There are objective truths communicated via ethics, and those listed above say that isn’t the case, for they are simply sentimentalities. Start there, and then inspect them into smithereens, because that is what they deserve.

Well put sir and how very profound.

I’m not saying that there is not scope for government activity but it must be only those things that can only be done by government and that increase the productivity of the non-government actors.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-percent-sign-2536772-president-government

A lot of it has to do when care is delivered.

The vast majority of Brits – on all sides of the political spectrum – are staunch supporters of a system that gives us generally excellent care for relatively low cost. The proportion of GDP spent on healthcare in the UK is about half that of the US – despite the fact that Brits enjoy a genuinely universal service, free to all at the point of use, which helps them to live longer than Americans on average and to have a much lower child mortality rate. For most of us, the idea of moving to the huge costs and rampant insecurity of the US system is just laughable.

My own experience of the British national heath service has been extremely good, and several members of my family owe their lives to prompt, expert and well-resourced treatment.

We have high expectations of the NHS, and are well aware that it is far from perfect – after all, we pay for it out of our tax. That’s one reason why any problems that NHS users experience tend to make big news in the UK, (while at the same time providing ammunition for people for whom the idea of a genuinely universal public health service is ideological anathema).

But these problems are far from typical, and have been blown out of all proportion in the debate over US health reform. In exchange for fawning treatment from right-wing talkshow hosts in the US, Daniel Hannan has chosen to participate in this ugly and deeply dishonest process of slandering a system that, on the whole, serves British people extremely well. Cameron is well aware of the anger this has caused, and rightly worried that this could lose his party a lot of votes. That’s why he’s dosowned Hannan’s remarks.

Of course, the American people are best placed to decide how (or whether) to improve their present healthcare arrangements. But I hope that in doing so they will not be swayed by ideolgically motivated misrepresentations of what happens in other countries.

Given the list of things wrong with the world the way it is today, why defend the status quo?

As for what Andrew Ian Dodge said in point #8, I would modify the statement to this: there are few like Hannan in Parliament who take public stances like Hannan.

I’m in Canada, and there are people in the governing caucus who see the folly of the leadership, but they do not want to point to the uncomfortable truth that the only difference between this government and its predecessors
is this: less open scandal.

When the budget is written and then passed, either party could have written it.

So, with all due respect Mr. Dodge, the battle is not just fought in the fringes.