Indeed, even most of 45 million Americans who go without insurance because they can't afford premiums oppose alternative of not-for-profit system. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that there'd be no significant risk to capitalism in this solution. We've already got "socialized" institutions in this country—police and fire departments, for example—that hardly infringe on our freedom to take advantage of one another. A few more would still leave us with plenty of opportunities to ripoff our fellow man.

(And speaking of a not-for-profit health care system, does anyone seriously think that dealing with a government bureaucracy would somehow be more brutal than dealing with Aetna, Prudential or Oxford?)

So what’s left to do when revolt is no more in offing than government intervention is?

Unfortunately, beyond fantasizing that our growing population of serial killers (folks who’ve made it clear that accumulating money isn’t their first priority) will develop a sense of civic responsibility to go with their skills and proclivity, I haven’t come up with much. Certainly nothing that would yield more than smallest of rewards at price of considerable personal sacrifice.

I’m speaking of getting sick a lot; using, you know, hell out of my policy. By constantly contracting illnesses that require frequent doctor visits, extended hospitalization and enormous quantities of pharmaceuticals, I’d have satisfaction of at least putting a dent in an HMO's profits.

Yeah, I know, but I like pharmaceuticals part and it WOULD be a step up from omitting zip codes.

I know typical objection to allowing just anybody to have weapons of mass destruction, but what can we do when it cannot be prevented? Certainly we will have equivalent of a global wild west, when many adults were armed twenty four hours per day and lawless killed one another, as best they could. That doesn't happen so much as it once did, but lawless folks of those days had very short careers. Now they find a way to become heads of states for 30 and 40 years, in some cases. This is because no one with superior force objects to their rule in any meaningful way, until very recently.

If South Africa gave up its nuclear development program, it was not just to appease non proliferation dreamers. It was to save money in absence of a strong external threat. Other would-be nuclear powers are not that fortunate. They have or imagine serious threats to sovereignty and rightfully so in either case. Why don't we make friends of Iran and North Korea, before they get their nukes? Let U.S. send a new message. America will treat you right, even if you have no nukes and you are decidedly more evil than we are. But then, we hate those more evil than us, unless they have nukes already. It is our duty to punish those we can get away with punishing. Ask U.S. President.

It is mostly those who pose no threat to others that remain un-threatened by others. The United States poses a threat to entire world and entire world has become a threat to United States. “All king's horses and all king's men” cannot prevent future attacks, no matter how much credit they spend. Only when people of world are armed with weapons of mass destruction that could be readily used against them, will there be any serious discussion of disarmament on a global scale. Until then, every have-not has a duty to become a have, in order to end dominance and submission games dominants so love to play. Long live Mutually Assured Destruction! All for nukes and nukes for all! At least until love becomes globally preferred to fear as a means of social control.