I hate argument by example. Why? Because we choose only the examples that fit our paradigm.
For every example of good Rugby, I can cite an example to counter it. England used a stodgy defense combined with tactical kicking. They made it to the World Cup Final. France slings the ball around, attacking from everywhere. They knocked out the tourney favs. NZ somewhere in the middle. Their rotation system cost them another World Cup. Each team has it's successes and it's failures. Go Bokkes!
For every horrible case about some sick person not getting the care they need, or having to sell their kids to pay the bills, etc. etc. I can site an example of someone getting all the care they need and then some. Cindy died b/c her surgery wasn't approved. Bob got the liver transplant just in time.
Here in the PRSF (That's People's Republic of San Francisco), a homeless man came into the General Hospital. He had a very rare blood condition that required a prescription medication that cost $6,000,000.00.
Yes, kids, 6 Million dollars.
Did he get his medicine? Yep. Why? Cuz he was smart enough to walk into a public hospital. And, ethically, he should receive this care. No life is worth more than any other life. This gentlemen resumed his life on the streets. That is his choice.
You choose to be on the left or right of this issue.
You choose to have your employer pay for you health insurance or buy your own.
You choose to read your coverage statement or not. (Most ppl have no idea how health insurance works....ooh, new topic?)
You choose to Play Rugby or play softball.
You may even make the idiotic choice having no insurance.
England chose to play stodgy, combining old veterans with young talent. New Zealand chose a rotation system over building a starting 15. France chose to be France. (Gotta luv 'em)
A good fly-half once said, "Good players support. Great players make decisions."
And remember, making no decision is a choice.
So, verily, I say unto you...