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.

Draginol,

As always, interesting article. I understand some of the sentiments expressed but do disagree on certain parts-

Well, it sure looks like Sarbanes Oxley didn't work to begin with, as it was designed to prevent another Enron, yet the entire commercial banking industry virtually replicated Enron's technique....  so a beefier Sarbanes Oxley really isn't what's needed as the 1st one was pretty useless.

What is needed is the already tried and true Glass Steagall act which was enacted in the 30's to try and prevent another great depression. Saddly, it was repealed in 98 (or 99?) in the argument that old legislation got in the way of financial innovation and globalization. Well, we've seen the kind of wizardry the banks cooked up, massively over-leveraging their bets, and bad bets too, with money they didn't have.

Securitization, Mortgage-backed-securities, Collateralized debt obligations, credit-default-swaps, all of it is obnoxious terminology created by the banks to ignore reality and "move" risk into the future when, theoretically, it could be better dealt with. Enron did this too, claiming future revenue and profits as money on the books NOW. Except with that money on the books NOW (which wasn't there to begin with, and disguised massive debt) they then turned it into financial products that permeated the market at large and helped to freeze liquidity between the major banks...which, thankfully, is indeed starting up again.

In short, what I'm saying is:

The free-marketeers have had their chance. They got virtually carte blanche to create the system they wanted, and lo and behold they turned a relatively solid financial system into a giant ponzi scheme/casino.

So, increased regulation wouldn't be "killing" the economy it would be due dilligence to make sure that a relatively small group of jackasses are unable to ruin the whole thing and require trillion dollar "bailouts" by the public sector. This has replicated itself throughout history. In Chile, during the 70's under Pinochet, consultants from the Chicago School of Economics convinced the government that a truly free economy was the way to go. Regulations and oversight smacked of bureaucracy and choked progress and innovation they argued. So, Chile allowed their banking and financial sector to run free. What hapenned was that a small group of investors, who came to be known as "the piranhas" almost bankrupted the nation with massive speculation. These people made massive profits, bought up and then sold off entire industries and businesses overnight causing massive upheaval, and then when things fell apart, as they inevitably do, they made off like bandits with a big chunk of money in their pockets while the economy was literally in ruins that then required the public sector to clean up the mess. History repeats itself!

Here in Canada our banking system didn't experience what you guys are going through... Why? It has little to do with left vs right or ideology or any such nonsense, and moreso the fact that our banking system kept the checks and balances in place enacted after the great depression to prevent another one from happening.

In the heyday of derivatives and the securitization house of cards, our banking system was mocked by financiers in the States as being "Stodgy and boring.... obsolete" And no, I'm not talking about making loans to poor people with no money, as here in Canada we too had the 40 year mortgages with zero down and all that BS (although admittedly in smaller quantity) but moreso the controls were on the type of banking that could be done and what products the banks could create, claim, and pedal on the market.

So, in keeping to the very regulations and oversights that is claimed will "kill" the economy, what hapenned?

We may have not had the big boom you did, but on the flipside of the coin we are not facing the same kind of bust. Our banking system is solvent and in no danger of collapse. No massive taxpayer bailout was required and our government is not nationalizing banks and mortgage companies, as happened in the U.S and Europe (Europe bought into the "new" way of cool financial innovation and are hurting big time because of it) That is because the laws and protections in place prevented that from ever happening in the first place.

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.

Not corruption - it was legal.  Google Hawaii and Universal Child health care.

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.

This is so breathtakingly ignorant it boggles the mind.  And I mean that in the educational sense, not the pejorative.

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!

Indeed.

No, that makes you a responsible subject of your country. Being against sending troops to Iraq doesn't make you a pacifist. In fact, I think it is a perfectly rational position.

Very good.

Good analogy.

And this is where we disagree.

Most people do not want to know when it is absolutely necessary. They just look the other way and find out that they don't have to do anything. Plus they can scream at those who refused to look away.

Let me extend that analogy to a point where I think an attack is justified.

Let's say that one of the people living in the street (Mr Moustache) has already attacked and murdered the children of two of his neighbours. Plus his children try to shoot the Bernsteins from across the road. Also, he is known for hiring thugs that regularly attack the Bernsteins. (The Bernsteins are already in trouble because their neighbour next tries to murder the entire family and nobody actively helps them defend themselves, but that's besides the point.)

Mr Moustache also shoots at police men walking by his property.

The police were called several times. The police in this town hire people living in the town who will then fight the criminals using their own weapons. But the police refuse to act. They say that the fact that Mr Moustache murdered a few people and shoots at the Bernsteins and pays thugs to attack the Bernsteins is simply not grounds for acting against him. (Mr Moustache also has very good connections to two of the five members of the city council.)

Mr Druk is Mr Moustache's garden house tenant. Mr Druk told us earlier that Mr Moustache keeps a torture chamber and used to murder Mr Druk's family and continues to try to murder Mr Druk's wife and remaining few children. The city council had decided several years ago that Mr Druk is not allowed to live in his own house but must be a tenant of Mr Moustache. (Mr Druk's cousin live with Mr Dent, another well-known troublemaker. Mr Druk's other cousin lives with Mr Kurt, who refuses to acknowledge his presence but otherwise leaves him pretty much alone.)

Mr Druk sent us the following pictures of Mr Moustache's garden house:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025

(I took these pictures in Iraq three weeks ago.)

The question is, at which point can we assume that Mr Moustache is a threat to the neighbourhood?

And can we summarise Mr Moustache as someone "who you think looks odd or suspicious or might have the capacity to try and harm you" or is there a difference between such a person and Mr Moustache, given what we know about him?

The police did agree to send a social worker into Mr Moustache's house. Mr Moustache does not allow him to see every room and the social worker complains about that, but his final report said that he couldn't find any weapons bigger than legal hand guns. The police conclude that Mr Moustache is therefor not a threat. At the same time Mr Bernstein's youngest dies when one of Mr Moustache's hired thugs blows up the Bernstein's Volkswagen van.

In that case, would I be justified to act?

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.

I still believe it.

I was there. I saw it.

Have you looked at the pictures I took?

Actually, it was.

You are perhaps thinking of the discussions at the UN where humanitarian grounds weren't an issue. To get UN approval, the WMD story had to be used. But George Bush was pretty clear about the WMD issue just being one of many reasons.

So perhaps Mr Moustache doesn't have his big guns any more. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a moral imperative to act if a man behaves like him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439607,00.html

Oh, it's a failure in Canada? Never noticed it, silly me. I only lived there 22 years of my life.

Sure, it just happen that everybody, down to the last person can go freely to a doc and not have to be worried about the bill. Or go to the hospital with your kid and only (and only) be worried about your kid's health, and not how your premium is going to get higher - nor the basic franchise you'll have to pay. Or the amount you will exceed on your contract's limit. Damn it, your doctor is telling you that it would be way healthier to stay in observation for 3 additionnal day, but you're insurance company won't pay for it? Sucks to be american then. Not so over the 49th parallel

It's not perfect - what is?!?! - but it's not a failure. Not by a long shot. My personnal beef with the system is that in many area, it is illegal to pay for an additional private insurance if you don't want to go into the governement-administrated hospitals. Which means those who want to pay for an additional premium to have the choice are not allowed. (You are still allowed to pay cash/credit card if you want to go to a 100% private clinic).

What you people don't understand is that there is not "free healthcare". Nada. No way. We pay more tax than you, simple as that. Hawaii just didn't thought of the consequences of providing an universal free healthcare system to it's citizen's children.

Well it is kind of hard to keep up with events half a world away.  You should go home more often.

Na. Only been 3 months away, and I heard it actually improved since I left.

Be it ever so humbel, there is no place like home.