Iron Man was the only regular feature in Tales of Suspense from #39 to #48. Then a series called "Tales of the Watcher" appeared in the back starting with #49. Most of the Tales of the Watcher featured the Watcher narrating stories with twist endings like the horror/fantasy/monster stories that had been appearing in tales of Suspense from the beginning. Some of the stories were actually about things that happened to the Watcher.

The last tale of the Watcher appeared in TOS #58. That's the issue where Captain America guest-stars in the Iron Man story. As of #59, Captain America was added to the line-up and there were no more of those 5-page horror/fantasy/monster stories.

I feel Delgado's Master was so much more subtle, sinister and evil than Ainley's version. You could see and feel the respect and sometimes fear that Pertwee's Doctor had for the Master. While I do love Ainsley's interpretation i thing without Delgado's original malevolent machination's to draw from Ainsley would just be over the top character acting. 

It looks to me  - once again, as an outsider to the US - like part of the completely emotional, i.e. irrational, American view of the term "socialism" and its derivatives. In American discourse its negative associations are almost impossible to overcome with many people, though Bernie Sanders seems to have made some headway in recent months.

You're correct about rights being a strictly social concept and not "natural" in the biological sense. However, like most things in life, our perspective on what constitutes a right is based in whether you believe in positive or negative rights. It seems that you believe in the former while I believe in the latter, and that's perfectly fine. As to your point about education, I view it as an entitlement, though one where the general consensus isn't ambiguous. I personally am in favor of K-12 public education, though not for colleges. However, I can understand if someone else applies negative rights to education as well for the sake of ideological consistency.

I don't want to derail this thread with abstract debates on what denotes rights and not, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents on the matter. 

I simply meant that I view a right as something that you have inherently as a person. Since healthcare is something external given as a product or service, I personally don't define it as a right. Sorry for any confusion!

That would be a perfectly reasonable argument for a private health care system, but the invisible hand of commerce once again makes things complicated... Health Insurance companies and health providers are selling something people can hardly do without, and so make a killing (figuratively speaking, of course). Per capita spending in the US, when it comes to healthcare, is much higher in the US than in the other western countries; and because medicare and medicaid must face higher prices here than elsewhere, the net result is that the govenment still has to pay massive amounts... even without the population benifitting from universal access. 

The winners are not the taxpayers; it's the health care and insurance industries. 

The real peril with a state-run healthcare system is that like any governmental governmental operation, it can be mismanaged and become very inefficient. But that's a problem any new government can address during a new mandate, and meanwhile people still get access to care.

As a Canadian, I pay more taxes than in the US, true. But during the past three years, my family enjoyed (well, "enjoyed" may not be the exact verb) two eye surgeries, two hospital treatments for mild heart attacks, one spinal surgery, one cancer surgery, one prolonged stay for septicemia and the assorted check-ups. For a grand total of not one cent. Even better, I know that my neighbours can receive the same treatment! 

Having lived under both systems and having received excellent care in both, I prefer the state-funded one.