What to Do if You Can't Afford Healthcare

HS, my dear, pay attention. He moved to New Zealand *with me*. Although I don't really think you need to make fun of anyone else's relationship. I have long suspected that your wife actively dislikes you, since you're alone in the house so much.

Look, as to my 'obvious bias' (which I don't think holds up under scrutiny - even in this thread, I've said that the US health system is 'truly excellent' for well-off people - take note, MadMax, because I think you're the one mischaracterising *me* now), it's really a straw man. *Your* obvious bias is towards smoking, because you smoke. Or towards the USA, because you don't like living in London much. Jeff's 'obvious bias' is toward vegetarianism. Giddyup's 'obvious bias' is prolife. I mean, we all *have opinions*, so we're *all* biased! That's why I eventually responded to all this with 'whatever'. It seems utterly inane to me to have to defend my opinions by telling you that I'm some kind of objective observer. None of us are! The only way any of us ever convince anyone else of *anything* is to try and back up our personal opinions and 'obvious biases' with whatever facts we can manage. If we're intellectually honest, we acknowledge both sides of the argument. I believe I am an intellectually honest person, but you can think I'm not if you want to. Shrug, etc.

As to this theory of yours that my personal life is irrelevant to how anti-American I am, I fundamentally disagree. If I was an anti-American person, I would not have made the choices in life that I have. I wouldn't defend and explain American culture and policy in New Zealand (and I often do, although I don't expect you to believe it). I wouldn't have married an American. I wouldn't have lived in America. Blah, blah, blah.

I post about what interests me - mainly pop culture, history, and politics. Most of the threads here which are about history or politics touch on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of American policy - and yes, I do have problems with some of those policies. Not all of them. But that's what historians do. They criticise, and qualify, and niggle, and annoy the crap out of people.

So basically, what this all comes down to is that you don't like my tone. Well, tough bickies, because to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, my tone is my tone is my tone. This is how I write, this is what I think, this is how I'd speak if I was in front of you in person. And once again, *whatever*. Having to write this post was completely r****ded, and it's all *irrelevant* to the fact that I, along with many others here, believe that your health care system is in fundamental need of reform. Refute *that* point.

 

I would like to point out that my first crossover with dimsie was in a thread where I DEFENDED her, not attacked her. I think that is proof enough I don't have some anti-female agenda, despite claims of 'mad-in-love-foaming-at-the-mouth-lovers' on this board.

My claim was a simple one. Most of dimsie's posts in thread relating to US foreign or domestic policy are critical of those policies. Therefore, you must take her criticism of US domestic and foreign policy with a grain of salt, since her position is inevitably critical of that policy, no matter which policy is being discussed. Yes, we all have our bias, but Dimsie's bias is one of fundamental worldview, in which EVERYTHING the US government does somehow falls short of her expectations. That is relevant to her claims that 'many other countries have good systems' or that 'many other countries pay reparations' or that 'many other countries have universal healthcare.'

Nothing you have said disputes that. Marrying an American does not change that. Having American friends does not change that. Nothing you have said disproves that. Being a historian does not change my claim. Your posts are consistenly anti-American. That was my original claim and it lies undisputed. You can caveat and qualify all you want, but you consistently post anti-American jibberish on a wide range of topic. If someone was looking for an objective opinion (or what serves for one -which IS possible from a non-interested party) then your view would NOT be it.

Your TONE is what is most offensive. You seem to think people SHOULDN'T be offended that you constantly and consistently say our system sucks. I disagree. If you think the US is cool except for particular policies, why do you feel its necessary to alienate Americans who are proud of their country. Your answer is 'Gertrude Stein say X.' That is not a particularly overwhelming defense. It is at its base a '**** you, I think what I think.' Well, guess what, **** you. People who are pretty non-confrontational like Cohen have said 'hey what's with the tone,' and you've said ****** off. I'll say what I please. So don't act all indignant now like you were a pussycat until someone attacked you. There is no country like the US in the history of the planet. If you want to dispute *THAT* start a new thread and we'll go hammer and tongs until its 'obvious' that you haven't a clue (if its not already).

Sure, but they are not above reproach, and neither are you. You want to declare yourself an expert, or even express you opinion, go ahead. If you get criticised then take it instead of expressing 'indigination' that someone disagrees with you...

Oh, very convincing. I can be as offensive as I want because that's the way I am. Very admirable. Oh, no wait, its actually completely offensive. 'I won't back up my paradigm, I'll let my husband accuse you of oppressive rhetoric or say you're r****ded instead.' If you were truly 'interested' in getting your point of view across, there would be no need for your inflammatory rhetoric. I think THAT is a red herring. You enjoy saying the US sucks, and you say it so repeatedly in so many different threads that I am suprised you deny it now. At least I admit I buy into the American dream, and that I am proud of my country, faults and all. You, however, are another ivory tower academic. All critique and no substance. What a shock.

My challenge is an easy one. I state that the majority of your posts are critical of US foreign and/or domestic policy. That you show an obvious bias against the US government. Refute *that* or admit that NO MATTER WHAT POLICY we were talking about you would be critical, and hence your *opinion* would be irrelevant to rational discussion (as it was predetermined)...