And it's the same type of superficlal thinking that you're promoting here - that there's no difference between the wealthy in the U.S. today and the wealthy English whom we fought against. Superficial conclusions get people into trouble.

I know you like to argue that, but my *entire* point is that a disaffected majority will effect change, after which the rights and wrongs are of interest to history buffs. The issue is that Obama was elected by a disaffected majority that did what it is supposed to do in the Republic. From your comments it seems you agree.

As for healthcare: experts say that around 40% of the dollars injected into US healthcare never reach the patient bedside. Other experts say that the US injects enough $ into healthcare already. I agree with both groups. By this logic, not an extra cent of healthcare expenditure might be needed to meet all of Obama's goals. If you look at the proposed reforms, part of it involves examining effectiveness and benefit of treatment. Consideration of effectiveness isn't new- look at the FDA and JCAMO. This is what Obama was trying to explain when he was so cruelly misquoted last week. If it could be true that the public already is injecting enough $, why isn't there widespread support at least for the part of the proposal that seeks to reduce waste? IMHO the system is busted into a political battle that has forgotten the purpose and the people.