So, here are the current sides of the health care issue in this country. If you're a proponent of universal health care, you're a financial idiot. If you're not a proponent of universal health care, you hate poor people. Is there a middle ground? Specifically, is there a way to provide universal health care coverage in a privatized system? So, the premise is that the government would fully fund health care in this country, but they would not run it. The health care system would be run competitively amongst many healthcare providers and players in order to ensure rate competitiveness and efficiency of these government funds. Is this possible?

The minimum wage debate has struck up again with the newly elected Democratic majority in Congress. And thus, debates among my friends, acquaintances and intellectual inferiors as well. The popular argument amongst my pro-wage increase friends is, "What people don't understand is that increasing wages will increase spending capital and therefore increase revenues...so everybody wins." Me, in my jerk mentality goes, "great, let's raise the minimum wage to $60 an hour." The reply, "Well, obviously there's a limit." "Ok, great. Then, what is it?" my truthfully curious reply. Their retort, "Well, I think the proposed $7.25 is reasonable." Ok, here's the thing. There shouldn't be a debate about this anymore. If increasing the minimum wage (to an extent) helps everyone, then what is that ideal economic number? This is truly an economic question. What wage helps the most people? What? Economists say that magic number is $0? Those cruel, hateful jerks. Maybe that's what they are. Maybe they're right, but ignore basic rules of moral decency. But, let's at least look at the cons of raising the minimum wage, and understand that there ARE some before we try to hurry this vote through to "help" everyone.