I've dismissed Scientific American with a sneer more than a few times.

I stand corrected. There's nobody you won't sneer at for disagreeing with RightWing ideology.

It's not incorrect to point out that America's budgetary priorities are different than those of Scandinavian countries, but you're overlooking that those priorities have become increasingly controversial. A majority of Americans now understand that invading Iraq has been not only futile and gained us nothing in security, we've pissed away vast amounts of national wealth that could have been turned to better uses...like treating the festering sore of American health care.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if Bush had resisted the neocons and adhered to traditional Classic Conservative values. If Bush had been skeptical of foreign entanglements instead of rushing headlong into military adventurism, we'd have a secure homeland--you can bet the ports and borders wouldn't go unwatched for lack of funding--and security in our health too. America's net security has been reduced overall by the incredibly foolish priorities of Bush and the (New)Republicans.

Socialized health programs in Europe and elsewhere are slowly going broke.

Do you have any facts to back up that claim?