Yes, nothing is perfect. The advantages here is that people don’t need to stay in jobs for health insurance, and do not have to put off seeking medical care because of the lack of health insurance. And we don’t have bankruptcies because of medical bills. But we are going very off-topic:-)

For clarification, I voted for neither candidate. I cannot tolerate Romney’s social justice (or lack thereof) and women’s agendas. I did vote, but I voted with my heart and head, and not out of fear. Jesus calls me to be his disciple all the time, even while I’m voting, so I had to vote my conscience…which meant my candidate had no chance to win :). But I can stand firmly behind my vote on judgement day.

Anita – Until this last year or so, not much has changed in the USA regarding health care. Things are beginning to change now that Obamacare seems inevitable.

But I’d like to ask you to reconsider your statement that health care in the UK is basically free. You realize, I am sure, that health care in the UK is not free at all, but that the NHS has a large budget that you pay into. The 2008/9 NHS budget roughly equated to a tax of £1,980 for every man, woman and child in the UK. I would guess that you are not only paying for the health care of you and your children, but probably around half as much again for another family that is not paying taxes.

I’m sure what you really mean is that the person consuming the health care doesn’t have to pay directly for it, beyond a minimal co-pay. While this sounds wonderful, economics tells us that when a consumer does not have to pay for something he tends to over-consume, and other mechanisms must be put into place to limit consumption to make it equal what can actually be supplied. In the case of most socialized systems like the NHS this “other mechanism” is rationing. Rationing can take the form of long wait time that cause people to give up, or a flat out refusal to offer a service. In the free market the balancing mechanism is pricing. This has the added benefit of letting those who provide the most value make a profit, which attracts competition, which drives down prices and improves services.

While the NHS does a great job of dealing with common problems like a broken leg, statistics show that the survival rate for serious illnesses like cancer and heart disease is significantly lower than in the USA. In Canada the average wait for an MRI is one month, unless you are a dog or cat, in which case you can get an MRI the next day. Or you can fly to the USA and pay to get prompt care.

The health care system in the USA definitely needed (and needs) reform, but the reforms should have taken it in the direction of greater free market competition while maintaining a safety net for the truly needy and those with chronic conditions. That way the USA could have continued to be a world leader in medical care and high tech medical technology development, to the benefit of the entire world.

” you have stated a posit that minorities voted for him because of his race.” Oops, my thinking was fuzzy, which led to unclear writing. I think the minorities voted for him both because they saw his policies as advantageous for themselves, and because a person of colour in the White House would contribute to racial tolerance and acceptance.

I thoroughly enjoy not paying a penny for health care here, though it is not as thorough as the coverage we had in the States, which came with my husband’s academic job, and included a $25 copay. I hope the US evolves to a almost totally free model like the US. We pay £7.50 copay for medication, but if we were poorer, we should not even have to pay that. Not a perfect model, but a good one.

Romney’s career at Bain (according to the media) did not strike me as that of someone who cared about the poor. Obama started out with community organising, and has always had grass-roots appeal.

Of course, I totally accept I could be wrong, especially since I have not lived in the US since 2004, or visiting since 2005

I agree with Shae that in celebrating his race, there is an underlying message that people who voted against him did so because of his race since you have stated a posit that minorities voted for him because of his race. If it had been stated that he was voted for because his policies favored more than 50% of the populace, the natural conclusion is that the people who didn’t vote for him didn’t agree. Not agreeing is ok…voting against someone for their race is not.

It is a tricky thing indeed, being able to mark a milestone, yet not making suppositions regarding nearly half of the populace. Minorities all over the country are speaking out against the very numbers you are showing in your post. They do not want to be counted in demographic blocks according to their race, but as an equal part of the majority that voted him into office.

I also agree that I believe the poor are going to get a bad shake out of an extremely well-intentioned plan. Instead of coming up with something like Britain or Canadian health care, we now have this behemoth of a plan that will end up punishing the poor even more. It is an unintended consequence of well-intended idea. But I lay that at the feet of our Congress who wrote something so enormous and tedious that nobody fully read it or thought about it until after it was passed. The concept of a health care bill might have been the president’s, but the final execution of it laid in the hands of our Congressmembers.

Companies here are cutting hours left-right-and-center to weasel out of the provisions of the bill. Lawyers are making a fortune reading and interpreting this law for large corporations to ensure they can weasel out of everything they can. Half-a-dozen of my friends have already gotten their hours cut from 40 to 29 and I expect more of that to happen before Jan 1. We had an ex-employee of a large insurance company on our news program last week talking about why he quit. Apparently, his company and the other insurance companies have teams of lawyers and strategists working 80-hour weeks trying to figure out how to follow the letter of the law, but to give the poor people who are going to be required to get health insurance through the “exchanges program” the crummiest possible insurance plan. Deductibles of $1000, co-pays of $40-50, limited “in network” doctors, no coverage for anything the law doesn’t specifically state is required, etc. This interviewee quit in disgust and moral outrage – his face was hidden for anonymity – I’m glad that he came on to talk about this. He could no longer be a part of something so heinous. And now with fines levied against poor people who don’t have insurance, they will be between a rock and a hard place…face the fines or pay exorbitant costs for an awful insurance plan.

We do also have 15 states with open petitions for secession. The people who lived in the 1850’s never thought a civil war was possible…there are political cartoons lampooning such silly thinking then – yet it was our deadliest war to date. I worry deeply for our country – remember that Obama did not win by a landslide, but by the narrowest of margins in the popular vote. I have level-headed friends talking about moving to Texas, the most likely state to secede. It is a delicate world we live in – always has been – and I think that we are in for some seriously rocky territory ahead. Feel very privileged to be living where you do. Sorry this turned into a book. Please forgive my long-windiness.

Purporting to help the “disadvantaged” does not automatically make one’s cause right. We could list any number of revolutionaries who gained power by appealing to the disadvantaged. Some of these leaders were good and many were bad. We are to judge rightly according to God’s truth and God’s word, not letting either the wealth or poverty of the people involved distort justice. (Exodus 23:3)

And besides, who is more disadvantaged than the unborn? Who is more defenseless? Who is more without resources or a voice? Shouldn’t we consider them when we vote?

Shae, nowhere did I say or suggest that “all those who voted against Obama did so because of his racial background, or because of a desire to oppress the poor.” I think his race could have been a subliminal factor in the unprecedented hatred and vilification directed towards him, more than towards other politicians who achieved success against the odds. I suggested that those who voted for him and those who voted against him did so in enlightened self-interest, and as a Christian, it would be better to throw in one’s lot with the disadvantaged rather than the most advantaged.

I am sorry that it seems the only way to prove one is not a racist is to vote for a black man – regardless of his qualifications and history. I guess I’m old fashioned because I don’t look at the color of his skin. Instead I look at the content of his character.