rebelvvv

Sure, we can have discussion, but most of this hasn't been discussion, it's judgment. No one's side is more correct. It's the people IN a country who get to try to influence domestic policy though. It may work in your country, but just copy/pasting won't work for the US for many reasons, not the least of which is because the US is a capitalist society with a capitalist healthcare system that is largely privately owned. The infrastructure isn't in place for a true socialized medicine system. Not to mention the corporate lobbies and private interest groups that would prevent centralization from ever taking place. That's what I mean from an outside perspective. Sure, you can think you know what goes on in another country, but unless you have lived there, you DON'T know. You only have your perspective, largely shaped by YOUR media. There is no universal truth. Yes, there is one side that loses in your example. The healthcare industry itself. No, none of us may think that it's important, but without the capitalist medicine coming up with much of the technological advances, there wouldn't be basic medicine to offer. Or why is much of the top medical talent in the US and people come here when they need life saving procedures? Unfortunately, it's difficult to separate the two. Yes, there is much to be improved within the healthcare industry, but extremes on either side are no good. We aren't actually fighting against different things. It's the nuances of policy that are lost, and where even Democrats and Republicans think they have to take a straight partisan view to an issue, that results in a lack of an acceptable solution.

Jazzy, I do agree with you on these points, but the point lost is that people are saying that anyone against the ACA (Obamacare) is against health care in general. The system we have now isn't any better than the one we had before, and is in fact, worse, because it still leaves all the leverage with the corporations. It's not actual socialized medicine, it's a forced opt-in to capitalist medicine, which doesn't work for anyone. No one, on either side, said that health care should leave people untreated in the streets. As long as health care is currently decentralized though, it's never going to work the way that people idealistically think. The fact is it needs reform. It's not an extreme of one way or another.

I agree with your freedom of speech and right to have your opinions. Just as people shouldn't be surprised if not everyone agrees with said opinions, respectfully. When certain posters resort time and again to personal insults as a way to refute dissent, it only proves how loony they are. Personally, non-American opinions of US domestic policy as outsiders looking in has little relevance to me, just as my opinion about UK and European domestic policy as an American would have to you, so I don't tend to waste my time on it. But to each their own.

I agree with this. Similarly, the US is not the Socialist States of America, nor do many people want it to be such. We simply have different ideas of what we want in our societies, which is why they are separate countries. I don't attempt to dictate to Europeans (in general) what you should do with your countries, so this holier than thou attitude of thinking you have a say in US domestic policy is both irrelevant and ridiculous to me. Europeans can be disdainful and say that everyone thinks poorly of Americans, but many Americans think equally poorly of many other countries and their policies, foreign and domestic. This doesn't help anyone or promote tolerance.

I don't applaud Brexit or a potential break up of the EU. That's where I think a lot of people get confused thinking they are the same things, but despite some common causes behind the sentiment people have towards those issues, it's overly simplifying things to say that Trump happened because of Brexit. The US and the UK are entirely different in terms of scale and leverage in the world. I never said the US didn't get anything in return from Europe, but it's the suggestion that Europe could have done fine without the US all along and is somehow morally superior that is hypocritical. Everyone has their own worldview and truth, but to suggest that one way is better than another or that we should all adopt the same policies with no regard to geopolitical, socioeconomic, or other concerns is both naive and simplistic.

You may believe everyone is ENTITLED to free healthcare, but who's paying for it? Europe has much lower social mobility than the US does. You may settle for having a decent life, but the ceiling is much lower in general. Background matters a lot. Just look at the lack of assimilation that immigrants have to many European countries, which led to the much bigger problem that Europe has vs. US immigrants. People working in actual technology and medical fields feel entirely differently, but that's why we have different countries so people can decide what philosophy suits them best. Lumping every social policy together is also simplistic and reveals a lack of understanding as to why people may have different views. There are extremes on both sides that are not good. BOTH establishment parties in the US are war-mongers, not just "conservative Americans". Most actual Americans are not war-mongers. It's the Democrats that have actually started and gotten involved in more wars than any Republican president. Why do you think the non-interventionist policy agenda, which IS radical, was so popular?

I do remember history. I'm not saying NATO isn't necessary for both US and European security. It is. But for Europeans with some holier than thou attitude and thinking they don't need the US - how did that work out for you before both world wars, that the US didn't want to get involved in? The point is these positions are based on privilege and it's hypocritical to disdain the people providing the EU with the options to do what it does. Just as it's hypocritical to think that not everyone might want to live the same way. Even if Europe had a larger unified army, for geopolitical reasons it would never be as strong as it is with the US backing it. Don't you remember history?

We aren't leaving our citizens with no healthcare. It's the point that you have to work and pay for your healthcare that seems to be lost. Could it be better? Yes. Was Obamacare the answer? No. Is socialized medicine the answer? No. As for NATO spending, none of it is a fraction of what the US spends on defense. The fact is that leaves you with the privilege, again subsidized by Americans, to pursue different domestic and foreign policy to the one you claim is so terrible.

None of which you can articulate. The point is everyone views things differently, and not everyone wants every country to be the same. If you like it better in Europe, then go to Europe.

Then don't become it. Don't try to suggest as a non-American that Americans should make the US like Europe though or suggest that the EU is somehow better. The grass is always greener, I know, but to think that everyone wants the same things is where the lack of understanding arises. Don't forget that European security is largely paid for by NATO, supported largely by the American military and presence of the US in world affairs. The lack of spending on security vs. what Americans do is what leaves you with the privilege of having a socialist welfare system. Which, by the way, is only supported by everyone who's not German. Without a capitalist healthcare system somewhere in the world, there wouldn't be the technological and medical advances for people to turn to when they're truly ill and need cutting edge treatment. No, it's not perfect, but the European system doesn't work either IMO.

And this kind of idiotic trolling is why there is just no point in engaging with the people in here. You couldn't even stand to have your positions questioned. Have fun in your echo chamber.

Oh, the delusion of a millenial European. What a limited and obviously biased worldview you have, paid for by Americans. The great socialist European experiment is exactly what many Americans don't want the US to become.

I agree with this and thanks for sharing!

That's what I had thought before he jumped in to slam me, but I'll take your word for it. Thanks for your support, Jazzy. I know not everyone agrees on issues, but I always respect people's rights to have different views. Well, that's what it sounded like when you came out of left field to attack me after I just quoted Sloane, but it's good to clear things up. I'm not here to attack anyone or drag things out. I responded to a couple people's points, if you don't want to read, there's always the ignore button.

No, I came in to respond to MeakMaker who said that the president only governs for his base. ALL presidents do that. Then people were incapable of understanding why people might choose differently, so I attempted to explain, but it's clearly a lost cause. It's also why no one bothered to explain their political views BEFORE the election, because most people are so insistent on classifying everyone as this or that negative label if their views don't align. I was also attempting to discuss policy, but as usual, it descended into personal attacks. You may have just started selectively reading, but I voted for Obama. He turned out to be a terrible president. I explained why. No, I'm not going to go into it any further than that. But between the two choices we have, to think it's unfathomable that anyone might not have thought HRC was the better option is being equally blind. I consider myself politically independent, but I'm not a single issue voter. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but as long as there is religion ANYWHERE in the world, I also understand why people might feel differently. I agree with tolerance and that no one should impose their views on the other, but with the two-party system we have, unfortunately we don't always have the luxury of those choices. I don't agree that continuing to rip each other to shreds over differences in political views is going to achieve anything though. The time to vote is next election.