Typical. Who is bringing race, sexual orientation, and cultural background into this? The so-called liberals! Those of us who are against socialism are not the racist ones - we disagree with the issues. The liberals are the racists here.

The comment from Florida55 that you lauded, Amy, is 100% wrong. Neither party is insisting on equality of result. That is a smear, better disguised than most, but a smear, nonetheless.

Both party's want equality of opportunity and neither cares significantly more than the other about equality of result. Welfare recipients, for the most part, aren't living high on the hog. Their situations don't seem to be anything I'd be proud to claim. They don't even attain a lower middle class income on welfare.

Where the disagreement lies is what stands as an impediment to equal opportunity. Or at least, a pretense of disagreement. The individual elected officials probably have more in common than they're willing to admit. What they're doing is compromising what they know to be for the common good for the sake of their constituents.

As for immigration, I hope you're not suggesting that one party is anti-immigration, and the other is pro-immigration. Neither is anti-immigration. Anti-immigration is simply the position that one party pretends to have while the other is in power.

Yes, liberals are now in control, but it wasn't that way for most of Bush's last term. Nonetheless, Bush threatened to veto any anti-immigration bill that didn't include amnesty for the ones already here. Both parties have sold us out on immigration, for their own reasons. The conservatives are not anti-immigration because it means cheap labor for their corporate backers. And the liberals are not because it means basically imported votes. As you point out, they get free education, free medical care, etc. -- hell, they get it better than we do, because they don't have to pay for it!

"Neither party is insisting on equality of result. That is a smear, better disguised than most, but a smear, nonetheless."

Uh, not from my point of view. Aka most of feminism's equality laws (wage gap dishonesty), sexual harrassment (a double whammy there from both political sides), and affirmative action laws are all about equality of result. Same with school funding issues and public vs private. Who pushes those laws the most?

By the way, Amy, I saw you on The Filter where you and David Reese butted heads. Actually, you were pretty much in agreement, except for Obama pushing to have the Olympics in Chicago. You did very well.

And ditto with your appearance on the The Filter with Celeste Fremon.

"less educated ... than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack"

All you need to know about this imbicilic lying blowhard isthat quote. The atual quote is: "although they tend to be less educated than liberls, tea party members are more educated than the average joe and jane sixpack"

Anyone who intentionally misleads by misquoting a "study" to try and prop up their flaming racism deserves to be mocked, and mocked hard. I'm off to his comments section to try my best.

and sorry for the typos.

I got email from FL Senator Bill Nelson where he shares with me a speech he made about the health care bill. I didn't get very far because in the first paragraph he says we "have a right not to be destroyed by sickness." I think I'm going to have to ask him if we also have a right not to grow old. I'll let you know if I get a reply that actually addresses the point. More likely, I'll just get a generic issue response letter which totally ignores what I said.

It isn't Republican vs Democrat anymore. We Americans still think it is, but the what the Republicans accuse Democrats of, and what Democrats accuse Republicans of, is often the same thing.

The Greens and Libertarians have more in common with each other than either of the two main parties.

It isn't about whether Elephants or Donkeys are better, it's about needing a new mascot.

NicoleK, you must know some Greens that I haven't heard of. All of the Greens that I know of are absolutely hard-over on government control of every aspect of life.

Conservatives have been saying for years that what leftists want is fundementally incompatible with American values. When I first heard this back in the '80s, I regarded it as hyperbole. It took a good while for me to see the truth of that. But it is true, and the recent description I've seen of our current situation as being "cold civil war" is apt. And yes, it isn't necessarily a party-line division; there's a fair number of Republicans who would be happy as apparatchiks.

"have a right not to be destroyed by sickness."

I'd tell that to my friend Cathy Seipp, but she died of cancer. With health insurance and disability from Lloyd's of London, which she paid for herself as a freelancing writer. That disability insurance was expensive, but she had a daughter, and that's the right thing to do when you're a divorced mom supporting a child. So, she almost never bought herself clothes, and drove a Volvo that was about as old as her teenage daughter.

I likewise went without a few things (a bed, for example) to pay my health insurance. My parents sent me to college, which was very nice of them, and I figured, if something went catastrophically wrong of me, I shouldn't expect them to consider mortgaging their house or the public to pick up my tab.

Some people are without health insurance because it's tied to jobs they've lost or because they can't get it reasonably across state lines. Others have pre-existing conditions -- and heh - if they're kids, they won't be covered by Obamacare, the geniuses. But, lots of people don't because they chose to spend their money on other things -- when Cathy Seipp and I were paying for our health insurance every month, from our 20s on.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whoops-ObamaCare-doesnt-cover-pre-existing-conditions-after-all-89007962.html

How many of you think a majority of people supposedly representing us even read the damn bill?

Along the lines of what you write, and agree with, I thought Brent Bozell had a good article this week titled "Dissent's Noble — Until Aimed At Democrats". The article can be seen at:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528446

I think it was commentator and author Bernard Goldberg who said for a section of the American population the civil rights movement of the 1960s never ended. It is always 1965, Selma, Alabama for them.

Someday, hopfully, that mentality, the never ending 1960s civil rights movement - and todays racist witch hunts - will end. And it will eventually. I was born in the 1970s. My generation did not witness wide spread racial bigotry that past times had. For me, todays constant watch for racists appears strange and out dated.

So in other words, he would have us believe that the country is so racist they would cheat themselves out of health care because a biracial president supports it, but this same country wasn't racist enough to elect the white man he ran against in 2008.

That's so illogical.

It is not the president, or the speaker, or Frank people are opposing. They just don't trust the government to handle the health care system efficiently.

I think this is why things get nasty. The left thinks they are arguing whether not people should be healthy and treated when they are sick, and the right is arguing about whether or not the government should have this power. They are arguing to completely different questions.

Me, I wish everyone would buy health insurance before they are sick and get the treatment they need. However, it's a free country and I don't see where just because something may be good for a person to do that it is constitutional to force them to do it.

The SPLC is another dinosaur. Al "Hymietown" Sharpton incites a race riot - silence. Eric Rudolph bombs an abortion clinic - the South is rising again. They are obvious in their biases, anyway.

The war is over, and they won. Now they have to find a new mission, or the money will dry up. They could do something useful, like work on fixing our abysmal educational system, or figuring out what it would take to keep blacks out of the criminal justice system in such numbers. That would be hard and not glamorous enough, and would gore the wrong oxen, so we get what is basically a Civil War reenactment society for hippies.

Bravo! You and florida55 are spot on. Pity so many don't get it.

One point about the uninsured that I never hear made is that for many it is more cost effective to pay medical expenses out of pocket than to pay for insurance that is never used. Might as well flush the money.

Health insurance has been being used for purposes other than what it was intended for. It originally was to help people with extraordinary medical expenses in the event of serious illness or accident. It was not intended to be used for running to the emergency room for every sniffle or scratch.

Prepaid health care plans and health savings accounts are much better solutions than insurance or the federal government running anything.

"personal responsibilitarian." I like that!

@Terry: "One point about the uninsured that I never hear made is that for many it is more cost effective to pay medical expenses out of pocket than to pay for insurance that is never used. Might as well flush the money."
_______________

Agreed.

One could argue they are saving by paying out of pocket. One could argue that they are taking a risk, because they may end up having $50,000 bypass surgery or have two battles with cancer like my wife did (cost totaling over $100,000).

The key point is that it should be a personal choice as to what risk or cost people accept.

Soul the constant watch for racists is a device. It's maintained to attack political opponents and shield the left from accountability, as the article above demonstrates.

And you can see why, according to Mr. Blow, criticism of preferred racial or ethnic minorities, or homosexuals, or women, must arise from an irrational animus and so is illegitimate.

By this logic, there's no legitimate means of criticizing the actions of the President, his appointees, or our elected representatives, if they belong to a protected group. So you get the benefits of an authoritarian system w/o having to go to the trouble of declaring one.

Patrick, you need to find out what the EEOC is doing. It is indeed about equality of result, not equality of opportunity.

They will say, we don't have quotas, but you don't have enough women and minorities. This is called doublespeak, and it is about equality of result. I don't like to say it, but you have no clue what is really happening.

Most of the article was simply an ad hominem attack. Make up some fictional defect and toss it at those who disagree with you.

I have always been amazed that the party of slavery and the KKK is the party the minorities view as caring more for them. that party still thinks minorities are so stupid and lazy they can't possibly be capable of getting a job and taking care of themselves. And the party that says, "You can do it!" is viewed as racist.

Sick.

@Trust Absolutely! So if one is taking personal responsibility for their health and staying healthy then the risk is for that person to decide.

Cases such as your examples are what catastrophic medical insurance is for and should be priced based on an individual's health risk factors determined by doctors (not that doctors are always right but at least they are the best qualified). Not determined by government mandates to insurance companies or the federal government whose dietary guidelines have gotten the people of this country in such bad shape to start with.

"What do we owe the sick?" is a moral question, and completely legitimate when it is a discussion among free men (and women) to voluntarily address that need.

Whatever the conclusion about that morality, it is immoral to pull out a gun and take resources from others to give to the poor, taking a good bit for oneself along the way.

It doesn't matter that there are 100 men backing up the gunman, or that they voted for the gunman, or that the 100 threw $5 into the pot while they take $100 from the one "able to pay".

It becomes ludicrous when the $100 is distributed not only to the needy, but to anyone who can contribute a vote to keep the gunman in business, with some spoils distributed to the crowd.

It is insane when the policy of "charity by gun" leads to a generally poorer society, so that people are worse off in general and by a multiple of the forced charity collected.

The only justification for taking from "the rich" would be that the rich got their resources in an illegal way, essentially by stealing it. There is no explanation for taking only 50% of the ill-gotten gains. Why not take all of the gains, and then put the thieves in prison? Possibly, because they are innocent.

Going further, why not impose a 60% tax on everyone and give those resources to the 80% of the world that is desperately poor. We are all rich compared to them. I believe our government would do this, if those people could vote to sustain government power.

In commiseration to forced charitiy, if you watch goverment at work, it is easy to think that all wealth does come from cheating, scheming, and special favors.

The final laugh is that the crowd would drop their "humanitarian" support in an instant, if they realized that they were all paying for that support in lower pay, fewer opportunities, and unemployment. They would drop their support quickly if they were forced to contribute as little as 10% of their own incomes to help the sick.

This last fact is why the insurance companies are the focus of "health reform". They are the collectors of the new health taxes, in the form of much higher premiums. Our Democratic politicians are afraid that the public will see these higher payments as a tax. The politicians are hiding taxes as increased fees and penalties demanded by evil corporations, rather than a caring government.

Why give yourself heartburn by reading the Times?

I go to the website for the crossword and food sections. Occasionally I'll scan the metro NY articles since I'm a former New Yawker.

But otherwise - why bother?

It is interesting that the black congressional caucus intentionally scheduled a walk through the protesters before the heath care vote. They had cameras rolling and one can easily see their motives: Hoping to be called the N word and possibly spat on.

They then made the accusations of being called the N word, etc. Sadly, there was no evidence in spite of all the cameras and microphones. But heck, who cares! Accusations are all they really needed to get the main stream press up in arms.

So if you are against health care you are a racist and a hater! The proof is in the accusations - evidence to the contrary is not worth reporting...

Cousin Dave, I guess I must, because the greens I heard speak in Chicago last year were not as into government overspending as the Democrats and Republicans are.

The Democrats accuse Republicans of running up the deficit and irresposible spending. The Repubs accuse the Democrats of the same. That's because both do it. The Dems get upset about the Reps using torture, while the Dems continue the same torture. The Dems and the Reps are the problem.

It wasn't the libertarians and it wasn't the greens that got excited about giving money to failing bankers... it was the Dems and the Reps.

We need a new party. I wish I'd voted for Barr or McKinny.

"It is interesting that the black congressional caucus intentionally scheduled a walk through the protestors before the health care vote."

Isn't the very existence of the Congressional Black Caucus racist? Congressional White Caucus, anyone? When Anh Joseph Cao was elected by the mostly black voters of Dollar Bill Jefferson's district in Louisiana, he asked to join the CBC. They told him to go to hell. Because he's Vietnamese. And because they were furious that any black voters anywhere would have the nerve to elect someone who wasn't black to represent them. If that's not blatant, in-your-face racism, I don't know what is.

What a coincidence!

The baby boomer generation, the largest, most populated demographic in US history is just starting to enter the retirement age. Another coincidence, socialist security is broke/empty/without funds. Hmmm, how do we avoid paying the baby boomers socialist security? Well, one way is to shorten their lifespans. How do we do that? Easy, nationalize the medical ("healthcare") system. From what I understand, in most western countries, if someone over the age of 50 has a heart attack the typical response is, "Well, we have a shortage of medical services at the moment, so you will have to wait your turn for the heart operation. We have scheduled your appointment for 18 months from now, we look forward to seeing you then."

Uh-huh.

Most likely, the person in question would desperately need heart surgery PDQ. They know this and they also know that the patient (or victim) won't be around in 18 months. That's the point. They just want the older patients to quietly go home and die like good citizens.

It's called population control and for the elite that run the upcoming NAU, (soon to be former USA), it works!

How else can you explain Canada with a landmass approx. 1.25 times the size of the USA and with a population of only 30 million people? (FYI, the USA has approx. 300 million).

> one way is to shorten their lifespans.

Fun to think about, but never ascribe to venality what can be credited to incompetence. Pelosi and Obama aren't just takin' care of business; they're PROUD of themselves.

Garland's comment above is really good.

"Some people are without health insurance because it's tied to jobs they've lost or because they can't get it reasonably across state lines. Others have pre-existing conditions -- and heh - if they're kids, they won't be covered by Obamacare, the geniuses"

Or some are like me, who happens to have a good job (Academic Dean) and is of the opinion that my health is too good to warrant paying insurance for it, so I simply refuse to be part of the charade. And, the cost is not an issue for me either at my job ($70 per month for full coverage).

It also may not have dawned on our paternalists in Washington that the purpose of insurance is to pool risk (monthly premiums) in the event of an uncertain future (unexpected illness). And as such, a good chunk of the 44 million uninsured in America could be from people so wealthy that they do not feel the need to pool risk, as any catastrophic ilness would not really destroy their net worth.

Welcome to the future. Is everyone ready?

Ian

> the purpose of insurance is to pool risk (monthly
> premiums) in the event of an uncertain future
> (unexpected illness)

This greatly exceeds the sophistication at work in the minds of those who supported this... If not that of those who wrote the legislation, than of the uncounted (literally uncounted) millions who supported it. They wanted everybody to get free stuff. Insurance is just a fancy word for money, which they don't want to be bothered about. The important part was to demonstrate how glowingly compassionate they were. And now we know.

You know who's mean?

• Insurance companies
• Oil companies
• Cheney
• White Guys
• Rumsfeld
• People who charge prices you don't want to pay

Etc.

Crid, I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld is going to become the equivalent of Denis Potvin to earnest young leftists... like the fans at Rangers games who will shout "Potvin sucks!", even though most of them have no idea who Potvin is.

Could someone help me out a little bit about the health care issue? I know several people have argued for personal responsibility re: buying and maintaining health insurance. But what happens when the uninsured get ill or have an accident? Many go to a hospital, which is required by law to treat them, regardless of their ability to pay. Many of these uninsured don't have the money or don't bother to pay the hospital bills. Who picks up the tab? I'd buy the personal responsibility argument more from people on the right if they would address my concerns set forth above.

Well, factsarefacts (funny how many first-time posters have appeared here to comment on this particular issue), if said 40M people are all going to get insurance subsidized by the taxpayer, how is that different? And as I've argued here before, Obamacare isn't going to change their behavior at all -- they are still going to go to the E.R. every time they get a tummy ache.

The conservatives are not anti-immigration because it means cheap labor for their corporate backers.

Conservatives actually believe in their country. These "conservatives" of which you speak, obviously do not, unless their idea of country includes linguistic balkanization, an ethnic underclass, and the slow ceding of the southwest back to Mexico. But more likely, they and their corporate scum allies simply don't care.

It is interesting that the black congressional caucus intentionally scheduled a walk through the protesters before the heath care vote. They had cameras rolling and one can easily see their motives: Hoping to be called the N word and possibly spat on.

Silly man, don't you know that only white, Christian, heterosexual males can have nefarious motives?

Hi Cousin Dave: Actually, I'm not a first-time poster to Amy's blog - although I admit I am not a regular contributor.

In regard to your response, many of the people going to the ER with a tummy ache will now, I assume, have health insurance to pay for it.

Trust me, I am not a blind follower of the new health care bill - I think it has a lot of problems with it and I have mixed feelings about it.

My point is about hypocrisy. I am curious as to how many of the Tea Party people or others who are so vigorously upset about this bill under the guise of personal responsibility would behave in the following situation: That person does not carry health insurance for himself or his family and does not have a lot of money and one of them gets seriously ill or gets into an accident. Do they go to the emergency room for treatment even though there's no money for to pay for it? - or do they take a stand and say "Hey, I'm willing to die (or have my child die) because I elected not to get health insurance and I refuse to have others pay for my care - that's welfare." What do you think one of these people would do?

To factsarefacts: If it is absolutely imperative that government (and the taxpayers) foot some of the medical bills for the poor, working or otherwise, that task should be the bailiwick of state and local governments. The Constitution, as I understand it, does not permit Congress to provide taxpayer money for health care.

Why did Potvin suck?

Hi mpetrie98, I'm actually not interested in having a constitutional discussion - trust me, I understand your point. I've read article about the constitutionality of a wide variety of topics - ranging from public education to the air force.

But what about my question? Will a Tea Party member with no health insurance take himself or his child to the emergency room in the event of serious illness or injury - when he knows that he doesn't have the money to pay for it?

factsarefacts,

I would hope that the Tea Party member would either be poor (so he would have mediaid) or be old (so he would have medicare) or have been responsible enough to have insurance (which, if it's an HMO will make you call to get permission to go to the emergency room) if he was neither of the above.

That does leave the question open about what to do with people that are too stupid to have insurance. I don't know, maybe a "lower" level of health care provided and paid for directly by the government? I don't really like that idea, but I'm unwilling to walk over dead bodies in the street and it's not going to work to give people for free what others pay for.

Reform is needed. The main problem is to make people spend money on health care services as if it were their own. In other words, MSAs and high deductable coverage. Medicare & medicaid would be changed to MSAs with high deductable insurance.

Let's say you go to the doctor and there is a 95% chance that only one test needs to be performed and a 5% chance that four other tests could be useful. Now, the doctor runs all five because he doesn't want to be sued, or he runs all five because he has a lab in his basement or tells you that you should only take 1 but you insist that all five be run (because, after all, it's not like you're paying) or you want all five but your asshole health insurance will only pay for one or you want all five but the asshole government will only pay for one. How about you and your doctor make the decision based on his advice and your needs?

Or, let's say you're 81 and given two weeks to live. Expensive treatment has a chance of extending your life for another six months. Who decides? Your employer? The health insurance company? The government? With an MSA with $250,000 in it, you would decide. Blow it all on yourself or pay for your grandchildren's college educations. What's an extra six months worth? Dunno, you decide.

But what about my question? Will a Tea Party member with no health insurance take himself or his child to the emergency room in the event of serious illness or injury - when he knows that he doesn't have the money to pay for it?

I would certainly hope so. After all, I would hope that he could negotiate a payment schedule with the hospital in order to pay them back little by little. I have paid doctors bills back in pieces before.

The Tea Party member can also rely on the kindness of the physician, charities, local relief, and state relief, preferably in that order, to help get the job done.

Did you know that some doctors do some of their surgeries for FREE? However, the obnoxious Federal Government can't leave them alone; they have to send a bill to the patient BY LAW, even for charitable work.

Hi BillB, I actually agree with you about the inefficiencies about the the current "fee-for-service" health insurance system (which the current health care bill really does nothing to eliminate). It encourages doctors to order the most tests and take other activities in order to (i) increase their own revenue and (ii) reduce the risk of liability from medical malpractice lawsuits. I like your example about the medical tests. I've read with interest many articles about how the Mayo Clinic has tried to deal with this issue (such as flat salaries for doctors, meetings amongst doctors to discuss cost-effectiveness on a regular basis) - you can read a small article here if you want: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/07/05/mayo_health_care_cost_control/.

And I agree with you (if you were implying) that the current system usually causes patients (especially ones with health insurance) to be rather distant from the costs of their medical care and medical options available to them.

As I'm sure you could tell, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of most of the "Tea Partiers" (I'm excluding the die-hard Christian Scientists), who would have no problem in throwing out their "personal responsibility" rhetoric out the window if their circumstances necessitated that they receive medical care that they can't afford - leaving others to pay the bill for them. Conceptually, I don't have a problem with a system that is trying to make people pay for services that they will use (or that they have a high probability of using).

I would respect the Tea Partiers more if they were proposing real "real-world" alternatives to improving the health care system in America. I apologize because I don't mean to lump all "Tea Partiers" together - I understand and value some suggestions ranging from MSAs to letting people shop for health insurance across state lines that some conservatives and/or libertarians are in favor of. I'm sorry, but I pay attention to the news, and I haven't seen Sarah Palin plugging her solutions to health care issues at these Tea Party rallies (perhaps she is and I'm missing it). At least she did appreciate the irony (if not the hypocrisy) of the fact that she received the benefits of the "socialist" medical system in Canada in her past. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/7409555/Sarah-Palins-family-sought-health-care-in-Canada.html

Hi mpetrie98: But isn't relying on the kindness of the physician, charities, state and local relief - isn't that welfare? It doesn't sound like taking personal responsibility to me. Even if the physician does it for free (and yes, I'm aware that many doctors and hospitals do many procedures for free), who is paying for the supplies, the support staff, etc.?

I think it's fantastic that you were able to arrange a payment schedule for your doctor bills. It's a testament to your character. (I am not being sarcastic).

But I'm aware of others who have not followed your example. According to a recent Harvard study, approximately 60% of bankruptcies are tied to medical bills. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/ (Please note that I am not trying to pass judgment one way or another on everyone who declares bankruptcy due to unpaid medical expenses).

You? Who pays the hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) if you get cancer?

I won't get cancer, Amy.

And if I do? It's simple. I die.

Ian

How many of those medical bankrupcies had/dindt have insurance?

@factsarefacts: We have. We've been ignored. The Powers That Be have already decided that anything short of fully universal health care is unacceptable in the long run, and that any plan that moves us further from rather than closer to that goal shall not be discussed.

Which is why there were no Republicans invited to any of the budget or health care debates. The Democrats have made it abundantly clear that no input is wanted from them. And by excluding them it is easy to say they never offered any alternatives.

If there were a truly transparent market in medical services and provision, prices would drop precipitously.

factsarefacts,

I'm not sure that Sarah Palin is the best person to be looking to for policy details. I'm pretty sure the same would apply to her opposite numbers. You don't hear details of alternate health care plans because there are no alternates being presented in congress with any realistic chances of passage. They do exist.

I would suspect that the average Tea Partier (not that I know what that is) has a much better chance of being insured than most. Those that look to themselves, their friends and their families for help would probably do better in this area than those who feel it's the government's responsibility to solve their problems.

How many bankrupcies are caused by lack of fire or flood insurance? It seems that bankrupcies often occur when really bad things happen unexpectedly to people. If the government just built you a new house when yours burned down & you didn't have fire insurance, would anybody buy fire insurance?

The biggest problem with health care is lack of competition, particularly on price. When you have a $10,000 procedure you may pay $1,000, but the insurance company doesn't pay $9,000. They pay about 3 or 4k. The only person that would have to pay the full $10,000 is the poor sap that doesn't have insurance. If we'd gone out of our way to set up a system designed to screw over the uninsured, we'd be hard pressed to do better than what we have today.

I'm not sure what do do about Ian. Much as I might want to leave him on the street outside the hospital, I am probably going to feel the need to do something.

> And if I do? It's simple. I die.

If you were really into simplicity, you'd have stricken this unnecessary sentence: "It's simple." When you get cancer –and it's only a matter of living long enough– you're going to squeal and screech until the rest of humanity comes through to aid you, if only through sedation.

Don't try to disguise cheapness as stocism.

lujlp wrote: How many of those medical bankrupcies had/dindt have insurance?

According to the article that I linked to, THREE-QUARTERS of those who declared bankruptcy due to medical costs had insurance.

SO how is a law that forces everyone to buy into a system that doesnt work going to fix anything?

But, all cancers are not an auto death sentence. Some cancers are quite curable. You're just going to pack it in anyway?

Cancer doesn't scare me. Oncologists do. Enzymatic therapy works very well on tumors, especially protease. And protease supplements aren't covered by insurance, and they are much cheaper than the "normal" barbaric methods from our learned Doctors of Death (and much less painful, too).

A good friend of mine was worried about my stance on this. I offered her a bet of $1 that I would not contract cancer. She didn't take me up on it.

Such is life, no?

If you were really into simplicity, you'd have stricken this unnecessary sentence: "It's simple." When you get cancer –and it's only a matter of living long enough– you're going to squeal and screech until the rest of humanity comes through to aid you, if only through sedation.

"squeal and screech". Should I be scared of this too?

The rest of humanity need not rescue me, seriously. I have enough allied health people who surround me if I need sound advice. Plus 2 sound nutritionists, 2 herbalists, an osteopath, a biologist, and a deceased enzymologist (whose writings) guide me daily. I'm pretty confident about anatomy and disease in order for me to recognize what diseases I may contract and what I may not. Cancer just happens to not be one of them.

I'm not sure what do do about Ian. Much as I might want to leave him on the street outside the hospital, I am probably going to feel the need to do something.

Please do not "do something". While it seems that your intentions are pure, giving people help against their will is called assault. And now that I think of it, your statement "Much as I might want to leave him on the street" would have me question any notion of "charity" your hand may be offering to lend.

Please ... just keep walking :-)

"one can easily see their motives: Hoping to be called the N word and possibly spat on."

Ah. Yes. That whole "Gee they made me call them the N word and spit on them because they walked. If they'd driven up in limos I could have spit on the car and called them Limousine Liberals. My ugly behavior is their fault."

There's a difference between BEING called a nigger and HOPING TO BE called a nigger.

They were hoping for it. It never came, so they pretended it did anyhow for the purposes of defaming their opponents.

However, one of the great internet memes reared its head and they lost their little gambit:

"Pix, or it didn't happen."