First, apologies to my readers for the diversion from the usual fare, but I’ll point out that this entry is covered under the masthead in the category of “recent news” and there’s a relevant WUWT category.
Since like many of you, I’ve been forced to sign a document (at my radio station where I employed part-time) that confirms I’ve been given another document that advises me of my Obamacare rights, and of course being in tune to the news, I’ve been wondering if the claims about the Obamacare websites are as bad as claimed.
I read an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune “Sebelius visit fails to reassure as health care website glitches persist” that said:
Sebelius, who is making similar trips to cities across the country to spread the word about the website, told the audience of about 100 people that Healthcare.gov was “open for business.”
“Believe me, we had some early glitches,” said Sebelius, who was introduced by Rooney, a backer of the law. “But it’s getting better every day.”
So, I decided to find out myself. I went to http://healthcare.gov and chose my state, California. What follows is a record of what I actually got. I never made it past step 1:
Try it yourself: https://coveredca.com/shopandcompare/
NOTE: To be accurate, the website security certificate will work if the “www” is used as prefix, but not the link above sans www. By following the link from the Tribune article, with no other changes on my part, I ended up with the sans “www” connection, which they didn’t get a proper security certificate for. One wonders how many other “glitches” exist in basic security on these websites.
Even when you go in with the “www” there are problems. In Firefox I get this:
UPDATE: Reader Ben points out that it gets a failing grade from an SSL grading service, SSL Labs:
Source: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=coveredca.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gunga Din says:
October 16, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Horrifically, the federal government no longer has to rely on ways & means approved by Congress. The Federal Reserve invents over a trillion dollars a year out of thin air in order to finance the annual deficit. The administration’s not having to rely on Congress for its funding is a recipe for tyranny.
Gunga Din:
Thankyou for your thoughts in your post at October 16, 2013 at 1:08 pm with addendum at October 16, 2013 at 1:11 pm.
I stated the issue that puzzles those of us who are not Americans in my post at October 14, 2013 at 3:05 am. This link jumps to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/13/my-obamacare-experience/#comment-1447377
The issue is summarised in the bolded section at the end of that post. Perhaps you would be willing to give your thoughts on the two questions in that section? So far in the thread only one American has been willing to provide thoughts in answer to one of the questions but together they formulate why non-Americans are puzzled by what is happening in your country.
Richard
milodonharlani says:
Horrifically, the federal government no longer has to rely on ways & means approved by Congress. The Federal Reserve invents over a trillion dollars a year out of thin air in order to finance the annual deficit. The administration’s not having to rely on Congress for its funding is a recipe for tyranny.
Exactly right. This Administration deliberately avoids having a budget, thus we are left with endless continuing resolutions.
They want it that way, because they can demonize the Republicans [even though it is 100% Obama’s doing], while spending $Billions/$Trillions of non-appropriated money on whatever they want.
Congress is being made irrelevant. This is one more step toward the inevitable dictatorship. I suspect there will be a ‘crisis’ [real or faked] that leads to the imposition of martial law. President Wilson was almost there — he had machinegunners arrayed next to the Capital, ready to fire upon American ex-soldiers who were peacefully protesting. Only Wilson’s minor stroke averted martial law that time. And Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, so there’s a precedent. Anyone who dares to speak out can be held indefinitely. It won’t take more than a few examples, until no one will dare to criticize the King.
Never listen to Obama, he is a pathological liar. Instead, look at what he is doing; the actions he takes. He does not want a budget, and the Constitution is simply a hindrance to his plans.
What to do about it? Hell if I know.
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:05 am
What bemuses people from outside the US is why Americans want to keep trying to find ways to make their system work for all when there are two systems which are each demonstrated to work for all in several countries.
If most Americans want universal health care then why not adopt one of the systems that work?
And if most Americans don’t want universal health care then why keep making the modifications to what they have?
————————————-
Most Americans don’t want universal, government-run health care in general nor Obamacare in particular. The GOP gained control of the House in 2010 thanks to public outrage over Obamacare, tossing out an historic 63 Democrats who voted for it against the wishes of their constituents. It passed without a single GOP vote only via legislative shenanigans. Statists in the Democrat Party want Obamacare not to improve health care, because it won’t & they know it, but to increase control over the people.
We have not kept making modifications since 1965, when Medicare & Medicaid were instituted as amendments to Social Security. Hillarycare was rejected in 1993. The last “patch” that passed was to allow Medicare (for people over 65) to include drug prescriptions.
Most Americans were happy with their employer-co-paid insurance plans, to include union members, & with the Medicare into which they’ve paid since 1965. That’s why Obamacare is so unpopular, with 60% opposing it now & likely even more in future when people see how much it is going to cost for much worse “care”.
dbstealey says:
October 16, 2013 at 1:42 pm
How about a one million pitchfork march? Symbol of peasant rabble rising up & of pitching out the irresponsible to repressive regime of professional pols now in power.
Americans will either take back the Republic or follow the EU down the road to dusty death of liberty & prosperity. I live half the year in Chile, where I can enjoy more personal freedom, except for stricter gun control.
milodonharlani:
Thankyou for your post at October 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm.
That is by far the clearest explanation in the thread so far. Thankyou.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm
You are most welcome. Americans like being able to chose their own insurance plans & doctors. The don’t want the government to interfere with that freedom.
The majority of uninsured citizens could afford a high-deductible, low premium catastrophic care plan, but simply choose to do without. The “poor” have Medicaid, administered by the states. That leaves the at least 12 million illegal aliens, whose ER visits have bankrupted many hospitals, since the law requires treating anyone who shows up. Everyone in the country has access to “free” care, although hospital ERs aren’t the best way to provide that service.
Minor fixes to what is the best health care system in the world are called for, like tort reform for instance, but its mutation into the monstrosity that is Obamacare is neither wanted nor needed.
milodonharlani says:
October 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Mike H says:
October 13, 2013 at 10:08 pm
PS: If you believe Cuban statistics, then you ought to go there for your medical needs.
====================================================================
Of course I can’t speak for all Americans. I’m only one of them.
“Follow the money.” Not all Americans are trying to find ways to make a “socialist” medical system.
They want a medical system that is effective and affordable. “Government” doesn’t really need to be involved but some seeking power and money have promised that if “Government” is involved then expensive medical procedures will become virtually free.
No service or product that someone provides is “free”. But “Government” is promising it will be…as long long you vote for me. “Security” from the womb to the tomb. Such “security” cost more than I’m willing to pay.
Gunga Din:
Thankyou for your further thoughts at October 16, 2013 at 2:10 pm.
In my opinion this thread would have been of more benefit to both Americans and others if people had provided presentations of their views on the subject as you and milodonharlani have in recent posts. Sadly, when the tread started many found the thread to be an opportunity for promoting political views instead of discussing the subject of medical provision in the US.
For clarity, and in response to your information, I provide feedback on your saying
Indeed so. People in countries which have a NHS are fully aware of that. They want health care to be FREE AT THE POINT OF USE and they fully understand who pays (they do) and how (through taxation).
I am surprised that anyone in the US could be duped into thinking that government could create the monies for universal health care – or any other government services – from thin air. However, you say “But “Government” is promising it will be”. I accept your information although I am surprised that politicians would claim such a thing in a country with a democratic history because the claim must damage the politicians’ credibility with their electorate. Greece had no history of democracy and the electorate were duped by such obviously false promises for a variety of government services with the result that Greece became bankrupted.
Again, thankyou for your thoughts.
Richard
Also in reply to richardscourtney, please understand that Americans were not exactly given a choice on the passage of this terrible law. It was passed in a rush — a tremendous rush, during which the Speaker of the House famously said, “We will have to pass the law in order to see what’s in it” — so the implications were known only to those whose agenda was already in place. Make no mistake: This law was intended to create the statist control over a major portion of the lives of American citizens. Our Dear Leader promised us, just before he took office, that he would dramatically transform the condition of the American people. Well, he has at least kept that promise.
The fact that Our Dear Leader was re-elected is only a sign that at least a minor majority — living or dead — have indeed been duped into believing that an expensive aspect of life can be made cheaper by being provided “free” by the government. A moment’s thought would disabuse anyone of that illusion, but that is democracy for you. At least, a representative republic with a plurality of lying evil bastards. (Excuse the language: In my household we don’t say the “D” word).
It’s going to be a long, hard slog to repair the damage that Our Dear :Leader has created.
richardscourtney says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:30 pm
The individual mandate requiring participation in the IRS-policed scheme or paying ever steeper fines is just one of the many onerous taxes & confiscations to fund Obamacare. There’s a tax on real estate transactions, for instance, & on medical devices. It steals $800 billion from Medicare, into which people have paid since 1965. All to make health care much worse.
It exempts businesses with fewer than 50 full-time employees, so naturally companies are firing workers & hiring part-timers. So it will bring the already sluggish economy to a screeching halt as well, in addition to the braking effect of higher taxes, more regulation & more government agents.
What a deal!
Here’s what I will take from this thread. A direct reflection of, and on, the great nation of America.
Mandatory compassion is fascism.
Equated to Slavery.
If someone cannot afford to pay for their medical treatment they should not be allowed to breed and are deemed to be parasites.
If a Government pays any of your taxes to support your fellow man this is akin to theft.
This from the sane, thoughtful, still I believed thinking posters here at WUWT.
I am deeply troubled and saddened by what I have seen here.
A major hit to the credibility of WUWT.
I wish you well but I thought this site was here to fight against the tyranny preventing Mankind reaching his and her full potential by demonising a trace gas responsible for all life on Earth through the wonder that is Photosynthesis, causing a domino effect of bad policy making, supported by propaganda, that leads to a reduction in our capability for progress…..and the lights going out and the consequences thereof.
I only hope that I wasn’t wrong.
Dave
David A – we know you are David Appell. And your feigned indignation over the tone of this article is merely words put into your mouth by OFA(l). So please spare us your lies and hurt feelings.
Try writing an honest post for once in your life.
Bryan Johnson says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Then there was the Missouri Senator who, when 70% of the people of her state voted against participating in Obamacare, said, “Message received”, but then went on to add, “Trust me, you’ll like it”!
We are ruled by idiotic tyrannts, but then they get reelected, thanks to the power of incumbents to collect campaign cash, vote fraud & lies.
Dave A says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm
IMO, if the government must be involved, then the way to do it is with vouchers & tax-deductible private health plans from national, not state-bound choices. This would preserve the patient’s right to choose his or her own doctor, HMO, insurance carrier & plan. It would also maintain competition, producing better care at lower cost.
But tort reform remains the single most important & best way to control costs. Naturally, it wasn’t included in Obamacare, thanks to the power of the ambulance-chasing lobby in the Democrat Party, second only to public employee unions in donations/bribes.
Dave A:
re your post at October 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm.
Sadly, yes, all you cite has been stated in this thread. Unfortunately, the insane extremism you report takes any opportunity to proclaim its obscene views. But the WUWT ‘community’ is a ‘broad church’ that includes a wide range of political, social and religious views from around the world. Right-wing extremists used this thread as an opportunity to ‘sound off’, but that does NOT mean they and their views are mainstream of the tolerance and reason to be found in the WUWT ‘community’.
The thread is now discussing the issues of universal health care provision. So, perhaps we can all learn from the observations you accurately report about this thread, avoid such things in future, and discuss the subject of the thread now.
Richard
Cheers Richard
Bryan Johnson:
Thankyou for the information and thoughts you address to me at October 16, 2013 at 2:48 pm.
That information – and the additional information from milodonharlani October 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm – goes to the heart of my questions which you and others are now kindly addressing.
I am sure you will understand that the peculiarities of US government are not known or are inadequately understood by others, especially those of us with parliamentary systems of government. Clearly, the information you have each provided demonstrate the power of what we in the UK call ‘croney capitalism’. We are not immune from it, either, but its effects are constrained here by e.g. the laws which limit expenditures on elections.
It seems to me that your comments enhance the view of milodonharlani that so-called ‘Obamacare’ is not really about health care but has other political purposes. The right to universal health care is so valued in, for example, the UK that it is hard to comprehend a culture which (a) does not want it, while (b) trying to obtain it. However, if (a) is true then it is perfectly reasonable that (b) is really about something else.
Whatever the reality of that, all you, milodonharlani and Gunga Din have said emphasises that your country is adopting an expensive and inefficient system for universal health care.
Thankyou for your time and effort in sharing your views. I hope this reply demonstrates my appreciation for of them by my having considered them.
Richard
milodonharlani says (October 16, 2013 at 10:02 am): “Without also having to fight the US & UK, Hitler would have defeated Stalin.”
Quite probably. By absorbing less than half the overall German war effort among them, the Western Allies helped the USSR win, just as the USSR, by absorbing more than half the German war effort by itself, helped the Western Allies win–especially before the US could make a difference.
“The Western Allied strategic bombing offensive kept the Luftwaffe over Germany instead of Russia…”
Indeed, and keeping much of the Luftwaffe in the east helped ensure the eventual success of the strategic bombing campaign in 1944. Funny how “it works both ways” is characteristic of coalition warfare. 🙂
“US Lend Lease & other aid to the USSR also enabled the Red Army to advance from the Volga to the Elbe.”
Yup. By the time victory was a foregone conclusion, US trucks & canned food helped hasten the end. Of course overall Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was a small fraction of its domestic war production, supplied zero soldiers, and had negligible effect until the Soviets had already stopped the German invasion in 1941 (IMHO the actual “turning point” of WW II).
BTW, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the fact that Lend-Lease was even sent to the USSR, at great effort and expense, only emphasizes Stalin’s importance to the overall war effort.
“We gave the USSR so much that shortages hampered our own advance from the Channel & Med to the Elbe.”
Er, no. Patton’s tanks ran out of gas because the abundant fuel (and other supplies) hundreds of kilometers to the rear couldn’t be brought forward fast enough to keep up with his advance. That’s exactly the same problem that plagued both German and Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front. France had better roads than the USSR, and the Allies had more transport than the Germans or Soviets, but their supply requirements were also far more lavish. See B. H. Liddell Hart’s History of the Second World War, Chapter 31, “The Liberation of France”.
Best wishes you, Gary Hladik, sincerely, but I have to point out a couple of niggles to your argument:
1) If Stalin hadn’t played footsie with the Nazis, Herr Hitler would not have had the gumption to attack east. Hitler was a coward, in many ways, and the fact that he had managed to fool both the Soviets and (ahem) certain other people to the west only gave him the courage to attack the USSR and declare war against the United States. The fact that the US was profoundly and vocally isolationist in the 1930s and early 1940s didn’t help, but neither did Franklin Roosevelt’s administration — the non-Communist portion of it — help, either.
2) Implied, but not expressed, in your argument was the old saw that the Soviets took greater casualties than the Western powers. That would impress me more if J. Stalin hadn’t decapitated his general staff in the 1930s, refused to believe the intelligence from his spies and, upon the attack of the Germans, basically hid under his bed for the first two weeks of the war. It has been noted that the best Soviet general during the Second World War was Adolf Hitler — but the best German general in at least the beginning years of the war was Stalin.
All of this is history but… V. Putin is very much a real threat to Europe. Again, the Russian bear looms to the east. If the worst happens again — and I sincerely hope it doesn’t — I believe that the U.S. will sit the next round out. Been there, done that. Twice. God forfend that it happens, but a Russian move to take a power position in the Middle East — if not the Balkans and Poland — is entirely possible.
I’ll miss St. Paul’s Cathedral. And the British Museum.
@Gary Young Hladik & milodonharlani
While not directly topical, I found both of your narratives to be highly informative and enjoyable. While I do not necessarily agree with all you have written, in both cases it has given me more to think about in regards to the politics behind the second world war.
Thank you
Dave A says (October 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm): “Here’s what I will take from this thread. A direct reflection of, and on, the great nation of America.
Mandatory compassion is fascism.
Equated to Slavery.”
The difference between freedom and slavery is choice. “Obamacare” reduces choice, therefore it reduces freedom. It forces some people to serve other people. What do you call that? Certainly not “compassion”.
Remember, if government enables you to force your “morality” on me, it also enables me to force my “morality” on you, whenever I’m in the majority, or even a plurality. The same government power that gives us Obamacare also gives us corporate welfare (e.g. Solyndra), “carbon” regulation/taxes, and “demonization” of a trace gas. When you get more government, you inevitably get more bad government along with (maybe) more “good” government.
As an admirer of “altruism”, no doubt you, Dave A, contribute substantially to the less fortunate among us. But suppose for a moment that government is suddenly stripped of its power to compel “altruism” (toward our fellow men, toward the climate, toward corporations…). With you controlling more of your own money, isn’t your spending more in line with your own priorities and nobody else’s? Can’t you contribute more to the unfortunate and less to the Solyndras? Don’t you have more choice? More freedom? Aren’t both you and the needy better off?
BTW, if there are so many “altruists” in favor of Obamacare, no doubt they could fund a private version of the program (or versions; government is a monopoly, but private organizations need not be). In fact a private “Davecare” could be much better, since the “altruists” in Washington wouldn’t be taking their slice of the pie. 🙂
Gary Hladik says:
October 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm
The US & UK started helping the USSR just as soon as Hitler invaded. The first LL supplies arrived in September, IIRC. As noted, Russia’s absorbing the Wehrmacht didn’t help Britain or the US much, since Germany couldn’t invade Britain anyway.
Victory for the USSR was not a foregone conclusion before US aid. And even if the Red Army had been able to stop German advances into Russia in 1943 without it (which it couldn’t have), it still would not have been able to advance from the Volga to Germany without US aid, as Khrushchev admitted.
You make my point for me by mentioning the lack of gas for our tanks in France. The reason fuel could not be brought up rapidly enough was due to a lack of trucks (the rail net having been damaged by the pre-D-Day transportation attack plan). We were short on trucks because we had sent so many to Russia, thereby enabling the Red Army to occupy Eastern Europe while slowing our own advance into Germany.
Of course if Stalin had not been allied with Hitler in 1939-41, then Poland might have been able to slow the German blitzkrieg there long enough for France & Britain to come to its aid.
Gary H. states:
“The difference between freedom and slavery is choice. “Obamacare” reduces choice, therefore it reduces freedom. It forces some people to serve other people. What do you call that? Certainly not “compassion”.”
I agree entirely. In fact, one of my major stump speeches (the one that makes my wife roll her eyes when she sees me wound up on this subject) is that freedom is really the only zero-sum equation in human life. Wealth? If I earn more than you, it is not necessarily at your expense, particularly if I am creating wealth. Love? My wife’s (my mother’s, my son’s) love for me does not take away any of their love for anyone else. (It’s a different type of love, but for a given quality of love, they can all co-exist with equal strength.) Freedom, on the other hand, has an entirely different quality. If my government decides that I am simply incapable of making decisions about organizing my own health care, then my freedom is restricted. This is why the United States Constitution was, originally, a document that expressly defined the limits of government. “Congress shall not…” Of course, freedom to do also co-exists with the freedom to — and the consequences of — fail. The counterpoint (the crux of my “freedom is a zero-sum equation”) is that, ultimately the power of the state tends towards oppression of individual freedom. It seems to be an inevitable state, like the laws of thermodynamics.
If you’ve never read his work, please do pick up a book by P.J. O’Rourke, one of America’s best political humorists. His “Parliament of Whores” is wonderful: He makes that case that, ultimately, the government — any government — uses the threat of imprisonment or even summary execution as the final argument.
And I do apologize, Gary, for having put words into your mouth regarding the old “more Red Army troops died during the Great Patriotic War than Americans” argument. You didn’t use, or even try to imply, that old saw. But you are correct that the Second World War could have ended a year earlier if Gen. Patton had just had enough gas for his tanks. Ah, well, let’s leave that argument to authors like Harry Turtledove.
@Bryan Johnson – you just gave me a DOH moment. A truth so simple that many over look it. Freedom is the only zero sum game. I agree. And thank you for the enlightenment.
========================================================================
My Dad was an MD. He started his private practice in 1950 and worked in it until his death in 2000. I remember him saying that there were a number of relatively simple test they could do right in the office cheaply and efficiently but they had to send the sample or an additional sample out to another lab for independent confirmation to meet the requirements of their malpractice insurance. That alone added to the cost of a doctor visit. Add to that the cost of the malpractice insurance itself…tort reform would go a long way toward reducing medical bills.
(And we wouldn’t have so many commercials by law firms offering to sue somebody for you!)
Bryan Johnson says (October 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm): “1) If Stalin hadn’t played footsie with the Nazis, Herr Hitler would not have had the gumption to attack east.”
No argument. Perhaps Hitler wouldn’t have overrun Poland so quickly, or even attacked at all, if Stalin hadn’t joined in. Stalin gained a buffer zone, to be sure, but he didn’t fortify it effectively. More important, he subtracted the substantial Polish armed forces from the potential anti-Nazi coalition while giving Hitler half his potential buffer zone. Note that Chamberlain basically did the same thing at Munich with Czechoslovakia.
After that, the USSR helped Hitler by selling him substantial amounts of oil and other resources. Suppose Hitler had kept the peace with the USSR and used its resources against the Brits through 1941 and 1942. Scary, huh?
Nevertheless, the fact that the USSR started the war as a German ally (and ended it as an enemy of the Western Allies, including Germany) has nothing to do with my basic point that from about mid-1941 the USSR was a more useful (if involuntary) ally to the UK than the US was.
“2) Implied, but not expressed, in your argument was the old saw that the Soviets took greater casualties than the Western powers.”
It’s not expressed because it’s not part of my argument. I’m only pointing out that from mid-1941 Germany directed most of its war effort at the USSR. The cost to the USSR would be relevant only if great enough to end the USSR’s usefulness as a UK ally.
Of course, another way to evaluate the USSR’s contribution to the war effort is German casualties on each front:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
milodonharlani says (October 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm): “The US & UK started helping the USSR just as soon as Hitler invaded. The first LL supplies arrived in September, IIRC.”
LL deliveries in 1941 were a small fraction of the wartime total, yet somehow the USSR inflicted the first major defeat of the war on the Germans. By the end of 1942, total LL was still a small fraction of the eventual total, yet the poor helpless Soviets somehow inflicted an even more decisive defeat on their opponents.
“As noted, Russia’s absorbing the Wehrmacht didn’t help Britain or the US much, since Germany couldn’t invade Britain anyway.”
I covered that (Mediterranean Theater, aircraft, naval emphasis, etc.) Every German killed by the Soviets in 1941-42 was a German the Brits didn’t face in 1944.
“Victory for the USSR was not a foregone conclusion before US aid.”
Yet it was substantially achieved before most of the LL arrived. Go figure.
“And even if the Red Army had been able to stop German advances into Russia in 1943 without it (which it couldn’t have),”
Which it uncontestably did in 1941 & 1942, so why not 1943 when the balance of power was even more in favor of the USSR?
“… it still would not have been able to advance from the Volga to Germany without US aid, as Khrushchev admitted.”
Correction: The USSR would not have advanced as fast.
“You make my point for me by mentioning the lack of gas for our tanks in France. The reason fuel could not be brought up rapidly enough was due to a lack of trucks
Actually, if your argument were correct it would make my point for me. Think about it: If Western leaders deliberately shortchange their own men at the front in favor of an ally, what does that say about the importance of the ally’s war effort? Hmm?
In reality, of course, the situation was far more complicated. During the initial, near-static fighting in Normandy, it would have been folly to ship large numbers of trucks across the Channel instead of the food and ammo needed for the immediate fighting. As Liddell Hart points out in his book, the Allies were surprised and unprepared for the subsequent breakout and rapid advance; they had to improvise to keep up the pressure. They attempted to support a broad advance instead of a narrow thrust, and then Monty got supply priority even though Patton was 100 miles further east. There was a truck shortage: 1400 British lorries were found to be defective (Liddell Hart doesn’t say how many of these useless trucks were sent to the USSR). Air transport might have helped, but the planes were diverted to paradrops that never took place.
“Of course if Stalin had not been allied with Hitler in 1939-41, then Poland might have been able to slow the German blitzkrieg there long enough for France & Britain to come to its aid.”
And if Chamberlain hadn’t sold out the Czechs, or if he had sucked up more to the USSR, or if Britain & France had contested the remilitarization of the Rhineland or the anschluss with Austria, etc. etc. All irrelevant to the question of relative Allied contributions to the war effort post mid-1941.
Oh, one last thing and then I’ll shut up about my opinions. If you have the chance, do go to the Spam Museum in Minnesota. Apparently — at least according to them — that “meat product” was one of the major reasons that the Allies won the Second World War. Not only did it feed the Red Army in all its millions, but Spam also kept the British from starvation during and after the War.
Like that great speech made in the television adaptation of “Band of Brothers” showed, when the young soldier shouted at the surrendering Germans: “What were you *thinking*? We have Ford and GM! And you’re still using horses!” Is the American genius really that we can out-produce tinned meat? Well, it’s not a traditional view of American exceptionalism, but I’ll take any lead over the opposition.
Bryan Johnson says (October 17, 2013 at 3:34 am): “He makes that case that, ultimately, the government — any government — uses the threat of imprisonment or even summary execution as the final argument.”
True as far as it goes, but in a democracy/republic the ultimate responsibility lies with the voters who elected that government. To quote a good line from an otherwise silly movie:
“Look, when you vote, you are exercising political authority. You’re using force, and force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.”
Rather than force people into Obamacare, why not make the program voluntary? If it’s as wonderful as all its advocates claim, people will be scrambling to sign up voluntarily, and “the supreme authority” won’t be required to get recruits (especially all the “altruists” among us). That it’s mandatory is proof positive that President Zero was lying (big surprise, eh?). 🙂