1. I's disingenuous, at best, to repeat the Republican canard that socialized medicine has led to worse healthcare in other Western countries than in the US.

2. How is any type of insurance not, by nature, socialist? You are spreading out the cost risks among a larger population, by having everyone pay in about what the average dollar need is for all enrolled in that insurance (plus profit, for private insurance companies).

3. The public option merely creates a self-sustaining (like the post office) not-for-profit institution that will serve consumers alongside Kaiser, Blue Cross, etc. The post office isn't putting Fed Ex and UPS out of business, UCLA isn't putting USC out of business, and NPR and PBS are not threatening ClearChannel and ABC. I for one think the country is a better place for having these public institutions.

franko, you're ridiculous.

You've just confirmed, in your own words, that government intervention or involvement will increase costs.

"Public option", my ass. It'll be as much an option as paying your taxes - and already people forget that they pay and pay. Perhaps you have an example of government efficiency? You cited PBS as a good thing. Where are the profits from Barney, The Purple Dinosaur?

Items 1 - 6 by Conko are immediately provided by this idea.

But despite outrages visited on the public on a daily basis, the urge to be cared for by Mommy makes people bleat for "government".

While I am not a great supporter of universal health insurance, much of the campaign against the administration's proposed reforms are somewhat hysterical and over-the-top.

The campaign against socialist health care misses the obvious point. For the most part, America has already had socialist health care for a long time. If you take into consideration public spending on programs like Medicare, Medicaid etc., plus the fact that health insurance policies are so tightly regulated by government there is no real free market to speak of. What the Chicken Littles fail to realize is that the sky fell in a long time ago.

While I believe that a more genuine free market (with some safety nets) in health insurance would be the best option, it is debatable whether or not a government system would be an improvement on the current mess. Free markets usually produce better outcomes than government. But markets polluted by vested interests and distorting regulations can often produce worse outcomes than government control.

Another silly feature of the debate is how conservatives are scaring the elderly about how the administration would have to cut Medicare benefits in order to fund their health care policies. Aside from the fact that programs like Medicare are unsustainable anyway, it is rather asinine to argue that socialist health care is bad because it might have to be funded by cutting back another socialist entitlement program:
- 'Get your grubby socialist paws off our hard won socialist health entitlements, you, you, you, .... contemptible fucking socialist!'
That'll show em!

If more people would take actual, physical care of themselves, you know, like knock it off with the "super-sizing" of every damn meal they eat, exercise regularly, pay attention to their bodies, and practice a little preventative medicine themselves, that would go a LONG way towards lowerig health care costs. It's not rocket science, people! Health care starts with each individual person, by ohidunno, taking CARE of themselves. Common sense, people, common SENSE. Oh yeah, that's right, it ain't so COMMON anymore. Everybody wants someone ELSE to do it FOR them. Feh. We're fucked. o.O

@: "about 20 minutes after hammering at the last Mr. Muckup in The Oval Office for rushing us in to Iraq."
___________

I think it's immature for Obama to invoke Iraq and the cost of Iraq in the health care debate. The two are completely unrelated. Whether Iraq was too expensive, whether shourl or shouldn't have happened, whether Bush spending 18 months "rushing" to war (after over a decade of armed struggle after a prior war), or whether it didn't happen at all, etc., is entirely irrellevant as to whether ObamaCare is good or bad for America.

Reminds me of a door to door saleman who, when told his product is too expensive, points to the broke down car in your driveway and says "well, you wanted money on that, so you should do this."

How is any type of insurance not, by nature, socialist?

One can opt out of insurance. One can't opt out of socialism.

Let's not take our eyes off the ball here: the leftist intelligentsia that is working the actual content of the Democrat bill have made it absolutely clear that, regardless of whatever specific wording exists in the bill, the purpose is to lay a path to single-payer. franko, your assertion is simply not supported by the data. In every country that has socialized medicine, waiting times are longer, procedures are less available, and there are fewer practitioners seeing fewer patients per day than in the U.S. If it weren't true, then why is it that everyone from Great Britian and Canada who can afford it comes to the U.S. for medical treatment?

Nick S, one point: Obama has specifically stated that his plan would be funded, in part, by slashing Medicare. That's what the Independent Medicare Advisory Council is all about. Considering that Medicare is already such a disaster that everyone who can afford it buys additional "part B" insurance, I don't think it's unreasonable for the seniors to be upset. Don't forget, Medicare was originally promoted as being an investment plan, the same way Social Security was.

>>then why is it that everyone from Great Britian and Canada who can afford it comes to the U.S. for medical treatment?

Cousin Dave,
They don't.
In the UK, you jump the line for non-urgent procedures with private insurance. And you get urgent treatment right away. (And before you yell: "oh, so only the RICH get better treatment under socialist medicine..." the UK has a mixed system and it has long been thus.)

Look, I'm not going to change your mind. But oncologists in the UK see patients from all over the world for treatment.

Here are my questions.
1 - why should people who already have insurance be forced to pay extra to fund the public option?

anyone catch Obama saying insuance companies would be assesed a fee to help with funding?

2 - If my taxes are increased to fund the public option then why do I have to "buy" a public policy? Arent I already paying for it once thru my taxes, why do I have to pay or it a second time?

The public option merely creates a self-sustaining (like the post office) not-for-profit institution that will serve consumers....

Franko, the USPS is not self-sustaining. The Post Office is bleeding money. Without taxpayer subsidies, it's lights out. The USPS has a projected loss of $7 billion for fiscal 2009.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJ01reSCujDQ

Let's clear up one myth right now. FedEx, DHL, UPS, et al are not competing with the Post Office. It is illegal for anyone but the USPS to carry first class mail. These other companies are package and express delivery services, not mail carriers.

If you want to use the Post Office as an example of a government entity that competes with private enterprise, you must limit your comparison to package and express delivery services, a business in which those other companies are cleaning the USPS's clock (to the extent that even the US government uses companies other than the Post Office for express delivery).

I'm surprised you give a single line to that Luddite Palin. And many of your readers wouldn't know a socialist if they tripped over one. I lived in Russia until 1999 and I assure you you're not headed in that direction. Anyone proposing transferring ownership of your home to the gov't? Making all workers gov't employees? Making millions of small businesses transfer their productive assets to gov't ownership?
How many of the Obama haters are proposing dismantling Medicare or Social Security? Seems like those "socialist" programs work pretty well. Why can't a reformed health system do the same?

How many of the Obama haters are proposing dismantling Medicare or Social Security? Seems like those "socialist" programs work pretty well. Why can't a reformed health system do the same?

Social Security is projected to run out of money by the time I retire (which is closer than I want to admit). Medicare is rife with fraud and waste.

Oh yeah, those "socialist" programs are working pretty well.

Has anyone other than me thought about what it means when Obama says that "preventive care" is going to reduce costs?

What's he gonna do, force everyone to have a physical every year?

Yeah, that'll go over real well.

"Seems like those "socialist" programs work pretty well."

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (And I WOULD be in favor of dismantling BOTH programs. I've been paying into them since I got my first job, and the likelihood that they'll EVER benefit people my age is... slim to none.)

"Palin" writes. Yeah, a real policy wonk that one. LOL

I am on a mobile so can do too much rebutting. But Fact Check says no cuts contemplated in Medicare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/

Also, I am not the first to mention this, but it is ironic to see Republicans, who oppose socialism trying to scare people by claiming that Obama is going to make cuts in a socialist program.

Whatever -

No cuts in Medicare? What about the $600 million in proposed cuts to the Medicare budget? You really think that Obama is going to find that much "waste and fraud" to cut? Quit bogarting that joint.

Obama is going to cut Medicare. He's going to deny treatment to the elderly and veterans to pay for care for illegals.

Unless there's some magical unicorn in his office that shits cash, his proposals as currently stated will lead to exactly that outcome.

1+1=2. No amount of prevarication can change the fundamental laws of mathematics.

Obama's a fool to think he can even try.

The more this hug-eared fuck talks, the more sense his position on Honduras and Venezuela and Iran makes.

Of course, that should be JUG-EARED fuck.

PIMF.

Whatever, the Associated Press disagrees with factcheck.org on the topic of Medicare cuts, saying:

Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.

Since the AP usually supports the left, I give their criticism of leftist proposals extra weight.

Read the link, dude. Funding for illegals is explicitly forbidden in the bill.

Pseudo,

who are these "many experts"? They couldn't get one on the record, even?

Just so you all don't think I'm a kool aid drinker: here's where he's playing loose with the facts: funding this. His plans will involve higher taxes somewhere.

As a Canadian who has had to endure Obama-style healthcare all of his life, I LAUGH IN THE FACE of those of you who think "it's no big deal" to adopt socialized healthcare into America. Your brains are impervious to very scary facts that don't mesh with your naive world view.

Here in British Columbia where I live I am NOT ALLOWED to buy private insurance to get better care if I want it. If I have severe problems with my heart, I have to wait in line. If I hurt one of my hips or knees or my back, I have to wait in line. It matters not how much pain I'm in or that I might die at any moment. Nope, not a whit.

So what do many Canadians in such severe cases of trauma do? They drive across the border to the United States.

And what will Americans in similar situations do when Obama has reshaped your healthcare into something similar? Wait for it . . . nothing!

Robert, since you clearly have not read what is proposed, you're not fit to comment. And if you love health care here so much, come on down. They'll love you in Texas.

Palin and Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford in 2012. Go R-Party.

>>"3. Eliminate laws that prevent interstate purchase of health insurance by individuals and businesses."

Nearly every column I read on this subject mentions this. After reading about it so much, I actually think that before we implement something as massive and "no-turning-back" as a public option, I think that the administration should make a good-faith venture and try this out. A lot of public option dissenters believe that this will help enormously with the current problems with our healthcare, and I'm inclined to agree at this point.

By the way, extra points to Conan for the rebuttals to Franko on the USPS and Anna about Social Security. The USPS would be out of business by now if not for the fact that it's the gov't. And Social Security is a joke.

Can't we just start chanting "keep your laws off my body!"? It seemed to work well once before....

I do not think that slinging jargon like the term "socialist" adds to a thoughtful discussion of the issue -- no matter where you come out on it. The use of inflammatory terms promotes emotional reaction, and so discourages cool deliberation.

Pseudonym, regarding the ability to "opt out" of health insurance as being the difference between it and "socialism," am I to understand that if you were injured in a car crash and had "opted out" of health insurance, and you didn't have enough cash to pay for life-saving treatment, then you would be willing to have the paramedics just let you die in the street rather than be treated in the emergency room at others' expense, as is your right under current "socialist" law?

Just wondering ...

I'm with you Robert (from Vancouver). I'm a Canadian living in the US and I've received care much more quickly in the US than I (or more importantly back then) my family ever did in Canada (and yes, I have insurance through work). One of my childhood friends who still lives in Canada can't get a family doctor (despite "free" medicine for all) because she has a chronic illness and no one wants to be bothered with her as a patient. So they refuse to take her and she goes on with no family doctor despite paying for it with her tax dollars. Another friend who was worried about possible brain problem (unclear whether nervous system or tumor at the time)was told she would have to wait 2-3 months for an MRI. She promptly drove across the border to Buffalo and had it done 2 days later and the results faxed back to Canada.

I prefer my US HMO.

Catherine

If the bill clearly states no illegals are eligible, all Obama has to do to fulfill his promise to them is to grant them amnesty. I guwarantee that is the next thing he is going to try to rush us with

Read the link, dude. Funding for illegals is explicitly forbidden in the bill.

Explicitly forbidden, with no enforcement provisions and no penalties.

And he wants to do a blanket amnesty anyhow, which means there won't be any such thing as an illegal anyhow.

BTW, a columnist in the WSJ today, named Mark Mix, craps all over Amy Alkon's much-beloved Kaiser Permanente HMO, which he defines as some sort of unionized stronghold of iniquity.
Evidently AFL-CIO boss-jefe Sweeney loves Kaiser too.
Who knew that Alkon loves a union-run shop so much?

A few questions and comments for the group: to our Canadian neighbors...just what is the tax rate you pay for your "free" medical care? I am curious.

Secondly, per Jay R. "I do not think that slinging jargon like the term "socialist" adds to a thoughtful discussion of the issue -- no matter where you come out on it. The use of inflammatory terms promotes emotional reaction, and so discourages cool deliberation."

Two primary definitions of socialism, per a popular dictionary website: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

or: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

So how is "socialism/socialist" "inflammatory"....?

Also, re: "I think it's immature for Obama to invoke Iraq and the cost of Iraq in the health care debate."

Couldn't agree more. Not just immature, but entirely irrelevent. The primary purpose of the government is to PROTECT its citizens. As in SECURITY. Whether or not you agree that the reasons for waging the war on terrorism are unfounded, the premise was and remains absolutely correct. (And I say this as a Marine who has personally sacrificed a great deal because of this war, in case anyone's interested) On the other hand, our government was not designed to dole out health care to everyone.

Flynne: I liked how you emphasized personal responsibility...abso-FREAKin'-lutely!!

"Read the link, dude. Funding for illegals is explicitly forbidden in the bill."

And how are they going to pull this off? It's illegal to hire "illegals" here in the US, but its discriminatory to check into the validity of their social security ID presented.

They can say it's illegal all they want, but if employers/hospitals/government is subject to lawsuits for "verifying" such citizenship status (other than - if you are a US citizen, please check the box), it ain't gonna happen.

My Uncle is disabled and on VA medical care. He has diabetes, and has foot problems as a result. The drs with the VA are REQUIRED to start with the least expensive med that MIGHT help, have him try it a month, and then if needed switch to the next-cheapest, try it a month, etc etc etc. The Dr, who has 12 years of post-grad education, can not be trusted to decide which med is most likely to be effective for his patient.

Who decides what's cheapest? The handy-dandy government approved-drugs list, of course!

We can all look forward to this nonsense if the dems have their way.

Pseudonym, regarding the ability to "opt out" of health insurance as being the difference between it and "socialism," am I to understand that if you were injured in a car crash and had "opted out" of health insurance, and you didn't have enough cash to pay for life-saving treatment, then you would be willing to have the paramedics just let you die in the street rather than be treated in the emergency room at others' expense, as is your right under current "socialist" law?

You're conflating multiple things here. Yes, if someone opts out of society, then society should respect their choice and let them die in the street. No, our society is not willing to do that; instead it forces us to do what it thinks is in our best interests. No, I do not choose to opt out of society. Yes, I respect your choice to do so if you so choose. Yes, I do choose to opt out of most insurance plans: my health insurance plan is exclusive.

Do you believe that people should not be permitted to opt out of public welfare schemes? (For example, should emigration be banned?) What do you think society should not be able to force us to do in the name of the greater good? (For example, how much taxation is too much?)

It's illegal to hire "illegals" here in the US, but its discriminatory to check into the validity of their social security ID presented.

They can say it's illegal all they want, but if employers/hospitals/government is subject to lawsuits for "verifying" such citizenship status (other than - if you are a US citizen, please check the box), it ain't gonna happen.

Really? This seem preposterous. I call for a link to a good source - a lawsuit in which an illegal immigrant plaintiff recovered damages against an employer for attempting to verify his faked SSN would do nicely. Thanks.

If the bill clearly states no illegals are eligible, all Obama has to do to fulfill his promise to them is to grant them amnesty. I guwarantee that is the next thing he is going to try to rush us with

Amnesty failed under Bush; it's incredibly unpopular. The pro-amnesty people are not going to get that one. I'm guessing Obama is probably cutting deals to throw out that and EFCA (the noxious "card check" union bill) in favor of health care and some form of carbon emissions regulation. No way he's going to try either of the prior two his first term.

"Really? This seem preposterous. I call for a link to a good source - a lawsuit in which an illegal immigrant plaintiff recovered damages against an employer for attempting to verify his faked SSN would do nicely. Thanks."

UNIONS for one.

Whatever: Check this out.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/immigrationstatus?agree=yes#3

I worked for a company-previously, that would NOT do any additional verification on SSN etc for fear of a lawsuit, and I can tell you - whether it is talked about or written about or not - this is what is happening.

Do the rest of the research yourself. I'm not your lacky.

Snit!

Alkon, you have spoken highly of the care you received at Kaiser Permanente in the past, or at least the service (I am glad you are healthy, and wish you many more decades of the same).
Evidently, it is a union stronghold that you trust for your health care, and have enjoyed, and have defended.
You can dance fancy now, and shake your "pert ass" around, but you are on record as having liked Kaiser "Unions Rule" Permanente.
It's okay. Put a beer out on the table, and starting singing, "Whose Side Are you On Boys, Whose Side Are you On."
Joe Hill never really died--he went to Kaiser Permanente.
Alkon--today the Guild, tomorrow the World. Wobblies Unite!

Old article, but this one sums it up.

http://vdare.com/misc/epstein_illegals.htm

This is exactly the type of thing we dealt with -- damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And something else, by not being able to properly verify SSN ID's (for fear of discrimination suits), these illegals were ALSO obtaining 6,7 or 8 ID's. Getting hired on different jobsites, and claiming workers' compensation injuries on each jobsite (the day after they were hired) and work comp payments were being mailed to Mexico. They were going into clinics and hospitals with "back strains" and running up bills there too. ALSO, hospitals get to charge the full amount on workers' compensation cases. And there was quite simply, very little employers could do about it.

This creates a HUGE burdeon on the workers compensation system, making rates sky rocket for ALL business' and putting Mom and Pop operations out of business with increased premiums.

Increased premiums for workers compensation which are MANDATORY for business' to have, means less money in overhead to spend on things like healthcare.

NOW, I ask you, how the FUCK are we suppose to solve this with universal healthcare?

To Beth et al: Here's a useful guide to Canadian Income Tax: http://www.walterharder.ca/MarginalTaxRateCalculator.html

Also know that all Canadians pay a 5% sales tax on most every purchased item. Additionally, most provinces have a provincial sales tax that is most often somewhat more than 5%.

Alcohol and tobacco have even greater taxes.

So as Beth alluded to, the "free" healthcare in Canada is anything but free.

ass-holier-than-thou,

You really need to take your smarmy, self-righteous attitude and fuck off. Seriously. She rebuts you and all you can come up with is

You can dance fancy now, and shake your "pert ass" around...

==============================================

Amnesty failed under Bush; it's incredibly unpopular.

Whatever... you mean just like the healthcare bill is unpopular? Doesn't seem to be stopping the hug-eared (sorry brian, I just through that was hilarious), annointed one from ramming it down our throats. Give me one good reason he WON'T grant amnesty? It's already a look the other way for employment, so it isn't that far a step. Feebie is right on the money on this one.

i-hole:

Ever heard of the Nurses Association? It's one of the most powerful unions in the State of California.

Kaiser provides health insurance and employs nurses for their hospitals. How exactly does a large medical outfit go about NOT hiring union nurses in the State of California?

As with most unions, they gain power by being in collusion with government politicians.

Feebie,
The best I could come up with at those links is that a business got in some trouble for harassing people for more papers after they already presented green cards or whatever. Nothing that says the employer can't call social security to make sure the number is real and goes with Jose whoever.

But regardless, illegal immigration is a separate issue, and the health care bill's job isn't to fix our pathetic border security. But the bill will not provide money for people who don't at least look legit on paper. So the guys at uhaul and home depot are still out.

Alkon-

You are still hotfooting around the issue--a heavily unionized non-profit shop is your preferred method of getting health care.

Doesn't matter. I just visited the L.A. Dodgers website. They get nearly 1,000 comments on a typical game post.

I have noticed at some Hollywood sites they get thousands of posts about Spears butt or what-have-you.

I think I am finished with my adventure in blogland, at least as a visitor. It does kill some time in the office, but...not a real sub for social interaction and discussion. People tend to clump together to reinforce local convention, or hurl expletives.

Bloggers are blogging about what other people blogged...about some other blog. While we wipe each other's blogbutts,. people are enjoying real life outside...

It appears that the much lauded French healthcare system has a massive problem financing it.

P.S. Amy, is this i-holier guy actually your old basketball coach in disguise?!? What kind of twit calls a woman by her last name???

No Steven, amnesty's unpopular like next to nobody wants it. Health care, at least in the last polling I saw was at about 50-50. And would probably be much better without pathological liars like Palin talkin about government mandated euthanasia for the old or those with birth defects. The Right wing noise machine has definitely hurt public support for reform, but my guess is Obama moved the needle back the other way some last night.

But you're correct about one thing - what Obama proposed, or something like it is likely to pass, even if the Democrats do it through reconciliation without a single Republican vote. And some people won't like it. They'll say it got rammed through. I know how that feels, and probably would have described Republican tactics in recent years similarly. But you guys lost, and badly in recent elections. So you're probably just gonna have to take it do better next time. That's politics.

@Beth: "(And I say this as a Marine who has personally sacrificed a great deal because of this war, in case anyone's interested) "
_____

First, bless you for your service.

Second, yes I'm interested. Please let us know what happened.

Third, I apprecaiate your comments. You are correct that Iraq as a health care rational is entirely irrelevant.

I know how that feels, and probably would have described Republican tactics in recent years similarly. But you guys lost, and badly in recent elections. So you're probably just gonna have to take it do better next time. That's politics.

"Constitution? I won! Fuck the Constitution."

"And would probably be much better without pathological liars like Palin talkin about government mandated euthanasia for the old or those with birth defects."

Got a quote?

>>business got in some trouble for harassing people for more papers

Yes, and the SS ID's, are fakes in most cases, just like drivers licenses. As long as the social security number is a match to a valid name - you can go no further with it. "Why, Mr. Stevens, why don't you speak English?"

You have to assume that if it looks valid, it is - all they check for is to be sure it matches up with a number in the system - not if the number belongs to Juan-Jose, standing in front of you.

Further authentication is at your own risk. As for the green card, if they put down they were a citizen, and they provided a social security number - if the employer asked for more verification - it would be discrimination - because they don't ask for green cards from other citizens...get it?

>> But regardless, illegal immigration is a separate issue, and the health care bill's job isn't to fix our pathetic border security.

No regardless - No. Regardless. It's not a separate issue because they are including uninsured illegal immigrants in the numbers they are using to show us that Americans are in DIRE NEED OF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE...AND RIGHT FUCKING NOW. This is COMPLETELY relevent.

No, it's not the healthcare's job to fix border security...where did you come up with that?

And would probably be much better without pathological liars like Palin talkin about government mandated euthanasia for the old or those with birth defects.

The fact that the party with an overwhelming majority of votes in both houses of Congress as well as the presidency is whining that the minority party has hijacked the debate tells you they're getting desperate.

Controlling the debate on this should have been a slam dunk. Instead, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama let Limbaugh, Palin, and a few others take it from them.

The fact that the "death panels" comment still has life is testimony to how ineffective a communicator Obama is when it comes to details.

The strategy of pushing for an unread 1,000 page bill to be passed by the August break was a masterstroke...of stupidity. Instead of backpedalling, Congressmen could have used the August break for a "listening tour" and showed people they were being thoughtful (even if they weren't).

...illegal immigration is a separate issue, and the health care bill's job isn't to fix our pathetic border security.

Not entirely. LIke most things in life, they are interconnected. If illegal aliens can openly get free medical care in the US, what is their incentive to stay in their own countries.

If you think the line to get in here is long now, wait 'til you throw free world-class medical care into the mix.

I don't see any mention of the law passed by Hilarygate in the 90's which makes it a crime for a doctor who provides private medical care to a person of Medicare age for cash, to take Medicare payments for a long period of time, I think a year or more.

So, why isn't that on the list of reforms? We should be able to go to a doctor, any doctor, and pay cash for medical treatment, which would reduce Medicare payments, would it not?

Or, did y'all miss this one?

I am 67, and have never applied for Medicare benefits, though I am signed up and pay the monthly premiums. I am on a low carb diet like Amy and my b.p. is way down. I feel great. I think studies show that if everyone ate and exercised correctly, use of medical care would drop perhaps in half. For me, knock on wood, it is far more than half.

By the way someone asked why anyone would refer to Amy by her last name. I think if you check journalists have a writing standard which treats men and women equally on this. This is 2009, not 1809.

Oh, almost forgot.There is a place to go if Obamanation destroys medical care in the US, as it seems it would if allowed.

Get out your trusty atlas, and look at a map of the US. Just south of it is a country called Mexico.

If you have money you can get great medical care here. I have before retirement talked to Canadians who went to Guadalajara to get things done they couldn't get done in Canada. Guad. has one of the best hospitals in the world, according to expats who live there.

And, I am probably alive today because of the excellent doctors and technology at the American British Cowdray hospital in Mexico City. Encephalitis. When I went back for a visit some time later, I realized this is where the OLD MONEY in Mexico City goes. They can pay and Old Money expects to get what they pay for.

Let me digress here and demonstrate what Old Money is like. A family pulled up while we sat there. The family got out of their fancy Mercedes Benz and walked away without even looking to see if a valet was going to park their car. They knew the hospital didn't dare not have a valet Johnny On The Job. That is Old Money.

Six days in a coma in 1995/6 in Intensive Care; MRI's; my own nurse 24 hours a day, with a doctor physically present also 24/7. Plus 5 days in a ward. Great and competent care, with the latest technology and most doctors are also somewhat bilingual.

Total cost around $13,000. My sister-in-law, a retired nurse in Mexico City almost fell down when she saw the bill. But, When I got back to the States I had an embolism, (they did put anti-embolism sox on me at ABC but they didn't prevent it) and while I was in the hospital getting thinned out a nurse said in that hospital their rule of thumb is you don't get out of Intensive care, even for a short stay, for less than $50,000 (this was early 1996.)

Most Mexicans do not get this quality care, because they can't pay for it. They are stuck with the government program, which is more like Canada or UK.

But, it is there if you can pay for it. This seems to be a well hidden secret.

Two years ago, my little grandson in Texas started vomiting with a fever, Thursday afternoon. The doctor said he could see him on Monday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I called my son who said it was most likely roseola. And, so it was. On Saturday, the fever broke and the rash came.

In Mexico, even here in my rural Third World village, if your kid gets sick at 2 am you ring a doctor's door bell and he treats your kid at 2 am. Probably costs around $15 or $20 USD plus meds. You can go to the government hospital which will be free, which is about the right price, heh, heh. I shouldn't say that, because some of the government doctors are relatively competent.

If you need an MRI you will have to go to the city, and if you need a heart-lung machine, kiss your arse goodbye. But, for the most common doctor's visits you have more access to a doctor than in the US, not less. And, individual performance is varied, just as in the US.

About two or three days after the Mexican Pig Flu caused panic around the world, my best friend here, a doctor, said he had investigated, and that this flu was not going to be that serious. He was right.

>>If illegal aliens can openly get free medical care in the US, what is their incentive to stay in their own countries.

WTF? In many parts of Mexico, people already get free medical care, including this Third World Village. It is not universal, but state politicians in some cases opened free hospitals with free doctors to stiff-arm the political opponents, and now it is political suicide to start charging.

It is always a bad idea to write about things you know nothing about. Just saying.

I have never once in my many visits over the years, now full time, heard anyone saying they were going to the US for free medical care. They go there because either there are few jobs where they live, or they get paid like $20 to $30 USD a day at best.

Or, in the case of Mexican women to get a government check for having babies and lounging around the house.

I didn't say Mexicans couldn't get free or good medical care in Mexico. I never made any pretense of being an expert on the Mexican healthcare system.

Read my comment again. I said that the healthcare debate and the immigration debate are interconnected - like many things in life. I went on to say that free medical care here could remove one incentive for potential illegal aliens to remain in the old country, whatever country it happens to be.

Not all illegal aliens are from Mexico.

It's always a bad idea to inject your own prejudices into reading some else's comments.

I have never once in my many visits over the years, now full time, heard anyone saying they were going to the US for free medical care.

Um. You can't get free medical care here. So why in all your visits and residence there would you have ever heard that as a reason to come here?

"I don't think it's unreasonable for the seniors to be upset. Don't forget, Medicare was originally promoted as being an investment plan, the same way Social Security was." - Cousin Dave

So what's your point Dave? That because people were led to believe that Medicare and Social Security were actual investments, others have to continue to provide more funding for those programs merely to maintain the illusion that existing retirees are getting a return on their "investment"? That is like someone falling for some dodgy scheme promising huge returns, and then when they don't materialize asking a third party to pay them the money instead. What about all those people who "invested" in those Nigerian banking scams? I'll guess you will have to get your checkbook out and pay them the promised returns instead. There's a good sport.

And frankly, it has been obvious for a long time to anyone with a brain that programs like Social Security and Medicare are nothing remotely like a real investment. Instead of getting angry, they could get a clue.

The other thing about programs like Medicare and Social Security is that they are zero sum. If someone gets more out of the system than they put in, it means someone else will have to put more in than they will get out. According to one estimate, the average retiree today will have paid $65,000 towards Medicare during their life (adjusted for inflation in today's dollars), but will get out $174,000 in benefits during their retirement. If today's retirees get much more than they put in, it will ultimately mean that at some point future retirees will get far less back than they put in. Indeed, if these programs eventually collapse it will mean that those who have yet to reach retirement age will effectively get nothing back on their payroll contributions.

Future retirees who may have paid payroll taxes into SS and Medicare for many years only to find they get $0.00 when they retire will have far more reason to be angry than current retirees who will at least get their money back.

Recently I got into an argument along the lines I outlined above on the American Thinker website. Someone actually started deleting my comments after the first couple and didn't allow subsequent comments past the moderation.

Fancy that! Being censored on a conservative site for arguing against the growth of government entitlements. Who would of thought it?

It's official now. Fiscal conservatives are no longer welcome on conservative forums. I've been excommunicated for damnable heresy. I'm sure that William Buckley or Ronald Reagan would be so ashamed of the current state of American conservatism.

P.S. one thing that really pisses me off about this incident is that someone deleted a comment of mine correcting another poster who incorrectly suggested that I wanted to euthenase the elderly. I accept that people have some right to moderate their forums. But to delete a post from someone clarifying their own position, and allow another post misrepresenting that position to stand unchallenged, serves no purpose other than to be mischievous and deceptive. Anyone who does that is a piece of shit, pure and simple.

Isn't that Buchanan's site? He's no conservative. He's a racist, Jew-hating, xenophobic, isolationist Hitler-apologist.

You are right about one thing - Pat Buchanan is a piece of shit. Which is why the major networks always go to him when they want a "conservative" opinion. They know that he's such a pile that everyone will immediately associate conservatism and Naziism when he opens his ignorant mouth.

It is not disingenuous top invoke Iraq! We spend money on a war that has cost slives and were we now have more higly paid civilians in Iraq than soldiers, and yet we are getting nowhere; we are losing out in Afghanistan. We sell 2/3 of the ars sold worldwide. We have more money going in to militarizing space (bet you didn't know that) than we do for scientific studies of space. So if you want to raise the arguement about not having money, then it is fair enough to look at where our money is going.
\
Now try this: the single best measure of a nation's health care is the average longevity of its citizens. The US ranks below 30 other nations in the industrialized world, and yet we spend TWICE as much (on average) as ANY nation anywhere for our health care.

Palin going to fix that?

Now try this: the single best measure of a nation's health care is the average longevity of its citizens. The US ranks below 30 other nations in the industrialized world, and yet we spend TWICE as much (on average) as ANY nation anywhere for our health care.

Bullshit on stilts.

The single best measure of a nation's health care is recovery and survival of critical illness.

And nobody beats us. Nobody comes close.

My father had stage 3a lung cancer. A year later, he's completely clear. Probably gonna outlive his father now.

What's the cancer survival rate in the countries with socialized medicine? Yeah, didn't think you wanted to talk about that.

"It is not disingenuous top invoke Iraq! We spend money on a war that has cost slives and were we now have more higly paid civilians in Iraq than soldiers, and yet we are getting nowhere; we are losing out in Afghanistan. We sell 2/3 of the ars sold worldwide. We have more money going in to militarizing space (bet you didn't know that) than we do for scientific studies of space. So if you want to raise the arguement about not having money, then it is fair enough to look at where our money is going."

Fred: Been to Afghanistan much lately? I have and probably headed back next year. You say we are losing over there--and what do you base this on, exactly? What you hear in the mainstream media? Amazing. I'm so glad that you seem to "support" the troops by pointing out relatively low pay scale and loss of lives, but let me remind you that every single man and woman who puts on the uniform does so of their own free will. Unless the gov't reinstates the draft, that's a phony argument. So very many of the precious lives lost were those who volunteered well after we went to war, knowing full well what the potential price would be; and yet they did so anyway....

Getting back to the cost of healthcare: The point that several others and I were trying to make on this board is that the cost of the war and the cost of healthcare is an "apples and oranges" argument. If the government can't provide security to its citizens, it is a complete and abject failure. If the government can't provide "free" health care to all people located within its borders, um, gee, well, I guess they're responsible for their own medical care. It's not the government's JOB.

"Constitution? I won! Fuck the Constitution."

No Constitution-fucking going on. The Senate makes its own rules.

Got a quote?

Sure do:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Controlling the debate on this should have been a slam dunk. Instead, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama let Limbaugh, Palin, and a few others take it from them.

The fact that the "death panels" comment still has life is testimony to how ineffective a communicator Obama is when it comes to details.

You're correct, they Democrats always fail in this regard, while the right wing knows how to couch things in simple, fearmongering phrases: "death panels", "death tax", etc.

Putting it mildly, messaging is not the Democrats strength. If they were to call it "Health Insurance Reform", for example, I think people would have responded to things better. Because then they're going after the big bad insurance companies and not "health care".

You inhabit a fascinating alternate reality, Whatever.

Messaging isn't the Democrats' strength, yet they control all of Congress and the Presidency.

"Death tax" is not fear-mongering. It is a simple statement of fact. It is a tax that is levied only upon those who have died.

"Death Panels" is not a scare tactic. It is a bold statement that the Democrats would rather people not hear because it is entirely too true.

The only way that universal health care is going to save money is by not treating people. And the advisors that Obama's surrounded his stupid ass with are all on board with euthanizing the inconvenient, infirm, and elderly.

>>> Isn't that Buchanan's site?

Where did you hear that?

Messaging isn't the Democrats' strength, yet they control all of Congress and the Presidency.

I know, amazing isn't it? "Public option". They really could come up with anything better?

It is a tax that is levied only upon those who have died.

No, it's actually a tax on monies passed on some inheritors under certain circumstances. For example, if you die and leave everything to your spouse, no tax is paid. If you die without a huge estate, no tax is paid. Death tax is, at best, misleading.

And "death panels" most certainly is scare tactic.

Regarding that so-called panel, here's what the law enacting it says:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

Brian, you're like the right-wing equivalent of a 9/11 Truther, convinced that everything Obama does is the implementation of some sort of sinister master plan to turn the U.S. in to some amalgam of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It's ridiculous.

The proposed plan is nowhere near the sort of state control seen in Europe and Canada, and yet all I hear are cries of SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM. The hyperbole is amazing. And eventually, people are going to get sick of it and tune out.

The fact that the "death panels" comment still has life is testimony to how ineffective a communicator Obama is when it comes to details.

In calling into questions Obama's communication skills, I was referring to the fact the he has failed thus far to refute the "death panels" rubric well enough for it to die or beocme a phrase limited to the fringe elements of his opposition.

It's becoming a mainstream phrase right now and is being effectively used to describe the non-political panel on efficiency and process improvement proposed in this healthcare legislation.

He has let his opposition control this debate. Pelosi and Reid have only fed the fears of the masses with their rhetoric and behavior.

...Democrats always fail in this regard, while the right wing knows how to couch things in simple, fearmongering phrases: "death panels", "death tax", etc.

Putting it mildly, messaging is not the Democrats strength.

I'm getting pretty sick of hearing Democrats claim that when the lose the debate the only reason they lost is because Republicans engaged in "fear mongering." As if the substance of the Left's argument was beyond reproach but they lost to the knuckle-dragging cavemen on the right due to simple phrasing.

"Death Panels" effectively sets forth a real fear of what a non-political (and, thus, not answerable to the electorate) panel on cost control and process improvement could become without an effective check on its power. Like it or not, Obama will have to address that fear with real and substantive arguments that amount to more than mockingly saying "I'm not comin' to kill Grandma."

You absolutely can. You show up at an emergency room with an emergency and they have to treat you.

True. I should have said, "free non-emergency care."

Conan: IT HAS NO POWER. I quote, again, for the record:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

"Death panels" sticks around because it's simple, it sounds scary, it can't be rebutted with a single-sentence soundbite. And because too many people are morons who can't take the time to learn the truth.

Whoops, forgot to close that tag. The last paragraph is my response.

Whatever,

I'm not arguing that the panel has any power. I'm arguing that the panel is perceived to have power and Obama has not effectively rebutted that viewpoint.

The fact that "death panels" still has legs is testimony to how ineffective Obama has been in communicating that part of his(?) plan.

It's kind of like when Reagan failed to rebut the "Star Wars" label that the [always failing at "messaging" Democrats] put on his proposed missile defense system. That cartoonish label helped shoot the program down (pardon the pun) and continues today to be an millstone around the neck of anyone who tries to revive it.

If Obama doesn't get better at communicating fast, "death panels" is a phrase that will be around for a long time.

And, even without actual power, a top-level bureaucracy does have power when it "suggests" ways to reduce costs or adminsiter programs. So, the fear encompassed in the label is not entirely unfounded.

Whatever -

Look, it's really really simple. We all know that Obama and the left wing WANT single-payer. They can't stop talking about how the "public option" is a down payment on single-payer.

And the "death panels" aren't part of the health care legislation, they were put into place in one of the bailout bills. The "Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research", whose purpose is to determine which treatments are too expensive to bother funding, recommending, or researching. It was part of Daschle's pipe-dream. You remember him, right? He's one of Obama's advisors. And he quite famously said "Americans should be more like the English and learn to accept hopeless diagnoses."

In other words, death panel.

But since you're so fucking smitten with your Chicago TelePrompTer Jesus you don't bother looking at the monsters he has advising him and crafting his policy positions. Nope. Just a Republican Scare Tactic.

Here's how the shit rolls:

CCER decides that a certain cancer treatment is not "cost effective" in terms of "Quality-adjusted Life Years". Medicare declares that this treatment will not be covered.

The private insurance companies (which tend to use the Medicare rules) then refuse to pay for the treatment.

Which means that only those with the means get it.

Except that now, since the potential market is so small, research on that treatment stops.

So nobody gets it.

And people are condemned to die earlier than they might otherwise have because of the decision of an unelected panel of bureaucrats.

Death Panel.

See also: The State is not your Friend.

Conan,

Yeah, he hasn't rebutted it effectively because people are morons and can't pay attention for more than two sentences. Or are paranoid conspiracy theorists ^

It doesn't matter really, as long as he can get the votes in Congress. My guess, mentioned earlier, is that he does end up getting enough votes to pass some sort of healthcare reform along what's outlined in his speech.

This debate, like every other political debate of the last 12 or 15 years (since Clinton's reelection, I'd say) has descended into shouting moronitude, and I'm basically sick of it. Fuck the morons, and I don't care if they don't like what they get.

Yeah, he hasn't rebutted it effectively because people are morons and can't pay attention for more than two sentences. Or are paranoid conspiracy theorists....

Ah, I see. If people were only smarter, they'd truly understand the wonderful things Obama is trying to do for them. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Methinks your true gripe is not that people aren't smart enough to see what Obama's trying to do. It's that they are smart enough.

The American people are starting to see through the hollow shell that is the Obamessiah and are seeing the lifelong political operator who is in way over his head and flailing desperately.

You can't vote "present" as president, but damned if Obama isn't giving it the old college try.

====================

If Obama's healthcare plan is so wonderful, why is he exempting himself and Congress?

Why does it not go into effect until 2013 (after the next presidential election)?

For those of fascinated by the term, "death panel":

Whatever you call it, the administrator of a "free" service must ration it.

Print this and tape it to your monitor. It's part of the real world, which pays no attention to your political party or wishing.

Brian, as far as I can gather Pat Buchanan has nothing to do with the American Thinker site.

But you are right about Buchanan though. He is a real piece of work.

I do think that people like Palin who believe in "death panels" are morons.

I also believe that Obama, while not any sort of messiah, is a shrewd politician who plays a long game while his opponents live in the short game. We will see which wins out.

I do think that people like Palin who believe in "death panels" are morons.

Palin doesn't believe in death panels. She's warning against them. Perhaps she is a bit too alarmist and hyperbolic, but she has made people think about the implications of Obamacare.

Obama, on the other hand, pushed for the 1,000+ page bill to be passed (without it being read) before Congress' August break - so he apparently didn't want people thinking too much about the implications of this "reform."

For someone derided by the media as a moron, she has firmly and unabashedly wrested control of this debate from media darling and supposed genius, Obama.

"I also believe that Obama, while not any sort of messiah, is a shrewd politician who plays a long game while his opponents live in the short game. We will see which wins out."

And just what do you know of either the man, his history, or the people who have endorsed him?

This isn't about a personality, although your statements appear, to me, to put the person above the office. It's about what government can and cannot do.

And if you think "government" is a magic word, you're simply wrong, blind to government's many failures, and hypocritical if you suggest that any Federal health care system will be run better than Social Security.

Whatever:

Fuck the morons, and I don't care if they don't like what they get.

Yeah, who cares if it completely fucks the economy and re-writes the relationship between citizen and state. You want free shit, and you're determined to hold a gun to my head to get it. And you're shocked when we shoot back?

Whatever:

I do think that people like Palin who believe in "death panels" are morons.

I also believe that Obama, while not any sort of messiah, is a shrewd politician who plays a long game while his opponents live in the short game. We will see which wins out.

Right. I graduated Magna with an engineering degree. You're calling me a moron? I run a successful small business, which is more than Obama has EVER done in his life. And I'm the moron?

We don't know what Obama's grades were like. But I'd bet real money that he is significantly dumber than I am. I'd be surprised if his IQ is much over 110-120.

And he doesn't play the long game. He kneecaps his opponents so he doesn't have to play the fucking game at all.

Jesus Christ, man! Have you read ANYTHING of the history of Duh One? How do you think he got where he is now?

Brian, I have no doubt you're a bright guy. I think you're too inclined to think ill of the intentions and goals of the Obama administration. It's a granular bit of moronitude you have about him, much like the BDS lefties.

When I say long game, I mean the way Obama let all his opponents in the campaign fight a short game tactical battle - Hillary and McCain both - and then he ended up controlling the debate and crushing them both despite enormous tactical disadvantages. Obama is patient and slow and persistent. And he has a track record of winning.

No, it's not a "granular bit of moronitude". Obama is a mental midget. He's a thug in a fancy suit, nothing more.

He got his senate seat by getting the divorce papers of his main opponent unsealed so the guy had to bail, leaving Obama to run unopposed. Like I said, kneecaps. It almost worked for Tonya Harding, but her boyfriend was much dumber than Obama, and that's saying something.

The "intentions and goals" of the Obama administration are laid bare by the men and women he's surrounded himself with. People who do not believe that Islamist expansionism is a threat. People who believe that Chavez and Ahmadinejad are OK. People who believe that government always knows best.

And those beliefs are fundamentally non-American. Obama wants to turn my country into the same kind of hell-hole that Europe is becoming, and I won't stand for it.

The idea that I should simply sit back and tolerate having my income and freedom stolen from me "for the greater good" is not one that I find acceptable.

Obama and his people want to fundamentally rewrite the relationship between citizen and state. I, for one, do not wish to live in a feudal serfdom where I'm the serf.

Brian -- Agree with everything in your immediately preceding post. It's as good a summary of my attitude toward O and his philosophy as I've seen. And -- the fact that more Americans don't see things this way is a damning indictment of their inability, or unwillingness, to analyze this guy in documented, realistic terms.

Brian, your equating of moderate health care reforms that preserve a private system with a tectonic shift in the role of the goverment when we already have Medicare, Medicaid, SChip, and Social Security clearly indicates you suffer from ODS. It's OK though, the brown shirts won't be coming for you. Because they don't exist.

For anyone who voted for Bush and supported his massive, illegal intrusions into our private lives in contravention of our laws and our constitution, you have no leg to stand on now.

And I wonder, when you describe Europe as a hell hole, when were you last there? Cause my most recent experience was good food, good wine, nice people, good music, good art, places open late and a refreshing lack of moralist douches.

I didn't vote for Bush and I didn't vote for Obama. Does that mean I'm somehow less fucked now?

No, your fucked status remains the same. However, you can complain about government intrusion into your life without being a rank hypocrite.

Brian, your equating of moderate health care reforms that preserve a private system with a tectonic shift in the role of the goverment when we already have Medicare, Medicaid, SChip, and Social Security clearly indicates you suffer from ODS. It's OK though, the brown shirts won't be coming for you. Because they don't exist.

Ninja, please. You honestly believe this shit you just wrote? Obama's already made it perfectly clear that his ultimate goal is the destruction of the private insurance industry. HR3200 in its present form will, immediately upon passage (if it passes in 2009) invalidate my insurance, and make it impossible for me to buy insurance in any form from anyone until the "Exchange" is set up in 2013.

In case you haven't heard, Medicare and SS are bankrupt, and the tens of thousands of dollars that I "invested" in them is money I will never see again.

And I'm against all of those programs because they are total and complete failures.

It's not Obama Derangement Syndrome. It's "Why the fuck should I trust the government with my life when they can't pave fucking roads?"

For anyone who voted for Bush and supported his massive, illegal intrusions into our private lives in contravention of our laws and our constitution, you have no leg to stand on now.

What, I should have voted for Algore or Kerry? I didn't vote "for" Bush, I voted "against" the other brainless prats. Besides, Kerry voted for USA PATRIOT, and Algore was in the Senate when it was written (there's no way in hell they wrote and passed a thousand-page monstrosity in 24 hours, they had to have had it in their pocket just waiting to be sprung.)

Besides, Anything you imagine Bush did to steal your liberty was done far more when Clinton demanded an anti-terrorism bill after the OKC bombing.

Love your twisted logic though - if I didn't demand Bush's head for signing the PATRIOT act, I can't complain about Obama trying to bankrupt me?

Did your momma drop you on your head as a baby?

And I wonder, when you describe Europe as a hell hole, when were you last there? Cause my most recent experience was good food, good wine, nice people, good music, good art, places open late and a refreshing lack of moralist douches.

Irrelevant. All of it.

Sweden is on the verge of bankruptcy. Iceland is bankrupt. England, France, and Germany are rethinking their medical systems because they can no longer afford the welfare states they have created. Italy is in a demographic death spiral. Spain is completely enervated. The Euro has failed to replace the dollar as the international reserve currency, the EU Constitution has been rejected in every popular referendum.

Europe is, by any definition you care to use, a dead man walking.

I thought you didn't have insurance? Isn't that what Crid always hassles you about?

And that you're talking about house resolutions betrays your ignorance of out politics. The Senate is where this sausage is being made.

And yes, you're paranoid. Obama didn't run on eliminating private insurance an none of the proposed bills will do it. It's all projection on your part.

In my opinion if you voted for Bush in 2004 you should be banned from complaining about deficits, privacy violations, or expansion of government. Because your vote supported more of all of the above.

Irrelevant. All of it.

It's entirely relevant. You used the term hellhole to describe Europe. Not The Sudan. Or Honduras. Or Yemen. Or the Congo. Or North Korea. Or Mississippi.

To you, a hellhole is apparently a place with high literacy, long lives, rich culture, and a very high standard of living relative to almost everywhere except for parts of the U.S. Europe ain't perfect but it's got a lot going for it.

What's NOT a hellhole under your standards?

P.S. Why is Iceland bankrupt? Hint: it's not their health expenses. It couldn't possibly be speculative mania run wild, could it? I mean, deregulation of industries always brings positive results, right?

You know what, I'm done trying to have this discussion with you. You're debating from some alternate reality.

To me, a hellhole is a place where your every move is recorded on CCTV, you can be prosecuted for having improper opinions, governments have the power of life and death over the citizenry, and the government confiscates the bulk of the fruits of an individual's labor.

The United States, if Obama gets his way, will become all of these things. England, Sweden, etc. already are.

Oh, and Iran and Cuba have high literacy rates, long lives, and rich culture. They're still hell-holes that you couldn't pay me enough to live in.

Given the choice between Europe and Mississippi - I'll take Mississippi ANY TIME.

I thought you didn't have insurance? Isn't that what Crid always hassles you about?

Yeah, well Crid ain't as smart as he thinks he is.

And that you're talking about house resolutions betrays your ignorance of out politics. The Senate is where this sausage is being made.

Bullshit on stilts. The house Progressive coalition has already told the Senate that any plan without a "robust public option" (which they all promised the SEIU in taped meetings you can find all over the net is the "way you get to single-payer") is dead. The Senate has not released a fucking thing to be perused. All we have is HR3200. And it's a pile of shit.

And it shows what YOU know, because the House has already committed to putting whatever odious shit the Senate strips out back in using the budget reconciliation process so that it can't be filibustered.

And yes, you're paranoid. Obama didn't run on eliminating private insurance an none of the proposed bills will do it. It's all projection on your part.

Just because HR3200 doesn't do it doesn't mean it isn't part of the plan. Obama and the bulk of the progressives in the house are on record telling their supporters that this is the starting point to a total government takeover of the health-care sector.

In my opinion if you voted for Bush in 2004 you should be banned from complaining about deficits, privacy violations, or expansion of government. Because your vote supported more of all of the above.

In my opinion, if you voted for John Kerry you banned from complaining about deficits, privacy violations, or expansion of government. Because your vote supported more of all of the above.

See how I did that there? I made you responsible for what John Kerry did, even if you didn't support him.

And if you think Kerry would have done anything differently, you're insane. Kerry would almost certainly have increased spending at a far higher rate (kinda like the jug-eared asshole we have now is trying to do) than Bush could have ever imagined in his fever-dreams.

Bush fucked up. He let the Congress run riot over him. He should have vetoed every budget that they sent him. But he wanted to be a nice guy.

One final thing and I'm done with this thread - never forget that the only Democratic criticism of Medicare Part D was that it didn't spend enough.

Iran and Cuba have high literacy rates, long lives, and rich culture.

You missed the high standard of living and personal freedom bits.

Given the choice between Europe and Mississippi - I'll take Mississippi ANY TIME.

Cool. I'll take Spain or the Netherlands.

Yeah, well Crid ain't as smart as he thinks he is.

We agree!

I carry on listening to the news update lecture about receiving free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the most excellent site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i find some?