I would like to see a single payer system in America and in my mind it would have the possibility of creating some new jobs.
The NHS in England was the largest employer in Europe at one time and the 3rd largest employer in the world. I have not checked then numbers lately.
Now..that might seem like a good thing, but those are government jobs. That means the taxpayer is paying for all those people. In addition, for all that employment, the NHS covers 65 million people. We have 400 million people.
In addition, the care is not good in a lot of places and there are not choices. Pull up some of the British new reports over the last decade and see how they have scrambled to fix things....basic things.
I am not suggesting that there should be no insurance available. I am pointing out that people used insurance for everything and if they did not, cost would be lower. Every pharmacy right now is offering flu shots. You can find them from 1 dollar to 10 dollars. Where do you go for your flu shot? Unless you are stupid, you go to the 1 dollar place. Same shot. less money. Choices. Competition.
Costa Rica has a fantastic medical system that attracts medical tourism. It is all cash. It is far cheaper and you get spa care for whatever you are having done.
Remember when radial keratotomy was new? It was extremely expensive. As more people wanted it and more places offered it, the cost came down. It's now pretty cheap.
All care is rationed in some way. The only question is who rations. It is rationed by what you can afford, by what insurance is willing to pay for, or by what the government offers. In the first two, you still have choices.
To the other point of if we were there Isis's probably would not have tried, It is close to the same but the united nations was in Somalia and the people still killed two of our troops and dragged them through the street, Iran did take American hostages, united nations in Rwanda being there did not stop the massacre. As far as Afghanistan, at least I understood why we went there after the trade towers, I don't understand going to Iraq before Afghanistan or at all. I will make one statement that hurts my own loyalties such as they are. All those people that jumped on bush's bandwagon and give him the authority to go to Iraq and later claimed that they were lied to, I say they where part of the lie and knew the truth when they were voting. I do believe that the gov used the media to try and lie to the people but even while they were spouting their weapons of mass destruction blatter, I could see they were lying at the time. It reminds me of a couple of mob type actions I have seen where people no longer have a will of their own and get caught up in following the crowd. I have had such pressures put on me and know how hard it is to swim against the current. I do think is is disingenuous for some to claim they were lied to when they were part of perpetrating said lie.
What do Somalia, Rwanda, Iran incidents have in common?
The rewriting of history to say we were lied to about Iraq intel is a lie that the left is happy to spread, even though many of them had access to that same classified intel.
Much of that intel was true. Some was not. That's the way intel works. Most of it came from foreign allies in the area, Jordan and France were both providers of the bulk of it. Jordan was not to interested in our going to war, but they were very intersted in what Saddam was doing and tracked everything that went on in that country. They also had spies within and had take escapees into their country...along with the high level intel.
You have swallowed the lie about the lie...but I do understand that. People think intel is like on TV. Someone runs in what a bunch of pictures and facts and everyone knows the truth.
In fact, intel is like a million piece jigsaw puzzel without the box. As you put it together, you begin to get a sense of the picture, but at some point you have to decide if you are going to wait until all the pieces are together, or are you going to act? You make the best call you can with what you have.
Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism
Saddam never lived up to the agreements of the cease-fire. To bad Clinton didn't enforce them
Saddam did not co-operate with the agreed upon UN inspections.
Contraband items including caches of chemical weapons (degraded) were found.
There were convoys into Syria and Lebanon...I believe that's why the Israelis went into the Bekah valley..for us.
Strategically, Iraq was a better place for us to fight and we killed more AQ leaders there. It would have been better to concentrate our efforts there after defeating the Taliban, and kept a presence there. There was no strategic reason for staying in Afghanistan.
So this know nothing president did it exactly backward and the world is on fire.