Connections are one thing, but you have obviously taken the time to inform yourself, and it's largely accurate, surprising for Americans today.
I agree with the difference in perception, and is where the right in the US is in the dark ages, as bound to ideology as any left wing gruber. The for-profit model is simply not sustainable and, is yet another indicator of the division in the US. The resistance to it has nothing to do with merit, cost or effectiveness, it is all politics. The financial argument, which should sell them, is there. And I agree, they are stupid enough to try to repeal Obamacare and leave nothing as an alternative.
<snip>
Thanks for the reply & friendship request
Fearandloathing, and sorry for the delay in my response.
Wow!
You've got a lot of good content in this post, and I'm not at all surprised you're a journalist (I note your ability to see the big picture in a cause-effect manner). I was a big-city newspaper-boy during the tail-end of the newspaper era in the city that many considered the top investigative 'hard news' newspaper town in the country, and I read & worshiped the local newspapermen along with the local authors & novelists: Royko, Terkel, Algren, Hemingway (all extant then, except Hemingway); these were the men that shaped my mind as a young child - enough, so that I seriously considered attending the
Medill School of Journalism (Northwestern University), which was only an 'el' ride away. In the end, I decided upon a degree in technology, because I thought it was the fastest way to make some money. But my heart never left reading, and I still love the process of writing.
You're definitely right in that the problems we have here are not GOP specific, but that of the entire political process - both parties included. I beat harder on the GOP in this instance because I saw them as the primary opponents to UHC, but the Dems are often just as culpable in many matters. I do tend go after the GOP more often because I usually lean more progressive than conservative, but not always.
The American form of constitutional equal branches of government may have some flaws vs the Canadian parliamentary, one of which is it seems to naturally devolve into a two-party system, and I see that as a problem. You've stated we need to elect better leaders (I agree), but in the end the two-party system gives us only two choices, and really, how much difference is there between Secy Clinton & Governor Romney? Or Governor Bush? So electing better is not quite that easy.
And with a two party system comes the natural tendency to polarize & demonize. Why? Because one doesn't need ideas with merit - they merely need to demonize the other guy(s). However this system has previously worked, as flawed and difficult as it is, but I believe the current influx of huge amounts of cash & it's influence is usurping the very democratic nature of the political process. All the serious GOP candidates have publicly stopped by Sheldon Adelson's office for his imprimatur, but not one has stopped by my home to talk to me - why could that be? My daughter personally met and had discussion with Senator Paul in D.C. when she was an intern for the 2nd largest healthcare network in the States, and her boss was in D.C. to discuss campaign funding & contributions to the Senator. If I sent him an email, do you think he'd meet with me to discuss my concerns (unless I'm meeting him with bags of $$$)?
But I think your most reflective point for me was: you are right - President Obama needed to use his tremendous charisma and near-fanatical following to cohere the political will to accomplish his objectives. In this, he fell short. The oft-repeated phrase,
"He's a better campaigner, than leader" has some merit.
As to your fears of civil war, I can understand. I recently began thinking that if the North & South had divided along the Mason-Dixon Line, everyone might be a bit happier!