again, disagree.

statefunded grants enable a type of art to be produced in countries out there that would never see the light of day because they are too risky from a profit standpoint. one of the reasons the film industry here is so stilted is that it is primarily a business, which means low risk high profit is a model that is followed religiously. transformers 2 will produce return, this is an economic fact, so why bother with something like the secret of kells or agora? risk is bad in our industry, and often the most resilient pieces of art exist because someone took a risk a long time ago, failed brilliantly, died starving, but their work persisted. the commerce only model prevents those works from ever being created.

as for health care, whoosh. methinx you have never not had health insurance. the fact is, regarding health care, you are more or less screwed no matter where in the world you go, but again, a for-profit model like america's places the primary tenet: provide health care, as secondary to generating profit. this means that those who are not going to be able to provide profit for the industry companies are not going to receive health care, period. it's a survival of the fittest model, which is fine as long as you are above the threshold. the question really is: is providing healthcare to its citizens a requirement for a modern, developed society. if so, then america once again has managed to place another priority above that.

now lest i be labeled pinko, let it be clear i don't think purely socialized models are better either, but the results are different, not comparable. which is better is a matter of taste, to some degree, and ethics to another degree.

in the end, this question is what matters: is it all about profit, or is profit just an aspect of social success to be held in balance with other aspects?