Above is a nice Youtube video explaining the health-care issues.

http://earthlycomics.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

The above blog is the source of that video.

Charles Stross wrote about health-care and the Libyan who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and a general trend towards a lack of mercy in the US. Lots of interesting comments there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317162842.htm

# In a new study of terminally ill cancer patients, researchers at Dana-Farber
# Cancer Institute found that those who draw on religion to cope with their
# illness are more likely to receive intensive, life-prolonging medical care
# as death approaches –– treatment that often entails a lower quality of life
# in patients’ final days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/religion-may-increase-med_b_179499.html

A Huffington Post article about this issue has some interesting insights.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/011546.html

Both those links are from comments on the above Making Light post.  There are
some other interesting comments such as the following from Craig R:

# I think the difference in how different people (sometimes even in the same
# congregation) face the prospect of death may be more a matter of how they
# view what is the guide that has them hold to a “fill-in-the-sect guideline”:
# Is it that they follow the precept and live that life because It Is The
# Right Thing To Do or they live that life because If They Don’t They Will Pay
# For It Later.
# One of the curiosities, from my seat, firmly in the mainstream Christian
# section, is that those who fear what will happen sometimes feel more free to
# be sh*ts because they feel they can also count on playing the
# He/She/Whatever Will Forgive card, whereas the Do The Right Thing people may
# be more apt to think — “this is not a Right Thing, I should Not Do This.”
# Taking the responsibility of being correct on themselves.

The following is from Lee:
# Craig, #94: What you’re describing is the difference between internal and
# external morality, and something I’ve been aware of for a very long time. I
# think this also ties into the notion expressed in #92, that the deathers are
# afraid their children will murder them if given the opportunity. When all
# you have is external morality, that fear makes much more sense, because it’s
# hard to conceive of someone else having internal morality.

Here’s a good comment from Ursula L:
# Of course, if you want to cut costs, the most humane way would be to cut all
# the costs that come with supporting dozens of different insurance companies
# and hundreds or thousands of different plans. The multiple billing systems,
# the complications of doctor’s offices ensuring that the right form is filled
# out for each patient and sent to the appropriate company, the duplication of
# bureaucracy in each different company, the diversion of “health care” funds
# to things like profit margins, advertising, and dividends.
# And it’s gotten to the point where it is easier to imagine solutions that
# let people die then to imagine solutions that kill off corporations.

Gary Murphy wrote a good letter to his representatives taking them to task for their handling of the health-care debate.

Others in the US might consider writing a similar letter.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Aug17-s.html

The only one of us who justified using guns against an employer was actually you with “it’s OK to defend yourself against him”.

But you are missing the real issue:

You are not getting a peaceful and stable democracy through abstract discussions of government and employer. You miss all the current and past experiences in the wide area between no regulation at all and no companies at all. The best known way seems to be somewhere in the middle, and the balancing of the middle is an everlasting process.