[Andrew NDB]

From what I'm reading... it's not entirely clear that people with pre-existing conditions will for sure be turned away going forward? Though it seems that... nothing, really, is entirely is clear on the bill's contents just yet, either, and mostly it's a lot of assumption that that will be the case? But probably, based on general intention surmised by quotes? Either way.

One thing I keep reading (and this is just me largely talking out of my ass, as I have a pretty limited understanding of the big picture beyond my peripheral) is a lot of people saying, "Well, if countries like Australia, Romania, and Croatia can have universal healthcare why in the hell can't the US? This is beyond ridiculous! If these backwater countries can figure it out, why can't we???"

At a glance, yeah, that sounds pretty nutty. But you think about it a little bit bigger, the bigger picture, it begins to make a little more sense, at least to me. Do those countries have remotely the same infrastructure as the U.S.? The need for as large of a military as we do, or military intelligence, missile defense systems (do you think Romania needs to worry about a missile defense system?), technology and weapons, with the constant maintenance and advancements therein needed to "stay in the game"? Any of those things, or others? I'm pretty sure if we slashed our military and basic infrastructure -- as well as the basic things we enjoy here within that (more the infrastructure than the military, though it could be argued that the military allows us to have said infrastructure) that many of those to what it is in those countries do not enjoy -- sure, we could have universal healthcare that's just basically government/taxpayer paid at a rate that wouldn't be crazy. Putting aside if that's even a fair idea entirely, is it a good idea? Speaking strictly about the military, our military... if we slashed it down to 5% of what it is, as to be equivalent with what the militaries are in the countries listed... do we really want that? Having the kind of military we do, the kind of tech we do, the soldiers with the weapons they carry... this stuff isn't cheap to have or maintain, let alone keep advancing. Many of those countries' staple of firearms and aircraft and ships are old WWII stuff, or hand-me-downs from better armed countries sold at a discount. I'm not saying we need to be the world police the way we often make ourselves to be, but if World War III breaks out tomorrow, or if some truly awful superpower rises up in another country with machinations on us or others... do we really want to be caught with our pants down? Do we want to just bank on other countries handling it? Can we afford to risk that?

I tend to think no. We kind of have a big bullseye painted over us all over the globe, but the thing is... with as big of a military as we have, we can afford to have it. That's kind of our thing. There could be a concerted argument about, "Well, how about we just work on getting rid of that bullseye?" but it just sounds naive. Every time we get involved in virtually anything that's not in our country, we're making enemies... and a lot of those enemies don't forget. And have nukes. Should we be getting involved in nearly as much crap as we have been? Absolutely not, not remotely. But some of them we should. Now, I wish I could point to other things we've done in the past that we're no longer doing. "Does any of those other countries have as big of a space program as us? Pushing the envelope?" I wish I could say that. I do. But we shuttered our shuttle program some time ago and every "exciting" announcement since is just lame. Only the independent space stuff actually appears to be going anywhere.

I hate to be the neanderthal sounding guy that's like, "You don't like it?!? Go move to another country!" but if I'm about on the level on all of this... if "I want free healthcare for everyone, no matter the cost to our infrastructure or defense! Just make it happen!" is super important to you... I don't know, maybe you should consider it? Because even at a surface glance of looking at what our government's budget must be that keeps our country afloat the way it is and as thriving as it is while still safe and able to smack down on bad business going on elsewhere -- and this is all fed by our taxes -- it seems to me that the U.S. slashing the things it would need to slash to do make that truly, wholly happen would be catastrophic. Literally the only alternatives are targeting the rich with a bunch of extra taxes or passing it on evenly to the lower and middle class... which would come back to the "Are you ready to pay $500 extra a month on universal healthcare?" thing (also, would give the rich very little incentive not to move to, say, any one of 100 fairly decent countries where they simply wouldn't have to shoulder that). Until we arrive in a utopian or Star Trek-like future where people work jobs for free just to better mankind, nothing is free, not a thing. There can only be redistribution of existing things, existing taxes we pay. That is fine in countries with slim to no military, slim to no regulatory committees... the money that would go to those things doesn't, because they're not there... it can go to stuff like universal healthcare -- and there's nothing wrong with that, there doesn't need to and probably can't be 29 USAs out there. Now, the needle can be moved a little bit one way or the other without drastically effecting what we pay in taxes to help health insurance if it moves back toward the Obamacare model or a heightened version of it, but it literally can't move much more than we've already seen. Not without some pretty painful changes (i.e., TAXES and a great deal more of them) that we would feel right away.