You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

99.9% of the knuckleheads commenting here negatively about Israel have never read, let alone heard of, books like Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad and Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. Or From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. Or a book I just started, A Lethal Obsession by Robert Wistrich. Thing is I'm one of these "hope springs eternal" guys because I keep thinking people are like me who was once about as close to being a card carrying member of the KKK as you can be without actually being one. Until I read some books like Malcolm X. Black Like Me and others. While I was in Jr. High getting jumped by black kids trying to punch and stomp my guts out. The useful idiots limit this "conflict" to simply Muslims against Jews yet its a lot more profound than that:

Supplemental Article “The First and Last Enemy: Jew Hatred in Islam.” by Bostom (Frontpage Magazine archive)
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28549

People just refuse to acknowledge the Jew-Hatred that is part of a Muslims DNA. Don't believe what those Interfaith frauds tell you. "Moderate" or not; if you don't hate Jews you're not a true Muslim. If you don't believe that please explain the hatred that is like a disease in Gaza. And if you have half a brain you know it's been there LONG before Israel won its Independence.

The Depravity of the Homicide Bomber’s Recruiters (Frontpage Magazine)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/david-meir-levi/the-depravity-of-the-homicide-bomber%E2%80%99s-recruiters/

Female Homicide Bomber (suicide) You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XEkJY62VA

Failed Suicide Bomber Hopes for Another Chance to Kill (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpXm9hvXroc

Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project September 26, 2002 Special Report No.10 Fiday Sermons in Saudi Mosques: Review and Analysis (MEMRI)
(This is from Saudi Arabia. Same with an article on Islam Sheikh bin Humaid that I read and am submitting below.)
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/736.htm

Islam's Hatred of the Non-Muslim by David Bukay (Middle East Forum)
http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim

Guest Column: Palestinian TV Teaches Kids The Way to 'Jihad Street' by Abigail R. Esman (Investigative Project)
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4394/guest-column-palestinian-tv-teaches-kids-the-way

Hamas to kids: Shoot all the Jews (Jihad Watch)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/hamas-to-kids-shoot-all-the-jews

Farfour "martyred" by Israelis in final episode (You Tube video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM

MEMRI Transcript: Farfour, Hamas' Mickey Mouse Character, Is 'Martyred' in the Final Episode of the "Pioneers of Tomorrow" Children's Show on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV
http://www.memri.org/report/en/print2274.htm

Children as combatants: Motivating children to seek Shahada
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=846

Camp Jihad UN/US Palestine Probaganda and brainwashing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbrafPTe_LQ#at=211

Hamas Summer Camps: Fun, Sun and Guns by Aryeh Savir 7-13-14 (Breaking Israel News)
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/17721/hamas-summer-camps-fun-sun-guns-photos/#t18RPE7WusjewHqd.97

Michael Coren & David Harris - Palestinian terrorist training camps for kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtsZXCLD1Lc

“She's Buried Chest High” (You Tube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

The "Right of Return" Is Suicide for Israel by Jonathan Schanzer (MEF)
http://www.meforum.org/334/the-right-of-return-is-suicide-for-israel

The History of the Middle East Conflict in 11 Minutes (You Tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

“Letter to the Editor” International Herald Tribune, July 1, 2003 by Giulia Boukhobza (Also in Bostom's “Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” book: Chapter 68, page 677: "A Libyan Jew Breaks Her Silence 36 yrs after surviving the 67 Tripolitan Pogrom")
Congressional Record
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-09-04/pdf/CREC-2003-09-04-pt1-PgE1682-2.pdf#page=1

So this is what hell is like.... computer died so I've had to piece together one from old parts... HD anything gone. No game made after 2003 will run and It's going to be a long long time before I can afford to rebuild.... and now the steam summer sale.... I could cry.... welp time to go play in traffic.

Actually, this is true, but it's also only one of the recall items that GM has issued Recalls for this year.

"It recalled 8,208 of its 2014 cars on May 7, for example, because they might have rear brakes on the front wheels."

"GM says it has informed regulators about two more recalls imminent but not yet announced. The latest batch includes safety belt, air bag, transmission and electrical issues in a range of midsize sedans, full-size crossovers and SUVs, and pickups."


GM's U.S. recalls this year

Below are General Motors' recall of vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1

Date, no. of U.S. vehicles, models affected, recall defect

- Jan. 13: 324,970 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2014 GMC Sierra for overheated exhaust parts

- Feb. 7 and 25: 1,367,146 of the 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-07 Chevrolet HHR, 2005-07 Pontiac G5, 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007 Saturn Sky, 2007 Opel GT, 2007 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- Feb 20: 355 of the 2014 Buick Enclave, LaCrosse, Regal and Verano; 2014 Chevrolet Cruze, Impala, Malibu and Travers; 2014 GMC Acadia for transmission shift cable adjuster

- March 17: 63,903 of the 2013-14 Cadillac XTS for brake vacuum booster

- March 17: 303,013 of the 2009 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana for airbag

- March 17: 1,178,407 of the 2008-13 Buick Enclave, 2008-13 Chevrolet Traverse, 2008-13 GMC Acadia, 2008-10 Saturn Outlook for airbag

- March 17: 656 of the Cadillac ELR for electronic brake control

- March 28: 823,788 of the 2008-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2008-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2008-10 Pontiac G5, 2008-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2008-10 Saturn Sky, 2008-10 Opel GT, 2008-09 Daewoo G2X for ignition switch

- March 28: 174,046 of the 2013-14 Chevrolet Cruze for front axle shaft

- March 28: 489, 936 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2014 GMC Sierra, 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, 2014 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL for oil cooler fitting.

- March 31: 1,340,447 of the 2004-06 Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx, 2004-06 Pontiac G6, 2004-07 Saturn Ion, 2008-09 Chevrolet Malibu, 2008-09 Pontiac G6, 2008-09 Saturn Aura, 2010 Cobalt, 2009-10 Chevrolet HHR for electric power steering

- April 9: 2,191,014 of the 2005-10 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006-11 Chevrolet HHR, 2007-10 Pontiac G5, 2006-10 Pontiac Solstice, 2003-07 Saturn ION, 2007-10 Saturn Sky for ignition key cylinder

- April 24: 50,571 of the 2013 Cadillac SRX for acceleration lag

- April 19: 23,249 of the 2009-10 Pontiac Vibe (built by Toyota) for air bags

- April 24: 51 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2014 GMC Sierra HD for diesel transfer pump

- April 29: 51,640 of the 2014 Chevrolet Traverse, 2014 GMC Acadia and 2014 Buick Enclave for inaccurate fuel gauge

- April 29: 56,214 of the 2007-08 Saturn Aura for shift cable

- May 7: 8,208 of the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu and 2104 Buick Lacrosse for brake rotors

- May 14: 111,889 of the 2005-07 Corvette for headlight low beams

- May 14: 19,225 of the 2014 Cadillac CTS for windshield wipers

- May 14: 140,067 of the 2014 Malibu for brake boost

- May 14: 2,440,524 of the 2004-12 Chevrolet Malibu, 2004-07 Malibu Maxx, 2005-10 Pontiac G6 and 2007-10 Saturn Aura for brake lamps

- May 14: 477 of the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe for steering tie-rod

- May 16: 1,402 of the 2015 Cadillac Escalade for passenger air bag

- May 19: 1,339,355 of the 2009-10 Saturn Outlook, 2009-14 Chevrolet Traverse, 2009-14 GMC Acadia and 2009-14 Buick Enclave for front seat belts

- May 19: 58 of the 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and 2015 GMC Sierra HD for loose fuse block

- May 19: 1,075,102 of the 2004-08 Chevrolet Malibu and 2005-08 Pontiac G6 for shift cable (expands April 29 Saturn Aura recall)

Total 18,666,842
( http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/05/20/gm-recalls-fine-goverment/9329481/ )

I'll stick with Eve Online I've played since 2003 for multiplayer
For amazing sandbox single player I'll stick to tried and true X series X3 has higher learning curve than eve but setting up mining / build a space station and hire cargo ships to run your trade routes while you hung pirates in a fighter is fun

In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade, the nationalization continued.

August 19, 1953, a successful coup was headed by retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, organized by the United States (CIA) with the active support of the British (MI6) (known as Operation Ajax). The coup—with a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mossadegh—forced Mossadegh from office. Mossadegh was arrested and tried for treason. /wikipedia

Iran got trampled on and interfered with by foreign nations exploiting her natural resources--oil. I'd be pissed too.

By contrast, Iran knows what happened to her next door neighbour after Iraq changed the preferred currency for oil sales from USD to Euros late in 2000 (They switched back to dollars in 2003.)

Huh, yep. Disney totally had 50 years of suck in the movie department.

Unless you include
101 Dalmatians 1961
Sword in the Stone 1963
Mary Poppins 1964
The Jungle Book 1967
Bedknobs and Broomsticks 1971
Freaky Friday 1976
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh 1977
The Rescuers 1977
Pete's Dragon 1977
Tron 1982
Honey I shrunk the Kids 1989
The Little Mermaid 1989
Beauty and the Beast 1991
Aladdin 1992
The Muppet Christmas Carol 1992
Homeward Bounds 1993
Cool Runnings 1993
The Lion King 1994
Pocahontas 1995
Toy Story 1995
Hercules 1997
Mulan 1998
A Bugs Life 1998
Tarzan 1999
Toy Story 2 1999
The Emperors New Groove 2000
Monsters Inc 2001
Lilo & Stitch 2002
Finding Nemo 2003
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the black pearl 2003
The Incredibles 2004
Chronicles of Narnia 2005
Cars 2006
Meet the Robinsons 2007
Ratatouille 2007
Enchanted 2007
Wall-E 2008
Up 2009
Princess and the Frog 2009
Toy Story 3 2010
Tangled 2010
The Muppets 2011
Brave 2012
Wreck it Ralph 2012
Monsters U 2013

But, other then that, yeah, no, nothing since 59. Except the other hundreds of classics that I didn't bother mentioning.

What year was this? Looks like Windows 2000 on the one computer.

Has to be at least 2003 when Skype came out.

For more:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-10-2003/prince-charles-scandal
Stephen's 'revenge':
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-16-2005/bloggers

Although the math may not fit (because of the 5 year probe launch difference):-
The furthest man-made object from Earth is indeed Voyager 1....it's sister ship Voyager 2 is in third place & although launched 5 years before both of them in 1972 & sandwiched between them distance-wise from us is Pioneer 10.

It ceased communications in 2003, but both Voyagers are still doing well.

Oshkosh's Wittman Regional Airport, Wisconsin, USA.
This was recorded in 2003 for the Airventure aviation celebration, where every year the ATC tower becomes the busiest control tower in the world for a couple of days. -yt

...and....rock your wings.

@bcglorf

coming from the sifter who states,and i quote:
"Oh, and he thinks the Iraq "problem" was created by America in the last decade. America's role started with support for Saddam, and from there 99% of the "problem" with Iraq needs be laid at Saddams feet for the decades of brutal repression destruction of Iraqi society that he committed. All that damage had everything to do with how horrific and ugly Iraq is today."

i think maybe you should do a bit of research before you throw broad generalizations out there.
i.e: how the sift embraces something.what are we? borg?

so you choose this thread to continue your berating of people who happen to disagree with you.

so let me be clear.
all those examples in your incomplete list are proven facts.
F.A.C.T.S
there is NO concrete evidence assad's regime is responsible.
there is suspicion.
some information implicates.
but to use the 2003 bush administration jargon,there is no smoking gun that led to a mushroom cloud.

and here we are 10 years later.
6 million displaced.
over a half million dead.
a culture practically destroyed.
a population in tatters and government ineffectual.
all based on a LIE.

so those of us suggesting non-intervention or diplomacy are assholes?

look at what YOU are suggesting!
bomb bomb bomb

so let me ask YOU.
what do you think bombing syria will do?

*edit-and who the fuck is giving assad the "benefit of the doubt"? so because people are being cautious in a complicated issue all of sudden they are fans of a brutal dictator?
fucking seriously?

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

naw, unlike most "drugs" that ruin lives as a property of their chemical interactions, cannabis is completely safe.

the only thing that will cause harm is exacerbating an existing medical condition that is prone to the hypertension, or actions taken while in an "unsafe" setting like toking up the first time while driving.

hardly a reason to worry about it, most therepeutically safe substance known to mankind, as well as the fact that even if medical use isnt the reason, recreational use with properly informed persons will result in no harm and possible benefit.

even if people started using it at the volume and frequency of alcohol, their lives would actually be made better because of the effects of the plant.

infuriating but the truth is finally coming out. the US has a patent on CBD since 2003 through the dept of health and human services for its antiinflammatory effects. .. and no one even knows about CBD, even really educated people who have the internet. its fucked up. See the TED sift about willful ignorance.

when it becomes easier to be informed then not, we will see a change. thats fucked up, but whatever im not like that. ill keep trying.

I think he overestimates the power the Pope has over American Catholics.

In the particular instance of Iraq, the Pope neither initiated violence nor did he tell anyone else to do so. In fact, "In 2003, he once again opposed a war in Iraq and appealed to U.S. President George W. Bush to refrain from going to war." It didn't persuade Bush and I doubt it would have persuaded the general Catholic population of military personnel to go AWOL even if he had expressed his dissent more emphatically.