I don't see anything as a right where one individual is forced to relinquish something to support another individual. I don't directly disagree with you regarding the comment about occupation. The thing I disagree with is that if you are cognizant of how the system (as unfair or broken as each of us chooses to see it) works, and yet you choose to pursue undertakings that will not meet needs for the health insurance you'd like to have, enable you to pay for health insurance, or allow you to pay for basic health care needs (e.g. routine doctors visits on the premise of preventative care). I do see the need, as I've stated previously, for health insurance reform in this country. The real issues with me are how extensive that reform should be and how it should be funded.

I agree that these issues are always not black and white. I mentioned that in my response to your toilet toggle/feed your child example. Are there situations where a woman has multiple children with a man who turns out to be a good for nothing bum after all the children have been conceived or born? Definitely. There are also situations where the woman has one child and realizes that she should have nothing to do with that man going forward yet bears additional children with him anyway. Also, it is resoundingly possible that a woman is somehow trapped, yet it's also possible that she is able to juggle the feat of employment and supporting her child while doing without a male in the household. This seems to be an increasingly advocated idea here in the States and it's a shame. A little bit the problem for those without education is that there is increasingly a dearth of entry-level jobs (especially those that allow the individuals to advance) available as the U.S. has hemorrhaged these types of positions in the past few decades. Also though, on the flip side, if the woman has post-secondary education, she has an extremely good chance of finding a gainful position in the professional workforce with benefits (possibly including daycare). Should the children suffer? Absolutely not. As mentioned there are programs to help women and children in need (WIC). There's also healthcare program for children (SCHIP) where needed.

I don't recall ever passing judgment on the Canadian system. I did opine that I wasn't sure if a similar system was appropriate for the United States. That isn't for me to decide however. The fact that no-one with pre-existing illness is denied is noble indeed. I mentioned that was one of the measure I'd like to see with health insurance reform in the United States. Alongside that, I'd like to see caps placed on premiums for policies underwritten for those with pre-existing illness. What I don't want to see is another entitlement program. There's no way we can afford that. I recently read or heard something to the fact that the true amount by which Social Security and Medicare is underfunded is 106 TRILLION dollars. Social Security is a great idea in theory. However, when the pols raid the funds intended for it and leave a bunch of I.O.U.s then borrow funds from China and Japan to cover the outlays, that is not sustainable. When we wage illegal wars partially or in full for the benefit of other nations at an enormous cost to human life and our nation's fiscal well-being, that is not sustainable. What are we going to do? Devalue our currency? Default on the debt? Give China the State of Alaska? The State of California? This is why I can't foresee (from the fiscal argument) the U.S. Government administering a national health program. Then there's the other concern(s) associated with the U.S. Government playing insurer, many of which have been touched on in previous posts.

Kind Regards,

Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson