guess when you're surrounded by Antifa all around you, in your Socialist loving "shithole" state some permeation must occur. :-)

Certainly not a RWNJ "cult" member by any stretch either. Maybe if I think back your thoughts on how to address healthcare could be viewed as more "Progressive" leaning, but I honestly assumed that came with being in your field, having empathy for fellow humans, and I gathered you somewhat regularly deal with those more downtrodden. As "Progressive" thoughts go, there's a lot worse you could think.

Even that topic is a good example. To have the opinion that we should be in a system more like you describe for your Belgian friends is perfectly understandable and valid. As is the opinion that forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of others is neither better for maximizing efficiency nor for reducing actual costs, and that the more the costs are born directly by the user, the more efficient the system. Having the "wrong opinion" does not make one a "Retard", moron, hate-filled asshole, etc., it makes you someone with a different opinion for whatever your reasons are.

Now I've come to the point where I tend to lean more towards the former (and yes, in part that's because of actual meaningful discussions with Seattle in particular, and some others here, over the years that made me question the latter), but that's mostly because I've accepted that the latter has become unrealistic, and thus, in this case, Govco, while still certainly not the best, has become the only remaining viable solution. I just want the discussion about what that means to be an honest one. You don't "save" money if you don't cut services, facilities, speed, payouts to providers, etc. And once we establish the level of service that is acceptable, let's find out what it's going to cost and set taxes to cover those costs. Because there's a long way from 12% (avg US Fed tax rate) to the 50% your Belgian friends are apparently paying. (granted that gap isn't just for health and dental)