I've deleted the parts about your dad, not because they aren't important, but I agree with them, so there's no debate.

Now, if we had a nationwide system like that, where it was the only game in town, doctors would not be so focused on what's just over the next hill.

It appears your argument is that if we can just keep Doctors in a condition they don't want to be in, as long as there isn't something more lucrative to attract them, all well be well.

Am I reading that correctly?

If so, how on Earth do you intend to enforce that? I can't pay money to my Doctor? If I can pay money, what's to keep Doctor's from simply looking over that next hill where people can pay them?

Many of the highest paid medical jobs aren't covered by insurance at all. Most cosmetic surgery for example. Doctor's can always look at that hill, unless somehow your start outlawing specialties.

Ad Xanthro: I have never heard the indian health service argument. And I wonder what the government is doing in making doctors giving misdiagnoses.

Funding that is about 50% of what it needs to be.

That's a fundamental problem with Government run health care, is that if funding exceeds the budget, your health care suffers greatly.

If the goal is to control spending, then health care suffer, if the goal is to increase the number of covered people, then the total spent on health care will go up.

You can't cover more people, have the same coverage, and reduce costs. It cannot work.

I have heard (and actually do work as a physician) for a fairly reasonable and greatly popular government run program called medicare.

While Medicare can provide decent care, it's full of fraud.

It's billions every year.

http://www.hhs.gov/stopmedicarefraud/

It's not that the Government isn't trying to stop the fraud, it's that the Government is not very good at it.

Funny that you forgot that.

Odd that you wrote that when I specifically mentioned both Medicare and Medicaid.

Another reason for believing in universal coverage with tight governmental regulations are the health care system of ... well, basically any other developed country.

There's lots we can learn from other countries.

France's system of integration of public and private insurance is superb. You show one card, all insurance needs are taken care of, your medical records are available as well.

Germany has excellent prevention programs.

But all countries have their issues as well.

Ever see the BBC show. Britain's Worst Teeth? A 24 year old female's teeth were literally rotting out of her mouth, yet she was so terrified of the dentist, she had to undergo sedation to have her teeth fixed. The waiting list was TWO years.

Germany's and France's treatment of rare disorders is very poor compared to the United States. They are better at preventing chronic disorders from developing, but the US is much better at treatment if they do develop.

Just simply adopting what other countries do is not the answer, we need to take the best of what they do, and couple it with the best of what the US does.

While a small majority in the military still oppose Gays openly serving, this number is shrinking all the time.

Discharging hard to find Arabic translators for being Gay is stupid.

Don't ask Don't tell was a compromise 15 years ago.

It's now time to take the next step and allow openly Gay people to serve in the Military.

Who could afford to buy a single $500 million dollar bond in the 1930s? That would be like buying a trillion dollar bond today.

Normally, when we look at historical budgets, they're update to 1999 dollars, or some other more modern date.

$500 million was a HUGE amount of money in the 1930s.

I watched the show, and I'm sorry but the whole turning Jessica into a vampire RUINED the show for me.

That's because it showed two mutually exclusive positions taken by the vampires.

1. The vampires decided to publicly reveal themselves to humans, and to get along with humans.

2. The vampires simultaneously decide that human life is worth far less than vampire life and they can do as they wish with mortals.

They can't hold both positions. There would be obvious fear in humans if it were revealed that vampires were real. There would be danger to the vampires, because humans may decide to simply kill them off all to be safe.

Every missing person would be blamed on vampires, the main danger vampires would face, is a possible genocide for something they didn't do.

Instead, what we have in the leader of all vampires in North America, holds a trial, and nothing pisses of a sovereign nation faster that groups setting up their own internal political institutions, and as part of the trial, simply grabs some young innocent person off the street and decides to kill her.

How is that at all in line with the decision to reveal themselves? Why bother revealing yourself, if you just simply remain exactly the same?

You've increased your danger dramatically, while gaining nothing.

Based on what we've seen in the show. There are some sympathetic vampires, but their political structure is a direct attack on normal humans.

Based on what we saw at the end of the 1st seasons, who'd blame humans for destroying all vampire political institutions, if not outright destroying all vampires?

People don't take kindly to others randomly grabbing them off the street to murder.