[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I think I would almost prefer a single payer health system as opposed to this monstrosity the Congress passed last session.

[kevin]

The American system seems needlessly complex. What concerns me is the danger the present Conservative Government may be sending ours in the same direction.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

As everyone on these boards knows, I'm a huge American Football fan, and specifically a New York Giants fan. When I watch political debate in this country, and I'm sure this is true everywhere, I get the feeling that people root for their political parties almost the same way people root for their sports teams. It's strange to me as someone who does not identify with either party. It's like watching Giants fans argue with Eagles fans about who has the better defense.

It's like the party becomes more important than the issue. And the battle more important than the discussion, and compromise is seen a a failure. It's strange.

It is easy to just deal with people and content you agree with. Just like blindly following a party line it is cozy.
It is much harder to practice a real public discourse because your believes could be challenged or you could become isolated and have to stand on your own.

The best political article I read during the last months was an old one on a conservative website. It is a bit crude and I don't fully agree with it because I am to a large degree liberal / libertarian / for free markets or however you want to call it but it struck a nerve in me because the idea of conventions, social metarules and so on is something I have always admired in conservatism and missed in any other political ideology.
You gotta challenge your convictions because asking questions and being not sure is wiser than this party-soldier thing you described.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Quite true, because I don't have a problem with using taxation to fund something like the UK's NHS (we won't get into a discussion about the fact it has flaws and needs to be looked at, but it's fundamental concept of cradle to grave universal healthcare to all is of primacy) because you're right.

That idea has been ingrained in me because it's been in place for 60+ years and it's been grown up with. Whereas in a country which traditionally operates a more privately based system, that may be preferable to them for the same reasons.

(I also tend to think that healthcare that is as free at point of need as possible is a fundamental right that everyone should have, however it obviously still needs to be paid for somehow, and you then have to do it via taxation)

I am also a proponent of tax-financed basic universal healthcare because as long as doctors work privately it is still a competitive system. Even if prices are fixed you get competition via quality. Furthermore I don't think that free basic healthcare reduces incentives to work.
Richer people should of course have the right to get extra services via additional insurance.

The disadvantage is that any public system is more sensitive to corruption because doctors are paid out of a common pool so you don't care whether he cheats and charges too much as you don't have to pay the bill.
The devil is always in the detail and a decent system would e.g. pay for dental examination and the yearly tooth cleaning thingy but not for any kind of tooth filling or replacement or whatever. Getting these details right is rare, at least over here.

[kevin]

I would say that if someone wants some sort of wholly elective surgery (physical enhancements that they don't medically need) then they should obviously foot that bill themselves.

It depends how you define basic.

I also don't object to the existence of a private system for those that wish and can pay for the costs associated. But the poor and the middle-income groups must also have access to universal care as well.

[Akula2ssn]

Originally Posted by kevin

A 9.0 Earthquake AND a Tsunami within an hour. Sure, you can argue the plant should have been designed with that in mind, but it's also a freakish combination that hasn't happened before...............and it may never happen again. Or it could happen tomorrow.

Again, the vagaries of the Earth.

I wouldn't call it a freak occurrence. Since 1946, roughly 8 megathrust earthquakes have taken place, all of which have an associated tsunami. Nor is this recent quake the most powerful of them all. There are other quakes of similar magnitude that took place prior to 1900 spanning a period of more than 1000 years. It's pretty well established that these things do happen. Now these kind of earthquakes may not be any more or less frequent now than they were in the past, but when you consider an increasing world population, the likelihood of such a quake causing heavy damage and loss of life just goes up.

[omegaman]

Take a look at the number of earthquakes that occurred before, during and after the big one. There were literally hundreds of them… see the attachment… the quakes are the red dots with jaggy line…

You can check this out yourself if you have Google Earth…

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn

I wouldn't call it a freak occurrence. Since 1946, roughly 8 megathrust earthquakes have taken place, all of which have an associated tsunami. Nor is this recent quake the most powerful of them all. There are other quakes of similar magnitude that took place prior to 1900 spanning a period of more than 1000 years. It's pretty well established that these things do happen.

Sorry, I've may be not written that clearly enough and been a bit misunderstood.

I wasn't referring to the rarity of these sorts of events as such in terms of geologic history, rather the double whammy of it hitting the Nuclear Plant and causing this problem. Obviously, being very seismically active the Japanese knew that there would be an Earthquake risk and a Tsunami risk because they will have had them before. But then getting hit with both so fast is a combination that's never happened to a plant before that I can think of.

As far as I can tell, it actually wasn't the quake that started this emergency, it was the tsunami part.

That was more what I meant.

Now these kind of earthquakes may not be any more or less frequent now than they were in the past, but when you consider an increasing world population, the likelihood of such a quake causing heavy damage and loss of life just goes up.

Yep, there's simply no way to put every single person out of harms way if you're talking about living on Earth.

Earthquakes, Tsunami, Volcano, Hurricane, Tornados, whatever it may be, the Earth has too many ways to cause damage.

Add in a population that's always growing and ends up having to expand into land that's less safe (in the UK housing estates are being built on natural flood plains - pretty stupid but there's a housing need to it gets done) for them to be on.

[kevin]

There's a funny glow in the sky tonight and now I know why!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12914746

***ushima Radiation has been found in my town!! Haz-Mat face masks are unlikely to follow though................