H.R. 1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

[Jerk]

Text of bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955)


(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.


The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.


So this means that Thomas Jefferson would go to jail if he were alive...


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their

Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

[Rogue]

Ummmm....bad bad bad news. Jerk invoking Jefferson...I like that.

I hope Limey posts in here just for his sig. Oh hell, here it is:


"This is America. We're proud. We're not afraid of a bunch of terrorists. But this government is all about terror alerts and scaring us at airports. We're changing the Constitution out of fear. We spend all our time looking up each other's dresses. Fear's the only issue the Republican Party has. Vote for them, or the terrorists will win." - Merle Haggard, October 2007

Edit:
And, yes, I realize the sponsor is a (D) and not an (R). I just hate the whole business of fear-mongering lately and am not trying to say that either party has cornered the market on it, just think Merle's quote is funny.

[yermom]

So this means that Thomas Jefferson would go to jail if he were alive...

in a word, yes.

you better win if you start some **** like that ;)

[Rogue]

This is just wrong in so many ways. Debate on and against this should have been lively and convincing.

[85Sooner]

Lock and Load

Lock and Load

[Jerk]

All this is making me kind of paranoid. I'm really starting to believe in this conspiracy stuff by a powerful ruling elite class. They have infiltrated both the Republican and Democrat parties and push issues that are designed to do to two things: 1. keep them in power 2. keep them rich. They use both right and left issues to accomplish this, while pitting both sides against each other. They need cheap labor and they're tired of paying middle class wages, hence, an open southern border. They need to get the guns out of the hands of the common man. They want to have control over the internet. They want all power centralized and away from the states.

I used to believe that socialism & communism was the boogie man but I now believe it is just a tool for a more sinister goal of keeping the ruling class in power.

I still believe in capitalism. It's a horrible system but I can't think of none better. However, I think the result we have now is corporations and robber barons that are waaaay more powerful and influential in DC than they should be.

[yermom]

when has the ruling class not been in power?

have you read Madison's 10th Federalist Paper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10


He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic) in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society.

in other words, since the poor working class outnumbers the rich ruling class needs to keep order somehow. this is how our constitution was designed.

i suppose it also leaves room for civil rights, but that probably wasn't really on anyone's minds at the time ;)

[Jerk]

I believe what Madison wrote. I hate when our government is referred to as a democracy. I prefer 'constitutional republic.'

The masses can be swayed to vote away individual rights.

[Okla-homey]

Just some food for thought...

The Constitution was partially drafted to protect a generally decent and good populace from the government. That was and is a good thing. I say "partially," because I beleive the main intent of the drafters was to set-up the world's first economic common market. They put in all that rights stuff as an afterthought in order to get more folks on board, and its a very good thing they did.

We should note, however, we have a large portion of our population who are not decent and good. I respectfully suggest the indecent and bad percentage of our population is much higher than it was in the 18th century when the first ten amendments (a/k/a The Bill of Rights) was added to the Constitution in order to grease its ratification.

Now, I don't know the answer. I only know the question. To wit, should we ever reconsider some of our constitutional rights given changing demographics among the American people? Or, is such meddling with the genius of the Founders too dangerous to contemplate?

At least one Founder once wrote our Constitution is powerless to govern a people unbridled by a sense of morality. That makes sense because the presumption of innocence of all those accused of crimes is kinda, well, sketchy as a practical matter.

OTOH, one can make a colorable argument the power of the state is so vast we need to keep those protections. I'm on record as stating if the prosecutor really wants to get you, you're going down -- with Duke rape case exceptions of course (wealthy defendants with the resources to mount a skillful defense). Therefore, each person should ask themselves the fundamental question if they believe, as I do, better that ten guilty go free than one innocent man go to the hoosegow.

These are tough nuts to crack. I guess at the end of the day, I'll put my money on the American people to do the right thing -- at least the ones who really matter in these debates, that is, the ones who vote. The scumbags and sh1t-kickers generally don't bother. Frankly, if you don't vote, I really don't place any value on your opinion on political matters.

[Frozen Sooner]

when has the ruling class not been in power?


Pretty much by definition, never.

I firmly believe in a ruling class, especially because I rule. ;)

[yermom]

ok, Randall :D

[SicEmBaylor]

when has the ruling class not been in power?

have you read Madison's 10th Federalist Paper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10



in other words, since the poor working class outnumbers the rich ruling class needs to keep order somehow. this is how our constitution was designed.

i suppose it also leaves room for civil rights, but that probably wasn't really on anyone's minds at the time ;)
Yep.
The masses weren't suppose to rule. The Constitution is set up in such a way that provides multiple safeguards against the whims of the masses.

Having said that though, the government has become way way way the hell too powerful and our elected Federal officials routinely circumvent and violate the constitution to serve their own ends.

Terrorism is NOT as big an issue as it has made out to be by some. As if our entire civilization could come crashing down at any moment. I absolutely believe that anyone who attacks these United States should be dealt with swiftly, but there are much bigger threats to our way of life and our national security out there.

[SicEmBaylor]

Frankly, if you don't vote, I really don't place any value on your opinion on political matters.

Why should you put any value in what a person says just because they vote? How difficult a thing is that to do, really? I mean, do you think that a person becomes instantly insightful on political matters because he filled in a few ovals?

Voting doesn't mean a damned thing and it's certainly no indicator of political intelligence.

[Frozen Sooner]

Moreover, why could a person exercise their franchise by choosing not to vote. If someone has researched the candidates involved and does not feel that they can vote for any of them in good conscience, why is that not a valid choice?

[SicEmBaylor]

Moreover, why could a person exercise their franchise by choosing not to vote. If someone has researched the candidates involved and does not feel that they can vote for any of them in good conscience, why is that not a valid choice?
It's a completely valid choice. It's a choice that I'm going to exercise this Presidential election if anyone but Thompson or Paul are the GOP nominee.

But, it's definitely a valid choice.

[Mongo]

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."


I just like this quote and wanted to use it

[Frozen Sooner]

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."


I just like this quote and wanted to use it

You've been watching too many liberal movies.

[Mongo]

mmmm. Evey Hamilton

[SicEmBaylor]

:rolleyes:

[Mongo]

you dont like Evey Hamilton?

[Rogue]

This bill bothers me. A lot. It's like the Patriot Act on growth hormones.

I have a couple of related (sort of) questions for you d00ds.

Homey, this may be for another thread but I have to wonder where you come down on capital punishment since you would rather 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent be denied liberty? Not trying to trick or trap you here, but the examples of innocents on death row are a big part of the reason why I'm against it. There are others, but this one is sufficient on its own for me.

For those of you that are big on states rights...I got to thinking about this last night when Mom was lamenting the state, cities, and counties in Idaho fighting about whether or not to burn trees with pine beetles in 'em. Mom thinks it is the cities right to burn or not burn and that the county and state should butt out. Got me to thinking about some of the discussions on here about the power structure between states and the feds.

I usually scratch my head about states' rights issues until some weirdo like the bill sponsor and those who voted for it try some crap like this.

- How parochial should government be?

Neighborhood, city, county, state, region, country, continent, groups of countries in the same club, world order, planetary...?

- Why is it that some folks get incited about states' rights, but don't get as wigged out when there's a bunch of gerrymandering with voting district lines like in Texas a few years ago?

- To what extent do you see these issues (states rights vs. strong fed) liberal v. conservative issues? Cause I see them separately and see the typical lib and con platforms as decreasingly relevant to most of us Joe Q. Publics. I seriously think some viable 3rd(+) parties are on the way.

- Do these questions need to be in another thread?

[Okla-homey]

Why should you put any value in what a person says just because they vote? How difficult a thing is that to do, really? I mean, do you think that a person becomes instantly insightful on political matters because he filled in a few ovals?

Voting doesn't mean a damned thing and it's certainly no indicator of political intelligence.

You're turning my contention on its head. I hold that the opinions of people who don't vote simply don't matter. Voting does not add additional value to a person's opinion. It merely means their opinion has value and is relevant. Those who do not vote are irrelevant in the political process and therefore their opinions are irrelevant.

That is why I don't get to spun up about what people on the extreme end of the aisle think. On the extreme right, most of those folks don't vote because they fear voting will allow the government to track them via the chip quickly and painlessly implanted in their brain inside the voting booth. Or, alternatively, they believe the existing government is illegitimate and voting would be a concession it is legitimate.

As an aside, the way we caught the moster Mcvey was because his car had no plate. people on the looney right were for a time, going tagless to make a political statement the government had no right to make them buy and display one. Although I don't know for sure of course, I'd bet he didn't vote either.

The extreme left doesn't vote because they fear leaving their home unguarded in case the government jackbooted thugs bust in and steal their peyote stash or 11,000 copies of Mao's Little Red Book. Ditto the illegitimate government beliefs shared by the looney right.:D

[Okla-homey]

This bill bothers me. A lot. It's like the Patriot Act on growth hormones.

I have a couple of related (sort of) questions for you d00ds.

Homey, this may be for another thread but I have to wonder where you come down on capital punishment since you would rather 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent be denied liberty? Not trying to trick or trap you here, but the examples of innocents on death row are a big part of the reason why I'm against it. There are others, but this one is sufficient on its own for me.



I oppose capital punishment on three grounds. First, is the the one you cite.
Secondly, its arbitrarily applied. If you're poor or your skin is brown, your odds of getting the needle are much higher than if you're white or wealthy. That is also the reason I believe it will be declared unconstitutional on equal-protection grounds within the next ten years. Finally, for people who are convicted of particularly heinous crimes who deserve extreme punishment, I can think of nothing worse than life w/o parole in a maximum security prison.

See, when hope is lost, that's my definition of Hell. A quick and painless death would be a relief to people like that. That said, a beneficial side-effect of LWOP is they remain alive and if new exculpatory evidence comes to light which exonerates them, we hold a new trial and if they are found innocent, we open the door and let them walk. If they're dead, that possibility is extinguished with their life.

So yes, I oppose capital punishment. I'm also pro-life. I feel it's intellectually inconsistent to be one and not the other.

[Frozen Sooner]

So yes, I oppose capital punishment. I'm also pro-life. I feel it's intellectually inconsistent to be one and not the other.

Not if you don't believe that humanhood is conferred at conception.

[Okla-homey]

Not if you don't believe that humanhood is conferred at conception.

When then, pray tell, is humaness conferred?

and FWIW, I don't have much problem with RU486, or similar "morning after" remedies. I personally draw the line at the point the fetus loses it's gills.

[Frozen Sooner]

When then, pray tell, is humaness conferred?

and FWIW, I don't have much problem with RU486, or similar "morning after" remedies. I personally draw the line at the point the fetus loses it's gills.

Whoa, there. I wasn't advocating a particular side. Just stating that it's intellectually consistent to be anti-death-penalty and pro-choice if you happen to not believe that humanity is instantaneous.

Were I to start parsing it myself, I'd probably start from viability and work backwards in time from there using standards of nervous system development. I don't have either the time or inclination to do so, though.

[Ike]

Moreover, why could a person exercise their franchise by choosing not to vote. If someone has researched the candidates involved and does not feel that they can vote for any of them in good conscience, why is that not a valid choice?
It is a valid choice. However, rather than let the politicos think that I am simply apathetic towards them, as I imagine a lot of non-voters are, when this is the case, I will go to the polls and turn in a blank ballot (or rather a ballot with all but the race with 2 bad choices in it filled out). While no one may notice it, I believe that it sends the desired message more effectively than staying home.

[Frozen Sooner]

It is a valid choice. However, rather than let the politicos think that I am simply apathetic towards them, as I imagine a lot of non-voters are, when this is the case, I will go to the polls and turn in a blank ballot (or rather a ballot with all but the race with 2 bad choices in it filled out). While no one may notice it, I believe that it sends the desired message more effectively than staying home.

Yeah, but it's cold up here on Election Day!

(I've voted in every election I've been old enough for, but I've been sorely tempted to withhold my vote many times. I wish they'd let you save your votes or something. :D)

[OUinFLA]

Why should you put any value in what a person says just because they vote? How difficult a thing is that to do, really? I mean, do you think that a person becomes instantly insightful on political matters because he filled in a few ovals?

Voting doesn't mean a damned thing and it's certainly no indicator of political intelligence.

Especially if you have to completly push out those little bitty pieces of cardboard with a stylus pencil. This requires physical strength, dexterity, and good eyesight.

Discriminatory at the very least!

Besides, Florida is already filled with the ruling class. Just ask around.

[Ike]

Yeah, but it's cold up here on Election Day!

(I've voted in every election I've been old enough for, but I've been sorely tempted to withhold my vote many times. I wish they'd let you save your votes or something. :D)

I wish that in addition to voting yea for candidate A or B, you could also instead vote nay for candidate A or B. The one thing I hate most about our voting system is that more often or not, you have to vote for the lesser of 2 jagoffs...especially for offices in DC. and I hate that in order to vote against the biggest jagoff, I have to give a vote for another jagoff. I'd rather just be able to say "not this guy, for sure", and have it count as a negative vote for him.

I know in practice its the same thing...but theres something about the principle of it that I like.

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, I like that, particularly in elections where more than just a simple plurality would be required for winning.

[OUinFLA]

seems like a lot of my voting IS against someone.
kinda like rooting against fb teams on Saturday thanks to the BCS

[Ike]

I usually scratch my head about states' rights issues until some weirdo like the bill sponsor and those who voted for it try some crap like this.

- How parochial should government be?

Neighborhood, city, county, state, region, country, continent, groups of countries in the same club, world order, planetary...?

- Why is it that some folks get incited about states' rights, but don't get as wigged out when there's a bunch of gerrymandering with voting district lines like in Texas a few years ago?

- To what extent do you see these issues (states rights vs. strong fed) liberal v. conservative issues? Cause I see them separately and see the typical lib and con platforms as decreasingly relevant to most of us Joe Q. Publics. I seriously think some viable 3rd(+) parties are on the way.

- Do these questions need to be in another thread?
a: I have no idea how parochial govt should be...but one thing I know is that all governments tend toward greater parochialism over time. money=power, and the govt at the top generally is able to collect the most of it, and thus they usually wind up making all the rules and overrulling localities whenever it floats their boat.

2: as to gerrymandering, it happens everywhere, and IMO, is one of the things that most undermines the spirit of the constitution. Unfortunately, districts have to be drawn, and re-drawn due to population re-distribution every N years. and certain areas tend to vote certain ways. It's been shown before that a state that is, say 60% blue by population, can wind up having 70% or more of its representatives being Red simply due to clever re-districting. There is really no way around the unfortunate fact of gerrymandering.

iii: first, see the bit above about gerrymandering. It is a tactic that is also often employed to keep the two party system well enshrined and to kill any third party threat that may arise in any state, so while I think it would be nice for some more parties to get into the game, I don't think it will happen for quite some time. It used to be that the cons typically were the states rights party, but they aren't anymore. They still talk a decent game when it comes to that, but thats about it. It simply turns out that when politicians get to DC, they find they have a lot of power. They like that power, and they want to expand it. Local politicians are more likely to be strong states-rights folk, and DC politicians are more likely to be strong fed folk. At least thats how it seems to me.

[Turd_Ferguson]

When then, pray tell, is humaness conferred?

and FWIW, I don't have much problem with RU486, or similar "morning after" remedies. I personally draw the line at the point the fetus loses it's gills.So, you mean once it's head passes the vaginal canal?

[Curly Bill]

Why should you put any value in what a person says just because they vote? How difficult a thing is that to do, really? I mean, do you think that a person becomes instantly insightful on political matters because he filled in a few ovals?

Voting doesn't mean a damned thing and it's certainly no indicator of political intelligence.

Excellent point...Kind of like when someone has had children they think it makes them an expert on child raising...NOT!

[Octavian]

So this means that Thomas Jefferson would go to jail if he were alive...


Yeah...so??


Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders are just a bunch of dead men from several centuries ago. And the founding document they wrote is, according to The Decider, "just a god*mn piece of paper."


It's a new day in America. What we really need now is more war and less personal freedom.....and we've got 2 parties that are more than happy to give us both.


So just be quiet and wave your flag.


How about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and c'mon in for the big win?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Excellent point...Kind of like when someone has had children they think it makes them an expert on child raising...NOT!
Excellent point...Kind of like when someone has voted they think it makes them an expert on politics...NOT!

[Turd_Ferguson]

So just be quiet and wave your flag. What flag are you wavin'?

[Octavian]

What flag are you wavin'?


http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8397/refflagsmallva3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8397/refflagsmallva3.gif (http://imageshack.us)Sorry, I couldn't make out any Red, White or Blue. What flag is that?

[Octavian]

Sorry, I couldn't make out any Red, White or Blue. What flag is that?


It's a penalty flag, turd. But you make a good point.....I love the French flag as much as the next guy.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It's a penalty flag, turd. But you make a good point.....I love the French flag as much as the next guy.I love the french flag as well, they seem to be finally getting the picture. But, If someone mentioned Red, White & Blue???? France would be the 2nd thing I thought of. Just my opinion of course.

[Vaevictis]

So this means that Thomas Jefferson would go to jail if he were alive...

Heh, and they wouldn't before?

Signing the Declaration of Independence is an act of treason, even under our government, yes?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Heh, and they wouldn't before?

Signing the Declaration of Independence is an act of treason, even under our government, yes?Please, elaborate.

[Vaevictis]

Please, elaborate.

Elaboration is necessary? I would think it would be self-evident that it's treason. They were all British subjects -- most, if not all, self-sworn subjects. Just read it:


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

To paraphrase: "We're now an independent nation. And if you say otherwise, we're willing to take up arms against you." That was (and is) treason.

The only reason they didn't get executed is because they won.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Elaboration is necessary? I would think it would be self-evident that it's treason. They were all British subjects -- most, if not all, self-sworn subjects. Just read it:



To paraphrase: "We're now an independent nation. And if you say otherwise, we're willing to take up arms against you." That was (and is) treason.

The only reason they didn't get executed is because they won.I've lost where were going with this.....what's your point:confused:

[Vaevictis]

I've lost where were going with this.....what's your point:confused:

Well, Jerk commented (wrt this bill) that Thomas Jefferson (et al, I assume) would have gone to jail. I was commenting that having committed treason (heh, and sent a letter to that effect to the king), they'd all go to jail anyway.

(also, after reading the bill, I must be missing something -- as far as I can tell, the bill seems to just create a working group that will come up with strategies for fighting domestic terrorism, and directs various government agencies to implement them. I may have just missed it, but as far as I saw, it's just for enforcing laws already on the books.)

[Turd_Ferguson]

Well, Jerk commented (wrt this bill) that Thomas Jefferson (et al, I assume) would have gone to jail. I was commenting that having committed treason, they'd all go to jail anyway.You mean if "long shanks"(or his predocessor's) would have caught them?

[Vaevictis]

You mean if "long shanks(or his predocessor's) would have caught them?

Well, I think Jerk was assuming if they were around today, but yeah.

Gotta give the guys some credit though -- it takes some serious stones to draft and sign your own death warrant, and then have it delivered to the powerful guy who's going to try see it executed.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Well, I think Jerk was assuming if they were around today, but yeah.

Gotta give the guys some credit though -- it takes some serious stones to draft and sign your own death warrant, and then have it delivered to the powerful guy who's going to try see it executed.I think that's what we call a "Patriot";)

[Rogue]

...also, after reading the bill, I must be missing something -- as far as I can tell, the bill seems to just create a working group that will come up with strategies for fighting domestic terrorism, and directs various government agencies to implement them. I may have just missed it, but as far as I saw, it's just for enforcing laws already on the books.)

Yeah, I'm a little defused now. Thanks for being the voice of reason. It looks like mostly establishing an academic study center to research ways to defuse terrorism here. Not even "enforce" laws but study how these groups proliferate and ways to sabotage their efforts. I suppose those (of us) SO posters who believe that overthrowing an oppressive government is a legitimate option could be part of the study.

Still...the language in this bill is a little broad and somewhat ominous.

[Vaevictis]

I used to believe that socialism & communism was the boogie man but I now believe it is just a tool for a more sinister goal of keeping the ruling class in power.

I think that this is not an either/or situation. The extreme ends of socialism and communism are "boogie men", and the fear of them was/is used as a tool.

Same goes for this "terrorism" thing -- there are bad guys out there who will use terrorism as a strategy to get what they want. And there are bad guys out there who will use fighting terrorism as a strategy to get what they want.

You just have to be very careful how you react to these things; if you allow yourself to react to these things emotionally, there are very skilled people out there who are going to try to leverage that emotion to manipulate you. For every Churchill, FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan, there's a Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mousillini.

Bush has been very successful post-9/11 in leveraging these emotions to get what he wants. I would posit the question: How many people are there out there that supported the President on issues due to their emotions who would not have supported the President had they stepped back and viewed the situation with cold rationality? Did we really want to set the precedent that the President should have some of the powers in peace time -- because legally, that's our status -- he's assumed in the past 6 years?


I still believe in capitalism. It's a horrible system but I can't think of none better.
The problem isn't capitalism. The problem is a near religious faith by some people that markets are the answer to everything. They're not. There are many goods and markets for which capitalism automatically approximates the optimal allocation of resources. But there are many where capitalism doesn't.

Medicine is one of them -- your demand for a heart transplant isn't going to change just because the cost is astronomical. If you need it, you're likely to pay whatever price is asked. Fishing in the ocean is another -- there's almost no incremental cost to fishing in the ocean, so people are going to tend to fish it to exhaustion.

Markets have certain conditions that must be met in order for them to work, and in the above cases (and in many others), these assumptions are violated, and markets fail.

So, I would suggest that you not develop a bad taste in your mouth for capitalism -- it's not a horrible system -- just recognize that (1) there are people out there that will exploit your emotional response against non-capitalistic systems for their own gain, (2) there are plenty of situations where markets do work and result in an allocation of resources that is very nearly optimal, and (3) there are likewise plenty of situations where markets do not work, and maybe we should be looking for something better.

(For example, a question: People say that the United States has the very best medical system in the world. If we assume that this statement is true, is it true because our system for allocating medical resources is the best in the world, or is it just that as a nation we're so wealthy that we can afford to throw away tons of money on market inefficiencies and in spite of it still get a better result?)