss of coverage.
In the US of course I have health coverage through my employer.
I think the main benefits of universal coverage systems are:
1) Everyone is covered. Status, income, pre-existing conditions, irresponsible behavior are not factors in ensuring that all who need care receive it.
2) Loss of employment does not jeopardize coverage, or trigger pre-existing conditions clauses to deny future coverage
3) It's much more efficient. Administration and processing costs are lower. In the US each provider (doctor, clinic, hospital) needs to maintain bilateral relationships with every possible insurance carrier, who each have their own forms and procedures and pre-treatment plans. That often requires a dedicated staff person for even small offices just to handle insurance billing. That overhead evaporates in a universal delivery system.

Pan Am 103.
Lockerbie Scotland.
Dec 21 1988.
270 fatalities including 178 Americans.
Gaddafi's handiwork.

I've lived in two countries that have universal coverage - Canada and Israel, and one that does not - the USA.
In Canada I was covered by the province of Ontario's OHIP plan. There were mandatory payroll contributions to pay for it, similar to FICA taxes in the US. It covers all legal residents, regardless of whether they are employed or not. If you lose your job there's no need for anything like COBRA since your coverage continues uninterrupted regardless of whether you are working. You lose it only if you stop maintaining the residency requirements (e.g. snowbirds who spend 6 months out of province in Florida have to pay attention not to lose OHIP).
In Israel I was covered by the Kupat Holim system, similar to HMO and PPO coverage in the US but required for all residents. Again, paid for through payroll contributions but job loss does not imply loss of coverage.
In the US of course I have health coverage through my employer.
I think the main benefits of universal coverage systems are:
1) Everyone is covered. Status, income, pre-existing conditions, irresponsible behavior are not factors in ensuring that all who need care receive it.
2) Loss of employment does not jeopardize coverage, or trigger pre-existing conditions clauses to deny future coverage
3) It's much more efficient. Administration and processing costs are lower. In the US each provider (doctor, clinic, hospital) needs to maintain bilateral relationships with every possible insurance carrier, who each have their own forms and procedures and pre-treatment plans. That often requires a dedicated staff person for even small offices just to handle insurance billing. That overhead evaporates in a universal delivery system.

Pan Am 103.
Lockerbie Scotland.
Dec 21 1988.
270 fatalities including 178 Americans.
Gaddafi's handiwork.

Good lad.
As for me, I hang around near schoolyards and hand out smokes to the kiddies.

Pan Am 103.
Lockerbie Scotland.
Dec 21 1988.
270 fatalities including 178 Americans.
Gaddafi's handiwork.

Er... no. If you get sick, you'll get a $100,000 bill. Since you can't pay it,
it gets written off as a loss by the hospital and becomes my problem.

What does that prove? In particular with regard to SB's comments about Anne Frank? (Anne was fully Jewish on both sides of her parentage, btw).
All your book ref. proves is that indeed the Nazis formalized the concept of mixed Jewish/Aryan "mischlinge" and explicitly accounted for that status in the infamous racial Nuremberg Laws. The vast majority of mischlinges caught in the Nazi net did not serve in the Wehrmacht, they were treated as all Jews were treated. Certainly a mischlinge young girl of Anne's age would have had no reprieve by seeking a military post!
Besides, from the Amazon blurb in your own link:
"By 1944, many of the loopholes in the racial purity laws were closed, and many military mischlinge perished in the camps. Those who survived were later often rejected by the Jewish community because of their service in the German armed forces. "
Tragic, all around. A consequence of formalized racism and hatred as expressed in the Nuremberg Laws.

I'm not ignoring these things.
Regarding the angry response, yes, it exists and is understandable. Families who lost loved ones are angry that the murderers are being set free. Of course they are angry. Note what they had been saying: that they were against the release of these convicted murderers. Not a call for killing or kidnapping people. And what did they do? Protest, petition the courts prior to the release, make their case to the media.
Regarding the Maariv article regarding the family of Shlomo Libman. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I hadn't seen that previously. Shlomo was murdered 13 years ago, his killers were now set free - one to Gaza, the other to Turkey. My heart goes out to his family, it's hard to imagine the anguish they must be feeling. Having said that I agree with you that taking the law into your own hands, vigilante action, is not how people should behave and not something a society can condone. I don't support or agree with what the family has done (they have apparently published a poster in English, Hebrew and Arabic putting a $100,000 bounty on the heads of the freed killers). I think it's inappropriate and wrong, though given the anguished state of the family I'm surmising this is not a rational act on their part. As for the official response to this matter, the article does not mention any. So it's impossible to know whether police or other official action will be taken to counter it. It's also not possible to know how credible the bounty is, and I would expect an official response to be proportional to that. If they really have the money and are willing to pay for murder-for-hire, yes, I absolutely expect authorities to step in and thwart that, and would decry any official tolerance of obvious lawlessness.
So, how's that?
I decry and condemn lawlessness if and when it is practiced by Israelis, regardless of their motivations. I condemn vigilante actions. I condemn official sanction for vigilante action.
Now, how about you?
Do you condemn the statements and actions of a woman just released from prison who tried to commit a suicide bombing, who is inciting children to follow her example? Would you let your own family members listen to such a person and be influenced by her?
Would you not want such a dangerous individual kept away from impressionable children before she can cause them serious harm? Are you not amazed that she is encouraged and cheered in her efforts, by the families of these very children no less? Can you imagine such a scene taking place anywhere else in the world, here in the USA for example?
In short, I'm of the belief that two wrongs never make a right. It's wrong for the Libman family to order a murder for hire. And it's wrong for Wafa al-Biss to solicit children into criminal activities.
You appear to be in the two wrongs make a right camp. Because the Libmans do what they do, therefore there's no need to condemn al-Biss's words and actions for the outrageous things they are.
Now, what was that "fail" thing?

And still no condemnation of the gal in the OP...

I'm not ignoring these things.
Regarding the angry response, yes, it exists and is understandable. Families who lost loved ones are angry that the murderers are being set free. Of course they are angry. Note what they had been saying: that they were against the release of these convicted murderers. Not a call for killing or kidnapping people. And what did they do? Protest, petition the courts prior to the release, make their case to the media.
Regarding the Maariv article regarding the family of Shlomo Libman. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I hadn't seen that previously. Shlomo was murdered 13 years ago, his killers were now set free - one to Gaza, the other to Turkey. My heart goes out to his family, it's hard to imagine the anguish they must be feeling. Having said that I agree with you that taking the law into your own hands, vigilante action, is not how people should behave and not something a society can condone. I don't support or agree with what the family has done (they have apparently published a poster in English, Hebrew and Arabic putting a $100,000 bounty on the heads of the freed killers). I think it's inappropriate and wrong, though given the anguished state of the family I'm surmising this is not a rational act on their part. As for the official response to this matter, the article does not mention any. So it's impossible to know whether police or other official action will be taken to counter it. It's also not possible to know how credible the bounty is, and I would expect an official response to be proportional to that. If they really have the money and are willing to pay for murder-for-hire, yes, I absolutely expect authorities to step in and thwart that, and would decry any official tolerance of obvious lawlessness.
So, how's that?
I decry and condemn lawlessness if and when it is practiced by Israelis, regardless of their motivations. I condemn vigilante actions. I condemn official sanction for vigilante action.
Now, how about you?
Do you condemn the statements and actions of a woman just released from prison who tried to commit a suicide bombing, who is inciting children to follow her example? Would you let your own family members listen to such a person and be influenced by her?
Would you not want such a dangerous individual kept away from impressionable children before she can cause them serious harm? Are you not amazed that she is encouraged and cheered in her efforts, by the families of these very children no less? Can you imagine such a scene taking place anywhere else in the world, here in the USA for example?
In short, I'm of the belief that two wrongs never make a right. It's wrong for the Libman family to order a murder for hire. And it's wrong for Wafa al-Biss to solicit children into criminal activities.
You appear to be in the two wrongs make a right camp. Because the Libmans do what they do, therefore there's no need to condemn al-Biss's words and actions for the outrageous things they are.
Now, what was that "fail" thing?

Question. A hypothetical one.
Let's say you live in a normal country. America, say.
Let's say one of your countrymen, a fellow American, let's call him Pete, goes to a different country. Canada, say. Or Mexico. Or not even a neighboring country, any other country in the world. But let's pick Canada, just for kicks.
Let's say that our countryman Pete, that fellow American, turns out to be a violent and dangerous person and kills 6 people in cold blood in Canada. Just shoots them dead. Unfortunately we all know that as much as we love America, not all Americans are good people, and some are violent and commit horrible crimes. Let's say the Law Enforcement in Canada captures that dangerous person. They arrest him, put him on trial, and incarcerate him in their prison system for a crime he committed on their soil. Given the terrible things he's done, it's a life sentence.
Ok, now let's suppose that for some reason they are compelled to let this guy out of jail early. Perhaps a legal technicality or a successful appeal. Or some other reason that coerces the legal and penal system to free him early. But they know who he is and what he's done and want no part of him in Canada, of course. So they send him packing back home to the USA. He arrives back in his home town. Perhaps a big city like Pittsburgh or Denver. Perhaps a small town somewhere in the midwest or the south.
Just what sort of homecoming do you think Pete gets back home?
Ticker tape parade? A hero's welcome? Cheering crowds?
Do you think he gets to address the hometown folks and impart his wisdom and philosophy of life?
Do you think he gets to encourage the adoring worshiping children to follow in his footsteps?
To go up to Canada, to plot the killing of Canadians?
Do you think the parents of these kids weep with joy at these words, and hope and pray that one day their kids can grow up to act like Pete?
I mean.... SERIOUSLY?????
Who acts like this? In the USA? In any country?

Question. A hypothetical one.
Let's say you live in a normal country. America, say.
Let's say one of your countrymen, a fellow American, let's call him Pete, goes to a different country. Canada, say. Or Mexico. Or not even a neighboring country, any other country in the world. But let's pick Canada, just for kicks.
Let's say that our countryman Pete, that fellow American, turns out to be a violent and dangerous person and kills 6 people in cold blood in Canada. Just shoots them dead. Unfortunately we all know that as much as we love America, not all Americans are good people, and some are violent and commit horrible crimes. Let's say the Law Enforcement in Canada captures that dangerous person. They arrest him, put him on trial, and incarcerate him in their prison system for a crime he committed on their soil. Given the terrible things he's done, it's a life sentence.
Ok, now let's suppose that for some reason they are compelled to let this guy out of jail early. Perhaps a legal technicality or a successful appeal. Or some other reason that coerces the legal and penal system to free him early. But they know who he is and what he's done and want no part of him in Canada, of course. So they send him packing back home to the USA. He arrives back in his home town. Perhaps a big city like Pittsburgh or Denver. Perhaps a small town somewhere in the midwest or the south.
Just what sort of homecoming do you think Pete gets back home?
Ticker tape parade? A hero's welcome? Cheering crowds?
Do you think he gets to address the hometown folks and impart his wisdom and philosophy of life?
Do you think he gets to encourage the adoring worshiping children to follow in his footsteps?
To go up to Canada, to plot the killing of Canadians?
Do you think the parents of these kids weep with joy at these words, and hope and pray that one day their kids can grow up to act like Pete?
I mean.... SERIOUSLY?????
Who acts like this? In the USA? In any country?

Is that actually funny in your mind?

I'm not ignoring these things.
Regarding the angry response, yes, it exists and is understandable. Families who lost loved ones are angry that the murderers are being set free. Of course they are angry. Note what they had been saying: that they were against the release of these convicted murderers. Not a call for killing or kidnapping people. And what did they do? Protest, petition the courts prior to the release, make their case to the media.
Regarding the Maariv article regarding the family of Shlomo Libman. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I hadn't seen that previously. Shlomo was murdered 13 years ago, his killers were now set free - one to Gaza, the other to Turkey. My heart goes out to his family, it's hard to imagine the anguish they must be feeling. Having said that I agree with you that taking the law into your own hands, vigilante action, is not how people should behave and not something a society can condone. I don't support or agree with what the family has done (they have apparently published a poster in English, Hebrew and Arabic putting a $100,000 bounty on the heads of the freed killers). I think it's inappropriate and wrong, though given the anguished state of the family I'm surmising this is not a rational act on their part. As for the official response to this matter, the article does not mention any. So it's impossible to know whether police or other official action will be taken to counter it. It's also not possible to know how credible the bounty is, and I would expect an official response to be proportional to that. If they really have the money and are willing to pay for murder-for-hire, yes, I absolutely expect authorities to step in and thwart that, and would decry any official tolerance of obvious lawlessness.
So, how's that?
I decry and condemn lawlessness if and when it is practiced by Israelis, regardless of their motivations. I condemn vigilante actions. I condemn official sanction for vigilante action.
Now, how about you?
Do you condemn the statements and actions of a woman just released from prison who tried to commit a suicide bombing, who is inciting children to follow her example? Would you let your own family members listen to such a person and be influenced by her?
Would you not want such a dangerous individual kept away from impressionable children before she can cause them serious harm? Are you not amazed that she is encouraged and cheered in her efforts, by the families of these very children no less? Can you imagine such a scene taking place anywhere else in the world, here in the USA for example?
In short, I'm of the belief that two wrongs never make a right. It's wrong for the Libman family to order a murder for hire. And it's wrong for Wafa al-Biss to solicit children into criminal activities.
You appear to be in the two wrongs make a right camp. Because the Libmans do what they do, therefore there's no need to condemn al-Biss's words and actions for the outrageous things they are.
Now, what was that "fail" thing?

What kind of person tells children that she hopes they grow up to commit suicide and to kill other people?
What kind of parents let their children listen to such instruction?
I know if a crazy woman came up to my kids and told them "I wish to see you grow up and put a bomb on your belt and go over there and blow yourself up and kill as many of those people as you can", that I would (a) get my kids as far away from her as I could (b) call 911 and have that crazy person arrested.
She wants to study psychology, apparently. Psychology of what? The insanity of people who are simultaneously suicidal and homicidal? She can make herself her own case study.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/freed-female-palestinian-terrorist-to-gaza-children-i-hope-you-will-become-martyrs-1.391014

Yes, to me, that contrast sums up my feelings adequately. Clearly you feel differently.
I feel, as do most Israelis, a sense of relief and joy that Gilad is home, and a sense of fear and trepidation that the people just released will do us more harm. At the moment of his homecoming, we are singing songs of peace. That is the sentiment in our hearts.
Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are also feeling relief and joy at the return of their loved ones, which is understandable. What is not understandable is their outspoken desire to kill Israelis in further terrorist attacks, and to wish the experience Gilad suffered on further kidnapped soldiers. What kind of people wish that death and kidnapping upon others? Why not enjoy the moment of family reunification as an opportunity for peace rather than more warfare and terror? I'm saddened by that response, but not really surprised.
Do what? Sing songs calling for the kidnapping and murder of Palestinians? Please let me know when we burst into spontaneous cheers calling for that. I've yet to hear one.

I missed nothing.
Regarding statistics, in 1990 86% of Americans identified themselves as Christians. In 2008 76%. That's a 10% decline in 18 years.
(Source: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf)
While a decline, 76% is still a comfortable and large majority of America.
As a non-Christian American I am well aware of the Christmas tree ceremoniously lit each year at the White House, and that every one of our 44 Presidents has identified himself as a believing Christian. And I don't have a problem with any of that. I honestly don't know what you're complaining about.
As to multiculturalism and tolerance for religious and cultural minorities in America, I think I'll let George Washington rebut you and rebut Pat Buchanan. Here is Washington's address to the Jewish community of Newport Rhode Island in 1790.

This was a really good segment on NPR a few years ago, regarding children, the ages at which they assert their transgender nature, and the different responses their parents had to dealing with it.
http://www.npr.org/2008/05/07/90247842/two-families-grapple-with-sons-gender-preferences?ps=rs

Why do you hate Romney? Harvard educated, decades of business experience, turned the Olympics from broke to successful, brought U/E down to 4.7%, balanced the budget every year, got almost everyone health insurance, good looking, highly intelligent, IQ through the roof, real world experience, came into office in '03 with a $3 billion deficit, by '05 $1 billion surplus, balanced the budget every year, left the state in '07 with a $2 billion surplus....He closed loopholes and shrank the size/cost of government - making it more efficient.
What is there not to like about him?
Cain on the other hand. Is good at delivering pizzas. Where is his record?

He's home! I've updated my sig, at long last.
To me, the contrast between the following two items says it all. "Heveinu Shalom Aleichim" means "We have brought peace upon you".
VS.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/live-blog-the-gilad-shalit-prisoner-swap-as-it-happens-1.390590

He's home! I've updated my sig, at long last.
To me, the contrast between the following two items says it all. "Heveinu Shalom Aleichim" means "We have brought peace upon you".
VS.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/live-blog-the-gilad-shalit-prisoner-swap-as-it-happens-1.390590

It's a little like Lake Wobegon around here.
You know, where
"all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

It's a little like Lake Wobegon around here.
You know, where
"all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."