But thing’s in Europe have changed since the 70′s. There are many European Muslims who have anti-west beliefs and are very open about it. You have mosque that preach hatered for the west and leaders in the community speaking about how islam is gonna take over Europe and some have even called for violence against non-believers.

The bombings in Spain, and England, the murder of Van Gogh and several riots. In some parts of Europe muslim make up a large % of the rapists despite being a very small % of the population.

Could you image any where else in the world if groups of immigrants were causing problems like this, what would happen to the minority group.

The question of how much other people should pay for some people’s “genetic predisposition,” is, well, a central topic in political philosophy, with a number of plausible yet incompatible answers.

I know what you mean here. I think it depends on ratio of “some people” to “all people” and each person’s definition of their utility curve. I guess my question is not “how much would I pay for some people?” it is more of “how much I am willing to pay to save myself from x% chance of this?”. Universal health care would mean I pay when I can and don’t when I can’t without increasing my total risk. Moreover, I can transfer total risk. Private insurance only allows the transfer of risk that gives profits.

There could be perfectly rational arguments on why national level health care may not be feasible for U.S. But, that doesn’t take away from my bafflement about why people, who depend on their health to do a job, don’t think in terms of their own risk mitigation.

I’m not questioning that there is anti-immigrant sentiment. If you read my statement, it was that despite this sentiment, immigrant populations and nonwhite populations are still EXTREMELY small relative to the native and white populations, and that nativist and anti-Muslim sentiment are not always the direct result of immigration in and of itself, but rather of complex factors that are impacted by immigration. In the UK in the 70s, this hatred was directed towards ALL South Asians, and disproportionately (probably b/c of their disproportionately larger share of the migrant population) towards Sikhs. Today it is Muslims. My point was that it is a knee-jerk reaction to blame immigration policy and argue for closed borders.

148 · rob said

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it’s provided–markets or gov’t.

Here’s the thing though, why should someone had to pay high insurance for say, a genetic predisposition (e.g. for breast cancer, family history increases the risk)? How about if no insurance company wants to provide insurance against certain diseases? There are certain places where insurance companies refuse to insure houses against earthquake damage. They think the earthquake hazard is just too high for them to make any profit. People have a choice of risking the damage and moving from that place. How about this happens to health? Illness doesn’t stop just because it is too risky for insurance companies.

We need to have the private sector help out more. I would hate to see the government get in more debt (after the burdens of Medicare, Medicaid, etc). The private sector came to the rescue during Katrina (the likes of FEMA & such). Nationalized healthcare seems like a good idea, but who’s going to pay for it. Simple way to decrease costs: buying insurance across state lines. (2) eliminate bureaucratic costs (caused by government officials), which inflate the price of healthcare.

You can have some “social insurance” w/out the gov’t taking over the whole health-care sector, which is significant part of the US economy. The question of how much other people should pay for some people’s “genetic predisposition,” is, well, a central topic in political philosophy, with a number of plausible yet incompatible answers. At any rate, it doesn’t run in any unidirectional manner in favor of gov’t healthcare, although that is admittedly one plausible option.

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it’s provided–markets or gov’t.

Here’s the thing though, why should someone had to pay high insurance for say, a genetic predisposition (e.g. for breast cancer, family history increases the risk)? How about if no insurance company wants to provide insurance against certain diseases?

There are certain places where insurance companies refuse to insure houses against earthquake damage. They think the earthquake hazard is just too high for them to make any profit. People have a choice of risking the damage and moving from that place. How about this happens to health? Illness doesn’t stop just because it is too risky for insurance companies.

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it’s provided–markets or gov’t. And why anyone needs “insurance” to pay for their yearly physical and bi-yearly teeth-cleanings is beyond me. Though I suppose from a preventative medicine perspective one could make the case that people should be paid to do that!

I’m assuming that you listen to Hannity’s radio talk show. He was talking about teeth cleaning & catastrophic illness insurance today.

Insurance against catastrophic illness is a good idea, yes. The question is how it’s provided–markets or gov’t. And why anyone needs “insurance” to pay for their yearly physical and bi-yearly teeth-cleanings is beyond me. Though I suppose from a preventative medicine perspective one could make the case that people should be paid to do that!

fooled by the corporate interests, into thinking they’ll turn into some cold-war communist russia

Nahh, it’s Canada that’s the hobgoblin in the room!