ed2

I still don't think you fully understood what I meant. Yes, as I said, it is possible for more parties to run in an election in both USA and UK, it is just much harder to get represented, because you have a system of plurality voting instead of proportionate voting. I have studied political sience for 3 years in university, I especially love electoral systems, so I know this, but my English isn't always technical enough to explain what I mean. You could try reading this: Plurality voting - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Proportional representation - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Her bates are real though. Sometimes covered, sometimes not. But never faked, as some girls do. ❤️

Nah, that wouldn't be too bad. 😏

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about party representation. I called it majority voting, but I see the English term is plurality voting.

I followed your elections 4 years ago very close. You had 4 parties running for office! The Republican party, the Democratic party, the Libertarian party and the Green party. Only two of them mattered, the others have never gotten a single seat. I'll try to explain.... USA, just like the UK, has majority elections. It means if the Democratic party get 50% of the votes in California, it will get all of California's seats in Congress. You either win majority, or you are out of the game, it is extremely difficult for a third or forth party to get represented, and that is what makes it a two party system. Most democracies in Europe (not UK though) have representative elections. It means if a party get 50% of the votes in a region, it will only get half of that region's seats in Parliament, the rest of the seats goes to the smaller parties. For example, if a get 20% of the votes, it will have 20% of seats. We might have many parties represented in Parliament, and very often none of them have majority. But believe it or not, this is actually making it more effective. All parties are always ready to make compromisses and collaborate to forward their cause. Whereas in your system things tend to get abit polarized between the two parties, and they often block each other's policies.

A big part of that, IMO, is that many of your institutions are far too big, bureucratic and undemocratic. ALOT more power should be moved from the federal level, and down to the states or even the counties. Untill a few years ago, hospitals here in Norway were run by the counties, not by the state. I believe it is the vast distance between the ground and the decission makers that make everything so extremely unefficient and undemocratic. All power should be at the lowest level possible, and that's why I am agains the EU too, it is too big and unefficient. That said, a private enterprice might always be alittle bit more efficiently run than a public one, but the surplus in efficiency doesn't always end up resulting in a better services, it very often just end up in the pockets of the billionar owner(s). Then it becomes a question of when you think it is worth it, and not. Another issue is how your democracy is built up. Corporporatives can almost rig who wins an election, by pouring money into a third party PAC, and therefore it is more important for most of your mainstream politicians to stay in good relationship with the big corporporatives than it is for them to stay in good relationship with the electorate. Because the corporporatives basically paid for their whole campaign. This could easily be improved by making a law against PACs, only persons can contribute directly to the campaigns, and setting a roof for single donations. The election of Trump was a pretty clear protest against this system, I had hoped that with him in office some of these things might change, but it hasn't yet. It is Congress that is the legislator, and it is still made up of career politicians, who are too dependent on these PACs.

USA has no free health care, but as @Thestarider has pointed out several times here, if you absolutely cannot afford it, the state (in American terminology: government) will cover basic insurance. It is not the same as universal health care though.

Green: universal health care. Blue: some degree of free health care, but not universal. Red: no universal health care.

Universal health care. This map speak by itself.

USA has in fact had somewhat of a universal welfare state in the past though. Under president Franklin D. Roosevelt, who reformed the economy to save it from collaps in the 1930s. Probably the most left wing president you ever had.

It is the opposite with Religion. Faith became something you embraced in your new country, because you were now free to practice it as you want. In Europe, the church has always been an opressor, often even worse than the king, so we have fought for centuries to lessen religion's influense on society.

EU is not a union in the same sense as USA. You are one federal country, made up of 50 "states". In the same way Germany is a federal country, made up of 16 "bundesländer". EU is closer to a trade and passport union, between separate countries.

Yes, I think it all boils down to a fundamentally different view between Europeans and Americans. The answer may lay in our history. We see the state (government) as something more communal, maybe because we have always lived under the same state, and by working together we changed it into something good. You tend to see it as something that limits you, the government is a always a sort of opressor of freedom, but then your history starts with your forefathers fleeing from the kingdoms of Europe, and then they chased the opressive state from your new country. We will probably never see eye to eye on this, but it is an interesting debate.

I disagree. If there are limited capacity, like under a big pandemic in Italy now, you will always need to prioritize. The difference is that here you will get prioritized on the background of how serious your medical condition is, instead of your insurance plan.

Yes, you do have a sort of security net, to catch those who fall outside your system, but that is pretty far from the idea of universal welfare. A security net is tax payer's charity to poor people. Universal welfare is a way to organize society that benefits both rich and poor. Read my earlier post:

Refusing emergency treatment would be plain inhuman. No countries do that!

Except in cases where an experimental drug are legal in the USA, while it is not yet aproved here, I think there are pretty few Europeans and Canadians that go to USA for its healthcare though. The ones who do mass flee to take advantage of your healthcare however, are Latin Americans, because they do have poorer healthcare system. I'm very happy that you say you have a good health insurance. The question here is in the etics in only offering the best healthcare to those who can afford a good insurance, instead of prioritize after who need it the most, medically.

Babi bating! ❤️

The epidemic hasn't really hit USA full force yet, but we will see in the next several weeks. Another factor might be that alot of people without a proper insurance might not have good enough paid sick leave, and in the next step unemployment benefits, so they can simply not afford to stay home from work. Anyway, this is not a competition, it is more a question of political ideology, and ethics. Let us hope someone find a vaxine as soon as possible. And there you probably stand a much better chance than anyone, because you have such a strong culture for private investments and funding of research.

Things point towards Bogdan now having the role Nora/Kiko had before.

Finally! Welcome Mimi! ❤️

I think I answered that pretty clearly earlier:

I don't know why they haven't given the guest a place on the project yet. She is gorgeous! Beautiful! Adorable! ❤️😍

I'll give them a compliment too. They had a friend I loved...

It wasn't too bad Diane left the party. She did a nice bate on her bed. Yeah, I'm glad that she left, the "party" turned pretty quick into a silly show, and Diane did a pretty good bate instead. 🍓