Valerio’s contribution is a robust one because it is not a post-mortem but the application of a carefully-expounded theory to a ‘current event’ i.e. making health-care accessible to all Americans. Here, Valerio puts living experience where his theory is. And, personally, I find nothing more intellectually stimulating than that.

At one moment I did have to stop and think whether the slow-moving process in introducing ‘radical legislation’ may have been designed to allow for the careful analysis and implementation of options.
But this possibility dissolves quickly in the face of failed passed attempts at health-care reform and the millions of Americans who are practically excluded from basic health-care. There is no longer anything radical about this reform. It all boils down to simple uncomplicated decency.

That the prevailing state-of-affairs is not a source of national acute national embarrassment, especially to a world power-state, may be a sad reflection of the core values applied, especially when one psyche-of-the-state can have such a singular capacity to be sensitive to potential births, and little or no capacity to be sensitive to the actual pain suffering and untimely death of hitherto living humans.

How can any nation-state boast of its power, wealth, technology and singular achievements and expect its young to die for its ideals, even as it refuses to apply its available to all its people medical technology that seeks to cure even their basic ailments?

The US experience should be a wake-up call to citizens of the European Union at a time when the Union grapples with its protracted and very painful birth in a climate of economic uncertainty. Various ‘silent’ practices are creeping into the health care sector of a number of European member-states that may be slowly but gradually distancing health-care away from the average citizen. Can we trust our politicians not to fall victim of the same lobby-groups that have so much to gain from a selective health-care system? Should ordinary citizens in each member-state mobilize to keep track of all subtle and not-so-subtle changes, and to compare notes?

Power indeed corrupts. And absolute power does corrupt absolutely. And so does money. And who pays for the cost of corruption if not the ordinary citizen?

North may have been right or wrong to attack south for not letting slaves go; however the ‘hallowed’ constitution did not prevent that war. It being hallow, why suddenly it became invalid to prevent or stop that war.
Well it cldn’t because of the fact that feudal lords and warlords in north were stronger econo-militarily than the south.

The ‘hallowed’ constitution had not prevented invasions or afgh’n nor iraq. Nor does it now stop the two wars. The reason US infallible constitution cld not prevent these two wars and another 170 or so is precisely because US feudal lords and warlords are much, too much, stronger econo-military-diplomaticly than afghan and iraqi feudal lords and warlords.

In short, the constitution always means what the US ruling class via judiciary says it means.
And in US, the seemingly independent branches and twigs of one tree and seemingly working against one another is an illusion. Cia, fbi, WH, judiciary, congress, media, schools are in disagreement only when cosmetic changes are talked about.

But never about healthneglect, free higher education, right to be informed, etc. All those branches of one tree function in unison.
Actually US may be the only country with one party. And the loop is closed. No pol, priest, journalist, educator step out of it and not be punished for.
Even nader and other dissenters dare not go beyond the limits of allowable discourse. tnx