Clinton's Prescription for Another Heath Care Reform Failure

Would someone please ask Hillary Clinton to stop coming up with health care "reform" plans that are less attractive than the dysfunctional system she proposes to replace?

The former First Lady, who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the 1990s by responding to the demand for a sane and humane system to deliver affordable medical care to all Americans with a plan to drown the ailing in a bureaucracy designed to augment the profits of the nation's largest insurance companies, is back with an equally heavy-handed and unappealing "reform" proposal.

The Senator from New York who has emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- based, in no small part, on romantic misrecollections of her last foray into the nation's seemingly-endless health-care debate -- wants to solve the crisis of the uninsured and the under-insured by requiring every American to obtain coverage.

Of course, the ridiculous Mitt Romney decries the Clinton campaign proposal as ``European-style socialized medicine."

But Romney knows so little about health care that he cannot even pick a smart site for a press conference on the issue -- he derided the Clinton plan in front of St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan, home of the Rudolph W. Giuliani Trauma Center that is named for his chief rival in the Republican nomination race.

The reality is that the Clinton plan is about as socialistic as a Ronald Reagan corporate tax cut.

The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country's wealthiest corporations. The plan's tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense that, ultimately, Clinton's plan will be as tough a sell as the failed 1993 "Hillarycare" proposal.

America is ready for health care reform.

But it is not ready for more bureaucracy, more expense and more revenue for insurance companies.

Despite what Mitt Romney says, Clinton and the Democrats would have a far easier time selling ``European-style socialized medicine" than what the senator from New York is peddling. And that does not even take into account the potential appeal of a uniquely American single-payer system that might intelligently combine the necessary efficiency of a publicly-funded and defined payment program for covering costs with the appealing prospect of allowing Americans to choose their own basic plans and doctors.

Clinton could have proposed such a system. Indeed, she could have modeled it on the plan she and other members of Congress now enjoy.

Instead, she chose to propose a scheme defined not by the needs or desires of the American people but by the demands of existing insurance firms and a dysfunctional for-profit health care industry.

If the senator is nominated and elected, and if she advances the initiative she unveiled Monday, there will be no health-care reform. And America's uninsured and under-insured millions will be doomed to suffer for another decade or so because Hillary Clinton was incapable of extracting herself from the grip of the corporations that have made it so hard for the Americans to get the care they need.

Comments (408)

1. crap! crap crap crap!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 6:30pm

2. oooh fox lite, abc, is blabbing about this

   110 billion/year...

   getting attention cause of losing last battle...

   romney is a clown...its largely his plan...

   well, fox lite (abc) seems to like 50 foot queenie, made fun of mitt...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 6:35pm

3. whoa! shoutout to jeremy scahill! got on abc news over iraq's jerking BLACKWATER liscence...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 6:41pm

4. Posted by ZERO 09/17/2007 @ 6:56pm

   man it was almost eerie. nichols posted this within minutes of what you said on the other blog.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 7:26pm

5. If only Hillary was a direct descendent of Ronald Reagan---I would be leading the band wagon for her election. But sadly she is not---however, I will take a second look at her plan because Little Johnny Nichols the whore doesn't like it---that probably means I will love it. The nation is ready for health care reform---it is not ready for European style Socialized medicine---which seems to be what Little Johnny Nichols the whore is whoring today.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 09/17/2007 @ 9:10pm

6. Zero---you are never going to be happy person--this country is not going as far left as you want it to---maybe it is time to consider The Netherlands, Sweden, France or maybe Cuba would be more to your likeing. Don't take this as a love it or leave it message---I have noticed your frustration in message after message---I wonder if you would be a healthier person if you just left the stress behind and went to one of the above countries---just think less stress and, in your opinion, better health care.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 09/17/2007 @ 9:16pm

7. At least Clinton is making health-care reform a topic of discussion. You're damn right we need European-influenced socialized medicine. With over 40 million people without health insurance (many in my state), it's time for us to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world. One of my friends just moved to Canterbury, UK; I am so tempted to follow suit.

   Posted by NM Dem at 09/17/2007 @ 9:19pm

8. Of course, the ridiculous Mitt Romney decries the Clinton campaign proposal as ``European-style socialized medicine.

   you could be so lucky...........

   the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country's wealthiest corporations.

   might as well call this issue settled

   America is ready for health care reform.

   But it is not ready for more bureaucracy, more expense and more revenue for insurance companies.

   so?.......................................

   but by the demands of existing insurance firms and a dysfunctional for-profit health care industry.

   well, they pay for her campaign. what's the problem?

   If the senator is nominated and elected, and if she advances the initiative she unveiled Monday, there will be no health-care reform.

   if?

   Hillary Clinton was incapable of extracting herself from the grip of the corporations that have made it so hard for the Americans to get the care they need.

   "we're sorry. a corporatectomy is not part of your coverage."

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 9:38pm

9. Hillary health care reform is like a Ted Kennedy immigration reform bill (whether 1964, 1986, or 2006)....it proports to solve the problem with "edge trimming" and then makes it worse, so that they come back later and have to fix it again.

   Mr Nichols is somewhat right. The answer isn't her plan. Doomed as we are to Federally-run universal coverage-single payer...best to just get to it. Then the UHC proponents can hurry up and explain why THAT is failing and what they'll need to "fix it".

   If we're going to blow up American health care, might as well plant the demo charges...and not slowly break the windows and knock the doors down. Let's just get to it.

   Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 9:47pm

10. Posted by ZERO 09/17/2007 @ 6:53pm

    If you are going to create a public plan you do so in a way that obsoletes the private insurance model.

    ta-da!

    We could all be quite assured, however, that the mandate that we all buy a health insurance product would be made law, faster than the speed of light

    don't blink

    Hillary is a stealth Reaganite

    seems rather obvious to me

    She will tell anyone anything that she thinks they want to hear to be elected President.

    par for the course.

    She's terrible.

    terribly so.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 9:54pm

11. Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/17/2007 @ 9:10pm

    Psalm 15:3

    3 and has no slander on his tongue,

    who does his neighbor no wrong

    and casts no slur on his fellowman,

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 9:57pm

12. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 9:00pm

    how bizarre...i almost wish your wishful thinking were...more than wishful thinking...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 9:57pm

13. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 9:00pm

    my god! you're not wrong.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 9:58pm

14. better health care.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/17/2007 @ 9:16pm

    yep. at 1/2 the cost!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 9:59pm

15. this is toooooooooooo much:

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 9:00pm

    how bizarre...i almost wish your wishful thinking were...more than wishful thinking...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 9:57pm | ignore this person

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 9:00pm

    my god! you're not wrong.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 9:58pm | ignore this person

    i need a beer

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:01pm

16. gosh effin darned it! hillary rotten wants to force everyone to do business with effin insurance companies! oh nice. CORPORATE SOCIALISM!

    CORPORATE SOCIALISM! SERF HEALTHCARE!

    do business with MY wet nurses the health insurance companies or else!

    50 foot queenie! frankenstein monster of pragmatic murdochs of all endeavors!

    meet the new boss! only marginally less compromised than the old boss!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 10:16pm

17. CORPORATE SOCIALISM!

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 10:16pm

    you're on a tear brother.

    don't stop!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

18. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 9:57pm

    "Yea, though none of that 'neighborly' stuff shalt apply to them durn liberals"----II Galoshes 2:19

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 10:24pm

19. Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 10:24pm

    man, no quoting the MOLD TESTAMENT!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:25pm

20. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

    dammit frosty! i swear, everytime i start gettin around to swallowing the BITTER PILL THAT IS 50 FOOT COMPROMISED PANDERING VOTE-FOR-STUPID-WAR-AND-NOT-APOLOGIZE QUEENIE!

    dammit! is amurukuh really ready for a mulatto pres? dammit! with edwards limping along, i guess i gotta jump on the o train. maybe if i, a southern mmale whitey, jump on the o train, maybe i can convince a few other southern male whiteys its ok...not that it will matter down here in the general election. i may as well vote nader in that, but the primary has meaning.

    though it was fun campaigning for 50 foot queenie's old man in 92 when he had no chance of winning the state...

    o train...can it make the long haul?

    every time! she does/says something that makes my stomach turn or sets off my spidey sense...

    well, on the positive side...if she gets the nomination, i technically wont HAVE to grit my teeth and clench my buttcheeks and pull the hillbillery lever...its pointless down here anyway!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 10:36pm

21. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 10:32pm

    git her RIO, sic her boy! rip! tear! rip into her like a pit bull into a poodle at michael vick's compound!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 10:39pm

22. BARRY O! BARRY O!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 10:40pm

23. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 10:32pm

    Rio, i appreciate your dismay over ms. clinton's campaign shenanigans.

    nonetheless, if you are going to copy'n'paste something, please let us know.

    this post is directly from here:

    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28030.html

    if anyone is interested

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:08pm

24. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 10:56pm | ignore this

    har har! oh enemy of my enemy! that was hilarious by the way...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 11:12pm

25. What they are not telling you is that most of the uninsured are ILLEGAL ALIENS that have NO right to be in our country or to avail themselves of TAXPAYER derived funding for that healthcare! Check your local emergency room to see why your current healthcare cost really keep rising!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 11:05pm

    whoa dude, maybe you need to go a little farther north than mcallen

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:12pm

26. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 11:18pm

    i go through phases where i have nothing to say, so i say nothing. recharging tie.

    going back to school, switching careers (education to shrinkology), probably gonna get off my butt and work on barry o's campaign until the primary, taking care of elderly mother...need a social life...but not bad.

    the struggle gives it meaning, does it not?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 11:30pm

27. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 11:05pm

    Digging deeper into the "47 million uninsured" lie...

    27% of the uninsured are illegal aliens (about 12 million people)

    38% of the uninsured earn more than $50,000/year

    20% of the uninsured earn more than $75,000/year

    33% of those eligible for public health coverage don't apply for it

    20% of the uninsured are that way for less than four months out of the year (likely, they are between jobs)

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=273280379232127

    Posted by usc1 at 09/17/2007 @ 11:31pm

28. SOMEBODY AT THE NATION JUMP ON THE BLACKWATER GETTING BOOTED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! QUICK! BBC IS ALL OVER IT! YOUR OWN BOY, SCAHILL, BROKE THE STORY!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 11:33pm

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 11:41pm

    yeah, the way i see it, this world's full of folks who need therapy...maybe hillery rotten's plan will include lots of $ for mental health...lots of post traumatic stress coming home...

    actually i have a buzillion dollar idea that could make therapy cheap, accessible, and make me a buzillion $, but need the degree to realize it.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 11:47pm

30. Yep, ditto, 88yr. old mother 135 miles away, and in same town with the 100yr. old batchlor farmer uncle just hospitalized, so you know where I will be tues. or Thurs. as no other kin within 250 miles of there and they are 85 and 90!

    It can be a bummer sometimes along with working from home. I would go for a career change too!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 11:41pm

    best of luck for your kin, RIO.

    something i never forget about my parents: i owe them a huge debt because, frankly, ¡they made me!

    peace

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:49pm

31. actually i have a buzillion dollar idea that could make therapy cheap, accessible, and make me a buzillion $, but need the degree to realize it.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 11:47pm

    dude, haven't you realized that therapy is free?

    it's right there, under your fingertips.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:50pm

32. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 11:50pm

    oh yeah, definately. writing is powerful therapy. indeed. as are graphic arts, music, crafts, all fors of creation and synthesizing.

    this crap i belch forth here i used to think of as stream of conciousness, but its almost more like automatic writing...which is a dubious pseudo scientific concept itself, but appealing in a sort of jungian way, i guess...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/17/2007 @ 11:56pm

33. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/18/2007 @ 12:04am | ignore this person

    but rio, i share those values as well. i'm actually comfortable with gnostic and thomasine versions of christianity.

    i just want a country where all faiths compete/co-exist peacefully and outside the parameters of da gubbament.

    but my understanding of the christ (a form of a "buddha" so to speak, or enlightened being), although i'm sure heretical to you, is at least respectful and, beyond all my anti-christian rantings, respectful and reverent...

    but, like i said, its probably not the same as your jesus (yet it is).

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:13am

34. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/18/2007 @ 12:14am

    ah, classic behaviorism, a bit over maligned in recent years, in my opinion...as long as you're not torturing them. i always liked, in teaching, negative reinforcement (i think - gotta bone up on this stuff), remove negative stimulus when desired behavior appears...like lecture loudly, unpleasantly, ceaselessly, until it is seen as more unpleseant than desired outcome - like WORK!

    but with little tykes a pop on the fanny probably works better and doesnt scar the kid for life.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:23am

35. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/18/2007 @ 12:25am

    yeah, thats the beautiful stuff. its peter that kinda ticks me off a bit...

    but i think the gospel of thomas should have been included...much of the current form of the bible is a result of the needs of the roman state at the time. the new testament itself was based on a collection of written and oral tradition, some of which was included, some excluded, based on the judgement of men alive 200+ years after the events...

    perhaps as a living religion its time for soe rejected traditions in christianity to be re-examined, like thomasine stuff.

    again, i find no problem believing in both buddha and christ, in the gnostic sense, and in your personalized "god" as analagous to my less personalized "god".

    its that damned demiurge and his black iron prison!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:36am

36. no - not peter - paul...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:37am

37. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 12:37am

    what about (and) mary?

    Some things are different, some the same Some turn over, some don't change Time and music all forgive And in the best of friends the spirit lives

    Set in motion by the ages Crossing notions, makin' waves Two steps backward and three along For the best of friends one more song.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 12:49am

38. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/18/2007 @ 12:47am | ignore this

    wiki gospel of thomas sometime if you r bored. nite, enemy of my enemy.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 12:49am

    indeed. nite zoom.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:54am

39. RIO, IBBLEBLIBBLEIBBLEBLIBBLEIBBLEBLIBBLE

    i was raised by two neither atheists not agnostics. i think i'd call my folks "i'mtoobusyists"

    so, i've "found" religion (my own home made version) along a more convoluted path.

    in the west, especially in these times where religion has been hijacked in the name of profit by so many, we tend to forget that there are more people on this planet that don't have anything to do with abrahamic teachings than those that do.

    it seems "god" addresses each culture in a manner and language unique to that culture. know your audience, i guess.

    well, anyways here is an excellent website i found today:

    the ultimate collection of "god's" best writing from around the inhabited universe as we know it today [sacred-texts.com]

    chew on all this for a few hundred years and you really won't need any health care plan. (trying to get back on topic)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 01:01am

40. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 01:01am | ignore this

    ok, my ambien is kicking in, so this could get wierd...

    the thomasine, gnostic version of christianity, of which the cathar heresy appears to have been an example, claims various things, based on which tradition we're blabbing about. generally they are more into the "mystery" thing, often incorporate ideas of reincarnation, see the material world as flawed/imperfect and prisonlike (like buddhist/vedantic concepts of "samsara"), and furthermore see the god of most of the old testament as a false, flawed god, the "demiurge". some go so far as to equate "him" with satan, others as a flawed, misguided personification of great power (the angry old testaent bully god). manichean traditions sort of left christianity and approached later zoroastrian dualism, but as such, are not considered to lie strictly within the "christian" tradition. the "black iron prison" is one gnostic image of the material world of the demiurge, in which it is easy to draw similrities to aforementioned buddhist/vedantic samsara...explaining y fondness for gnostic/thomasine christianity...

    ambien...ah...i see the little luminous shadow moth..nity nite...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 01:19am

41. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/18/2007 @ 01:09am

    no worries, brother. i'll be eating sweet potatoes for breakfast. best health care plan there is.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 01:19am

    try melatonin or better yet, sex.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 01:44am

42. With the exception of John Nichol's circumspection, why is it that the Nation more closely represents the DLC of late, with breathless reports of thecorporate reps of the ruling class masquerading as Democrats? Why can't American progressives at the very least, stand on this:

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3898/

    Posted by Lil at 09/18/2007 @ 07:07am

43. For once I agree with NICHOLS in that Hillary's plan is a bad one, although probably for different practical & philosophical reasons. It always amazes me how American socialists like Nichols dismiss accusations of creating socialistic programs by simply declaring them not socialist. Nichols says Hillary doesn't know much about what ails America: Judging from his alternative, I'd say neither does he.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 07:30am

44. Posted by RIO BRAVO

    Believes anything that fits his world-view, regardless of the facts.

    Biggest moron on the sight, always willing to show the where the "ugly American "stereotype comes from.

    will he go to work for Blackwater? Nahh.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2007 @ 07:51am

45. That is what christ living in you, thru you, is all about which is why the majority of conservative christians are more than concerned about doing that which they know is the will of God as expressed by the Holy Bible and one of the many reasons why they wish to return the nation to those most honorable values.RIOKORESH

    Selfless values like calling fellow Christians "the daughter of Satan" or journalists "whores". Virtues like declaring war on a non-threating sovereign country with no plan for the aftermath. christian values like not being willing to go fight against those you fear the most. Values like spreading lies about people daily and supporting those that lie.

    Yep, we want to return to the "Good 'Ol Days" of Robber Barons, segregation, child labor, education for just the wealthy, guvt run by the "elite" . ahh, the good ol days of the christian elitists. Just like the good ol days of the real Taliban, without the luluations.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2007 @ 08:04am

46. Honorable values:

    Stoning whores in the public square

    Stoning adulterers (like Thompson, Reagan, Guliani, Vitter, Craig, ...) in the public square

    good ol slavery for the conquered! Handmaids for all the elites, handmaids that can be killed if they disobey.

    Waiting for flying horseys to take us to the gilded Land of plenty.

    that's right folks, don't listen to modern scientists, they are degenerates. Better to get your info from the bronze age. They had it all down pat!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2007 @ 08:10am

47. Posted by LIL 09/18/2007 @ 07:07am

    But NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, had the curious effect of reversing every one of Clinton's rosy predictions. Once the Mexican government lifted price supports on corn and beans for Mexican farmers, they had to compete against the huge agribusinesses in the United States. The Mexican farmers were swiftly bankrupted. At least 2 million Mexican farmers were driven off their land from 1993 through 2002. And guess where many of them went? This desperate flight of Mexicans into the United States is being exacerbated by large-scale factory closures along the border as manufacturers leave Mexico for the cut-rate embrace of China's totalitarian capitalism.

    and now many of these mexicans return home to work on their previously owned land for the very same agro-behemoths.

    and just imagine the quality of the chinese goods that are being sold in mexico.

    thanks bill.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 08:20am

48. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 07:30am

    i've just woken up. did you just say HRC is a socialist?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 08:21am

49. Well, I can see we are all getting way to serious here, so time for some humor. Please turn to page 4,328 in your Founding Fathers jokebooks:

    With the Rev's Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson in attendance as schoolguests, a teacher began her "Definitions" class by asking for the definition of "tragedy". Sally said an example would be if her dog ran into the street & got hit & killed. Then Sharpton said "Noooo, child that would be sad, but it would really be just an accident, not a tragedy. Billy then suggested a bus that fell off a bridge, killing everyone. "Noooo child, said Jackson, that would be a great loss, but still not a real tragedy.

    Johnny then suggested a fatal plane crash in which both Sharpton & Jackson happened to be aboard. Now you talking, son! the 2 Rev's exclaimed. So what is it that made brought you to such a conclusion?

    To which Johnny replied "Well, it certainly wouldn't be any Great Loss, and it probably wouldn't be an accident, so it would have to be a tradgedy.

    Note: This joke is not to be construed as an atack on any one's race, religion, sexual preference, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, political affiliation, food preferences, level of kinkiness, or any thing else that anyone could ever get offended by now later or anytime anywhere forever.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 08:45am

50. And yes FROSTY, Hillary is a Socialist, an elitist, "Sheep need a Shepard", manipulating, plastic Socialist.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 08:47am

51. "If the senator is nominated and elected, and if she advances the initiative she unveiled Monday, there will be no health-care reform. And America's uninsured and under-insured millions will be doomed to suffer for another decade or so because Hillary Clinton was incapable of extracting herself from the grip of the corporations that have made it so hard for the Americans to get the care they need."

    I think that's the plan.

    Damn, Chip, you sound as dense as poor Romney. But at least Romney knows he's just making the crap up.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 09:13am

52. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 08:47am

    ?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 09:17am

53. Damn, Chip, you sound as dense as poor Romney. But at least Romney knows he's just making the crap up.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 09:13am

    here's one for you:

    google "carlyle bush bain romney" and follow the $

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 09:22am

54. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 08:47am

    Sorry, CHIP, but have to ask you the same question in reverse that I ask of the "progressives"....

    What would say is the difference between a liberal and a socialist?

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 09:47am

55. I'll bite, Mask. The difference between a liberal and a socialist is their funding source. The liberal goes for the rich persons who are JUST LIKE THEM, the socialist goes for EVERYONE.

    I'm not enthused with Hillarycare II, personally. Just because she wants to etch in stone 'thou shalt have health insurance, and health insurance thou shalt have' on pain of serious governmental displeasure means folks like her will be able to benefit from quality care (because they can bloody well afford it), and folks like me/mine will have to suck it up on BC/BS, making choices between putting another tank (or three) of gas in the car to make it to work and being able to afford preventive care so we don't have to spend a week away from work in the hospital...

    If not for the fact I have a decent job that pays more than median wage for this area we'd be in a world of hurt. What are the folks making $7-10/hr doing to get by?

    Posted by javaman222 at 09/18/2007 @ 10:03am

56. Posted by CRABWALK 09/18/2007 @ 08:10am

    thats the old testament demiurge of gnosticism...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 10:14am

57. Posted by JAVAMAN222 09/18/2007 @ 10:03am

    Well, that's a good guess for the "classic liberals" of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy.

    The actual answer is to be found in Arthur Schlesinger's "The Vital Center", where by he guides the old "Third Way" which was New Dealism between laissez-faire capitalism and the socialist models thrown around in the 30s.

    Modern "progressives" though are a different story though. The key way to spot them is to ask "What SOCIALIST policy would you OPPOSE?" Most dodge, balk, etc. A few try to get specific and when you say "Well, for instance, at what point do you think regulation of a major industry, like 'Big Oil', becomes control by the Government?" and if you dig deeper and they start agreeing that "profits", "wages", "resource development", "CEO salaries and perks", and virtually every aspect of the "Big Corporations" need to be controlled by the State...there's no difference between those "progressives" and "socialists".

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 10:16am

58. Posted by MASK

    There you go, attempting to frame a subject in your terms, to fit your agenda. "Progressive" is a term that applies to a great many different views.

    You would best be described as a conservative. You want no change; you want to maintain the status quo. Why? My guess is that you benefit from the current state of affairs.

    Any system without balance cannot maintain itself for long. And our system is horribly out of balance. With the claims of the grinning, ignorant idiots aside, you have only to look at indices such as incarceration, teen pregnancy, poverty, illiteracy, etc. to understand that our system is dysfunctional.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 10:36am

59. It always amazes me how American socialists like Nichols dismiss accusations of creating socialistic programs by simply declaring them not socialist.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 07:30am

    What amazes me is how conservative posters like Chip dismiss anything posted on the Nation or from Democratic politicians by simply declaring them as socialists.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 10:43am

60. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 10:16am |

    a progressive corporate tax code would go a long way toward curbing corporate excess. much corporate iniquity is the result of a few bad apples forcing other corporations to follow their lead or cease to exist. many american retailers had no desire to emulate walmart, but sans gov regulations (with politicians in the back pocket of wallyworld as a result of wallyworld's generous "help our lapdog prostitute pols get eternally re-elected" program), found no alternative.

    without some gov regulation, capitalism does indeed sink to its lowest level, morally/ethically, thereby fueling the return of socialism. the blinded by money amoral uber-greedy, butressed by evil enabling concious assuaging ideology types scream the primal scream of mammonist randian outrage, SOCIALISM, and chowderheads scramble to avoid the same.

    socialism is the best thing that ever happened to capitalism, randian objectivism the worst.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 10:43am

61. It always amazes me how American socialists like Nichols dismiss accusations of creating socialistic programs by simply declaring them not socialist.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 07:30am

    What amazes me is how conservative posters like Chip dismiss anything posted on the Nation or from Democratic politicians by simply declaring them as socialists.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 10:44am

62. And that does not even take into account the potential appeal of a uniquely American single-payer system that might intelligently combine the necessary efficiency of a publicly-funded and defined payment program for covering costs with the appealing prospect of allowing Americans to choose their own basic plans and doctors.

    At the heart of all socialists is this absurd faith that if the government was in control of the system, automatically it would become 'efficient'. This contradicts the common sense of most Americans who know that the government is the LAST entity you want in charge of ANYTHING. Perhaps Mr. Nichols never waited in line at the DMV or the Post Office, butd THESE are the types of folks that Nichols wants to put in charge of health care? Sheesh!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 10:45am

63. Seriously, folks, if the left wants to insistently style itself the 'intellectual elite' and expect the rest of us not to laugh, they should at least stop being demonstrable idiots.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 10:47am

64. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 10:45am | i

    no more absurd than randian capitalisms view that for profit private is always better and more efficient (no...never prone to top heavy waste...sketchy treatment of employees when noone is looking...) and without exception, like a scientifically proven law of the universe (strangely reminiscent of arrogant marxist determinism in tone and self righteous certitute) GUBBAMENT BAD! GUBBAMENT BAD!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 10:52am

65. MASK, as you know, a socialist society puts the control of its resources in the hands of the state-That is the standard definition. Beyond that, though I think one needs to look at what has become necessary over the decades in order to make a socialist society work (if you can call it that). Wealth is redistributed as the leaders see fit, property is confiscated, initiative discouraged, and because these things are anathama to human nature, eventually resistance to the system, verbal or otherwise, needs to be crushed. So economic and political rights, which are intertwined, are erased. Regarding your question, I see a TREND in the thinking of liberals towards the above. Perhaps the "Socialist" epithet is flung around too much: But the trend towards socialist like thinking, wherby the individual becomes more subject to the will of society (or the collective group,) where PC is more important than free thought and business/industry are constantly having their profitabilities curtailed by "social justice" reformers. There are other examples that support the "trend",(Mass's forced Health Care system is one more) and it appears to be liberals who embrace this kind of thinking more than others in the mainstream. I'm not saying all Dems are flaming Leninists: The difference is the POSITION and DIRECTION of movement of liberal thought: Disturbing.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 10:52am

66. hell, the big lie of that crap is obvious in the for profit banking industry's recent efforts TO USE HATED/MALIGNED GUBBAMENT TO TRY TO DESTROY CREDIT UNIONS, WITH WHOM, SANS ADVERTISING BLITZES AND CUTTING TOP HEAVY SALARIES EXECUTIVES' PAY, THEY CANNOT COMPETE!

    so...gubbament just fine when gubbament in back pocket and a tool to eliminate pesky competition that just wants fair rules to play by...

    oh, that capitalism...gubbament bad until needed to maintain monopoly/oligopoly...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 10:57am

67. If the current system is so great, why does it fail to provide affordable health care to all? Why is the cost of healthcare gouging the profits of corporate America?

    It's the same old bs. The capitalist system fails to work, and rather than recognize this fact, the brain dead fools offer the usual bs pro market rhetoric, blame the left, refuse to face the problem, and duck responsibility. Those relative few on top continue to profit, while the vast majority of us must suffer due to their asinine, doctrinaire inability to face reality.

    The current system does not work. Either fix it or get out of the way.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 11:00am

68. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 10:52am

    no more absurd than randian capitalisms view that for profit private is always better and more efficient (no...never prone to top heavy waste...sketchy treatment of employees when noone is looking...) and without exception, like a scientifically proven law of the universe (strangely reminiscent of arrogant marxist determinism in tone and self righteous certitute) GUBBAMENT BAD! GUBBAMENT BAD!

    Leftists constantly compare capitalism with socialism on the same basis as competing ideologies. They are not; capitalism is an empirically-derived system with a hugely successful track record. Socialism is a theory (more like a pipe dream) with a record of disastrous failure in practice. Thus your view that capitalism is wasteful and abusive is intellectually delinquent in the extreme because you fail to compare it with anything meaningful, or to put it in a suitable context.

    Your view that our 'ideology' compels us to mindlessly think 'gubbament bad' is a reflection more of your own flawed reasoning and narcissistic world view than anything else. Capitalists don't think 'gubbament bad' because of some ideological compulsion; we think it's bad in most situations because we KNOW it is, and we KNOW WHY. It's your own ideological compulsion to think 'gubbament good' that is more the issue.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 11:04am

69. Posted by PONTIFICUS

    If the current system is so great, why does it fail to provide affordable health care to all? Why is the cost of healthcare gouging the profits of corporate America?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 11:06am

70. The free market nuts of contemporary America are just as doctrinaire as any Marxist-Leninist of old.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 11:11am

71. Healthcare reform is necessary. So all ideas on either side of the aisle need to be examined, thought through, refined and the right one implemented. We need ideas so we need to stop bashing the person and look at the substance. There are some good ideas out there. Go to www.healthcaresoundoff.com and look at the Healthcare Access Card. It could provide good short term relief at a low tax burden.

    Posted by yrodder at 09/18/2007 @ 11:16am

72. WHY `that woman', Hillary that is, has no Leadership qualities worthy of being the POTUS!!! A spot-on commentary:

    September 18, 2007

    Hillary Missed Her MoveOn Moment

    By Richard Cohen

    If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than "the politics of personal destruction," it does not come to mind. ....a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly -- so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as "General Betray Us," Hillary Clinton looked the other way......."betray" -- a word associated with treason -- recalls the ugly McCarthy era.....

    Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did.....was seconded only by Joe Lieberman,......and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

    It may seem unfair to single out Clinton...But Clinton is the front-runner,....and wonder if, as some allege, she indeed does have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

    It is an odd standard Clinton has when it comes to smears. When the entertainment mogul David Geffen, once a Clinton supporter, called both Bill and Hillary liars, Hillary not only decried the remark as a particularly vivid example of the "politics of personal destruction," but she demanded that Barack Obama do the same -- and return a $2,300 donation Geffen had given him. Yet when Clinton herself was asked to repudiate the abuse of Petraeus, she either saw no reason to do so or, much more likely, was afraid to alienate an important constituency, the 3.3 million members of MoveOn.org,....She would, it seems, rather be president than right.

    .....The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but whether she has -- how do we say this? -- the character to be president. Behind her, after all, trails the lingering vapor of all those gates: Travel, File, Whitewater, and other scandals to which she was a part only through marriage. In a hatless society, she is always wearing a question mark.

    .....it is not silly to wonder -- yet again -- about what makes Hillary run.

    The MoveOn.org ad was the moment for Clinton to rise above hackdom......It was a moment for her to say that an Army general, under orders and attempting to fulfill a mission, should not be so casually trashed.....And it was a moment for her to trot out her favorite phrase and use it, not in her own defense for once, but in defense of someone else. That moment is gone now -- maybe because for Hillary Clinton it never arrived in the first place.

    cohenr@washpost.com

    (c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

    Posted by Happy at 09/18/2007 @ 11:24am

73. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 11:04am |

    bullshit. "socialism" (ie government involvement in the economy) has existed since governments existed. economics is a squishy science. self serving randians lie self servingly that their self serving mammonism is scientific fact, ignoring any evidence to the contrary in wicked randian self affirmation.

    unfortunately this moral inversionism ultimately results in an overreaction, in that schmuks (looking out for their own best interests and finding such in something resembling "socialism") end up with no alternative.

    its ok for sociopathic randian plutarchs to look out for their best interests and its (supposedly)called "capitalism", but when a schmuk does the same, turning to the only entity capable of countering such, "gubbament", its stupid, bad, "SOCIALISM".

    BULLSHIT. that crap may work on the ignorant and the mammonist self decievers, but not me.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 11:26am

74. Happy - who cares whether or not Clinton (or anybody else for that matter) condemned the moveon ad. This is petty bullshit.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 12:00pm

75. MT, as long as clowns like you plan to replace the free market with a dictatorship you can't even recognize, blathering on about "balancing" the economy (whatever THAT means-do You know what you mean? Do you even have a coherent philosophy?) we will never get out of the way, we will always push to get GOV out of the way, the real problem.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 12:03pm

76. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 11:26am

    bullshit. "socialism" (ie government involvement in the economy) has existed since governments existed. economics is a squishy science.

    This argument is based on a false definition of socialism. governments have always been to varying degrees involved in economies, but not in a manner described as socialistic.

    self serving randians lie self servingly that their self serving mammonism is scientific fact, ignoring any evidence to the contrary in wicked randian self affirmation.

    The observed evidence indicates that socialistic principles do not work in practice. This is a simple fact. The precise reasons why are academic, although I would favor CHIP's explanation that these principles are in apposition to the basics of human nature. Your correct assertion that economics is 'squishy' science (i.e., art) only reinforces the view that only empirically successful systems should be used when the science itself is not understood, and constitutes the best argument of all that attempts at socialism are bad policy in principle.

    unfortunately this moral inversionism ultimately results in an overreaction, in that schmuks (looking out for their own best interests and finding such in something resembling "socialism") end up with no alternative.

    This is yet another manifestation of the fact that your aspirations are doomed to failure. Socialists ALWAYS blame the people they mean to serve when their socialistic systems fail. You blame greed, which is a fundamental aspect of human nature, not subject to utopian engineering. By blaming people for their greed, you implicitly acknowledge that the basic characteristics of human nature are at odds with your socialistic system.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 12:04pm

77. Happy - who cares whether or not Clinton (or anybody else for that matter) condemned the moveon ad. This is petty bullshit.

    Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 12:00pm

    I agree that HRC Loyalists (?you?, MASK, FRANKG, The Nation) do't care! Those of us w/more doubts on HRC's being able to discern right from wrog, most assuredly CARE!

    I may have to live w/her as a POTUS, but so far, I see NO reason to respect her as a person of character! Like R. Cohen says, and I agree w/you in part that in the broader POTUS campaign, the MoveON smear of Petraeus is "petty bullshit"....but so is just about all campaigning.....She had a chance to rise up to Joe Biden's level, AFTER Joe led the way.....she (and you) don't get it!

    As inexperienced as Obama is, he represent change far more, and I don't understand why he can't overtake her.....guess the MSM (and folks like you & MASK), just want HRC! IF Lib magazines like TN and MoveOn wants to, it CAN cut HRC down to her actual dwarf stature!!!

    Posted by Happy at 09/18/2007 @ 12:18pm

78. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person

    This argument is based on a false definition of socialism. governments have always been to varying degrees involved in economies, but not in a manner described as socialistic

    and i would argue that the current randian objectivist definition of capitalism is not exactly capitalism either. furthermore i would argue that followers of this virulant corruption of capitalism use the word "socialism" to refer more to anything that gets in their way than as a legitimate descriptor of a phenomenon/structure of government/economic interrelation.

    "socialism" becomes a boogyman word used to end an argument rather than a working definition for anything.

    if its ok for randian corporatists to look out for selves by subverting the political process with their wealth, what is wrong with an army of ants coming together to root out such influence and use government to their advantage? simply because the army of ants works together in concert does not mean they are dippy "socialists" - it could be seen as the weak coming together to promote a collective effort that is in each of the economically weak individuals' self interest.

    The observed evidence indicates that socialistic principles do not work in practice. This is a simple fact. The precise reasons why are academic, although I would favor CHIP's explanation that these principles are in apposition to the basics of human nature. Your correct assertion that economics is 'squishy' science (i.e., art) only reinforces the view that only empirically successful systems should be used when the science itself is not understood, and constitutes the best argument of all that attempts at socialism are bad policy in principle.

    look, (i almost said "asshole", but that would be bad), i'm not for one nanosecond going to argue that the "socialist" economies of the soviet bloc and east europe were anything but failed. the implied lie comes when any government involvement in the economy is compared to leninist socialism. this happens when popular presure, fueled by righteous rage at being screwed by mammonist bastards, demands justice through the only channel available to it - a supposedly representative government.

    if business aint whining "gubbament bad" all the time, gubbament is bought and paid for. monopolies and oligopolies rule, competition is quashed, and capitalism collapsed into itself, the large corporate entities becoming every bit as wicked, wasteful, arrogant, corrupt, ineficient, and ridiculous as leninist socialist government...

    it devolves into what is, in effect if not name, CORPORATE SOCIALISM. irony...healthy, proactive, relatively uncompromised, umpire-like regulatory government - though universally detested by gubbament badders, predictably - is REAL capitalism's bestes buddy in the whole wide world!

    This is yet another manifestation of the fact that your aspirations are doomed to failure. Socialists ALWAYS blame the people they mean to serve when their socialistic systems fail. You blame greed, which is a fundamental aspect of human nature, not subject to utopian engineering. By blaming people for their greed, you implicitly acknowledge that the basic characteristics of human nature are at odds with your socialistic system.

    your cynical assumptions of human nature are just such. actually your pollyanish assumptions are likewise just such. greed is indeed the fuel of capitalism, but uncontrolled is as destructive to capitalism as the worst of gubbament regulation. greed is the fuel of capitalism but well thought out government regulation and policy are the oil that keeps the engine from burning up.

    gulp your ego defining ideology down like its fact all you want. you are no longer in the mainstream...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:40pm

79. Has anyone else noticed just how similar so many of the so-called conservatives on this blog and around the country are to the John Birch Society?

    They all believe that liberals are secret traitors to their country because they advocate a nefarious form of socialist collectivism that will eventually supplant good old free market capitalism, the United Nations is bad and must be brought down, the government is too big and the income tax is illegal, etc.

    Anyone?

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 12:41pm

80. IBBLEBIBBLE:

    Fantastic post.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 12:43pm

81. "socialist collectivism that will eventually supplant good old free market capitalism"

    What evidence do you have for this???Every time socialism is tried it fails....Name a successful example of socialism?????

    By the way, a good friend of Hillary Rotten and the big lug B.J. just arrived in the US from Canada for surgery because she would have to wait for months to get it the socialist way.

    Wonder if Rotten will mention it?????

    Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 12:48pm

82. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 12:41pm

    like...

    uh oh...my pre-swallowed and neatly regurgitated randian talking points are slamming up against people who analyze, synthesize, and spew forth cogent argument...in their own way...MORE RANDIAN REGURGITATED PROPAGANDA! SOCIALISTS...FAILED SYSTEM...HANDOUTS...FRP...BDUP...SOCIALISM!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:48pm

83. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 12:41pm

    They all believe that liberals are secret traitors to their country

    I don't believe all liberals are traitors. Some people honestly believe we'd all be better off if we traded our liberties for government guarantees of cradle-to-grave security. Others who claim to be liberals just want the government to give them free stuff taken from other people. But certainly, almost all traitors to this country claim to be leftists of one sort or another.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 12:49pm

84. Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 12:48pm

    oh you again...

    gee, i'd suspect that this nameless eidelon youve conjured up is wealthy enough to get healthcare anywhere he/she/it wants...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 12:54pm

85. Maybe a family of three shouldn't have to pay 500+ a month to be healthy. Not counting extra charges for MRIs or high co pays or increased limits on coverage. That's 500.00 on top of the vast majority paid by our companies- ultimately causing stagnant wage increases. And 500.00 is really cheap! Can you blame people for choosing not to enter into this mess? Hillary may be barking up the wrong tree, but please don't tell me the system is working.

    Posted by phillymark at 09/18/2007 @ 12:54pm

86. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 12:48pm

    Yeah, IBBLE...I know. You're not a socialist. You're a PROGRESSIVE! The second word is spelled quite differently from the first, so it is quite obviously not the same thing.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 12:57pm

87. PONTIFICUS:

    Some people honestly believe we'd all be better off if we traded our liberties for government guarantees of cradle-to-grave security.

    Or, more ominously, people who would willingly give up their civil liberties like the Bill of Rights just to feel a little safer from the "terrorists"?

    But certainly, almost all traitors to this country claim to be leftists of one sort or another.

    Give me names. That is a specious claim if I ever heard one, and if you are going to make such bold (and bullshit) comments like that, you better be prepared to back them up. And then be prepared to get rhetorically destroyed.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm

88. FRANKSHITS:

    Name a successful example of socialism?????

    How about I name a bunch? Here's a handful for you...

    Sweden

    Germany

    France

    England

    Canada

    oh, and last but not least...

    The good old US of A.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 1:01pm

89. Hmmmmm....I thought you LIBZ could read....I said successful socialist examples.....Compare the standards of living, the unemployment ratings etc....makes your examples laughable.....

    By the way, you didnt address the issue of socialist countries sending thier people to the USA for health care....funny thing for them to do considering how good socialist medicine is compared to market based health care...

    Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:08pm

90. Posted by PHILLYMARK 09/18/2007 @ 12:54pm

    Hillary may be barking up the wrong tree, but please don't tell me the system is working.

    And Nichols' better idea is to expand the Motor Vehicle Administration so that they're in charge of health care.

    Next!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:08pm

91. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm

    Some people honestly believe we'd all be better off if we traded our liberties for government guarantees of cradle-to-grave security.

    Or, more ominously, people who would willingly give up their civil liberties like the Bill of Rights just to feel a little safer from the "terrorists"?

    National security is the primary function of the government. I'll put up with federal officers delaying my flight if it guarantees that terrorists won't blow it up.

    What I won't put up with, and what no sane person should want to do, is give the government control of my health care.

    But certainly, almost all traitors to this country claim to be leftists of one sort or another.

    Give me names. That is a specious claim if I ever heard one, and if you are going to make such bold (and bullshit) comments like that, you better be prepared to back them up. And then be prepared to get rhetorically destroyed.

    Jane Fonda is a traitor to this country. Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Want more?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:12pm

92. That McDermott guy from Washington State for another. Did you see him snuggling up to Saddam Hussein before the invasion? Another leftist in good standing.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:16pm

93. Posted by JAVAMAN222 09/18/2007 @ 10:03am Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 10:16am Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 10:36am Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 10:43am Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 07:30am Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 10:44am Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 10:45am

    and others who i haven't read yet.

    all this debate over how to define liberal or socialist or conversative or blahblabative is pointless.

    some policies are smart. some policies are dumb.

    some policies help. some policies hurt.

    duke ellington said there are only two kinds of music: good and bad.

    and he's right. where does blues end and jazz begin?

    where does one philosophy end and another begin?

    we need more solutions. even an open mind is easily fooled by labels.

    remember the study they did with kids? the kids said the carrots in the McDonald's bag tasted better than the carrots in the plain bag. yet they were the same carrots.

    the bag does not make the carrot.

    if the carrot is rotten, use it for compost.

    if the carrot is sweet, juice it and make your eyes stronger

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:17pm

94. IBBLE, it's a matter of HONESTY as well as semantics.

    See, to Empty SPENCE, "progressive" means "anything good". Okay, does "anything good" include a socialist policy agenda? If not, what IS the difference? If so, then why not BE HONEST and call it "socialism"?

    If there IS a difference between a "progressive" and an honest "out-of-the-closet" (if you will) socialist....I'd just like to know it...in specifics.

    So far, like Empty, I get few specific answers just knee-jerk lashings-out ...which to me seem to indicate that there IS no difference, it's a matter of "progressives" not wanting to be unpopular by declaring themselves socialist!

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:19pm

95. "Jane Fonda is a traitor to this country. Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Want more?"

    She is also responsible for the lack of a nuclear power industry with that stupid movie she was in. If this country had more nuclear power plants we would not have to rely on IslamoNazis for oil as much....Look at the vaunted socialist "French" example...85% nuclear

    The sooner she kicks the bucket the better for the USA

    Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:19pm

96. Cindy Sheehan has said this country is not worth fighting for.

    These are all people who have the guts to say what most of the rest of the left is thinking.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:20pm

97. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 11:04am

    but if government is replaced by the corporation, ¿does it not become the de facto government?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:20pm

98. "economics is a squishy science"

    another one stolen from ibbleblibble

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:22pm

99. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:19pm

    MASK, don't forget some other interesting corollaries employed by the left. Such as: 'If it failed, obviously it wasn't REAL socialism!'

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:23pm

100. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 11:00am

     Ummm...it was the democrats that put the system that you love to hate into play.

     "On March 3, 1978, Leftist icon Senator Edward Kennedy bragged, 'As the author of the first HMO billever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine.' He added, 'HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector.'

     What was the complaint of organized medicine? That HMOs would drive up health care costs. Ol' Teddy didn't listen. So, sorry, but I think you socialists have done enough. Let someone sober behind the wheel of health care...before Teddy gets another DUI.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/18/2007 @ 1:24pm

101. we will always push to get GOV out of the way, the real problem.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/18/2007 @ 12:03pm

     let's see if you feel that way when dow chemical wants to build a factory next to your house.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:24pm

102. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 1:17pm

     See, FROST, I'd buy that "I don't like labels, I just like what works"....if I saw some "progressive" tell me a few things that are NOT socialism that they think "work"....they don't.

     The solutions "without labels" always seem to have ONE particular bent to them...one that does have a label.

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:24pm

103. look, (i almost said "asshole", but that would be bad),

     by ibbs

     you just did.

     i've often been tempted to parenthesize an insult. don't do it. keep your writing ibbleicious.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:26pm

104. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 1:20pm

     but if government is replaced by the corporation, ¿does it not become the de facto government?

     No, because the government's existence is guaranteed, while a corporation's is not. When corporations go bad, they go broke and everyone gets fired. When governments go bad, they just go on and on.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:26pm

105. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:23pm

     True, PONTI...just as after Bush, guys like you will claim "That wasn't REAL conservatism!"

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:27pm

106. But certainly, almost all traitors to this country claim to be leftists of one sort or another.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 12:49pm

     ?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:29pm

107. Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 1:08pm

     my family's health care has been excellent.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:32pm

108. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:08pm

     maybe you're on to something.

     the u.s. military is outsourcing to haliburton and blackwater.

     what better example?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:33pm

109. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:27pm

     Again with the false parallels, MASK. Seems to be a habit of yours.

     Bush's economy seems to be doing great, but he's still not a good conservative. That health plan of his was a horrible idea. He truly has not been a good conservative, but his results have been pretty good anyway. Every time the Republicans get elected to the Presidency and things go well, that's when the homeless problem gets rediscovered and the flaws in economic statistics become mysteriously glaring. Oh, but of course that has nothing to do with the fact that the media is 85 percent liberal! None at all! Yuk yuk. Bush is a bad conservative because his policies often are poor (liberal), even if the results do not reflect it (yet).

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

110. The sooner she kicks the bucket the better for the USA

     Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 1:19pm

     dude, karma is a dangerous thing to mess with

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

111. " her incredible national lead and her poll results that find her defeating ANY republican candidate quite handily"

     LIB wet dreams at best

     Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:36pm

112. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/18/2007 @ 1:32pm

     Gee, FRANK, it's great that you're such a great believer in Universal Health Care. For a start, could you mail me a check to cover my health insurance next month? Oh, what's that, you say ask someone else to go pay for it? Those rich people over there? And get some for you too? God I love you compassionate liberals.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:37pm

113. Ummm...it was the democrats that put the system that you love to hate into play.

     Posted by USC1 09/18/2007 @ 1:24pm

     here's another label that serves no one well.

     these guys/gals in politics are neither republican or democrat.

     if you really want a label for the majority, "corporate enabler" comes close.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:38pm

114. True, PONTI...just as after Bush, guys like you will claim "That wasn't REAL conservatism!"

     heheh

     Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:27pm

     1,345 points for you, sir.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:40pm

115. See, FROST, I'd buy that "I don't like labels, I just like what works"....if I saw some "progressive" tell me a few things that are NOT socialism that they think "work"....they don't.

     The solutions "without labels" always seem to have ONE particular bent to them...one that does have a label.

     Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:24pm

     why don't you give me a few examples?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:41pm

116. When governments go bad, they just go on and on.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:26pm

     you mean like the romans, the ottomans, the nazis, the soviets, the [historians come to my rescue, save me a google-quest]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:43pm

117. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:19pm |

     the socialist seems to think that vices can be wiped out, which is noble but disaster fraught. the randian objectivist (a corruptor of "capitalism", i argue), inverts morality. both are wrong.

     greed is a vice. it is wrong...but...also ineradicable and indeed hard wired in our little shaved ape brains...to "stomp it out" is analagous to stomping one's own head. in the past, in an economy of true destitute scarcity, "greed" is a reptilian survival tool necessary to any who wish to pass their genes on to the next generation. the brilliance of "capitalism" is its naturalness and ability to take the vice of greed and use it to increase wealth, making life better...hard core socialism, not understanding this, destroys profit motive in a denial of the ineradicability of this vice...greed.

     the randian just says good is bad and bad is good...or worse yet, regardless of the veracity of such a claim, that niether good nor bad exist at all...

     i say the same for all other vices. nevada controls the potentially negative consequences of lust best by accepting soe as unavoidable and legalizing prostitution...holland controls gluttony (in terms of mind altering substances) by allowing a certain level of the vice...we have found a nice outlet for violence and destructive testosterone driven competition in various games of sport and wit...and so on and so on...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

118. So what do you call it when the government subsidizes corporations? Since I have all the trolls and freepers on my ignore list, I won't see their responses. But I still wonder how they manage to keep harping against "socialism" and promote "capitalism" without acknowledging that without government funding, the huge INTERNATIONAL corporations that wield such enormous power here in the US would not function as they do.

     Our tax dollars are used to assist companies like McDonalds to advertise overseas. They are used to promote prescription drugs and fund research. Corporations are the "middlemen" who crank up prices, control the media, extort the public, and make the laws. And we pay for it not only through the excess prices placed on goods and services, but also through our tax dollars. In the meantime, businesses' and corporations' share of the tax burden has gone from nearly 50% of the US total in the 1950s to less than 20% now.

     Socialism indeed! I call it corporate welfare. We need to end corporate personhood and incorporate human values into the mix. Values that include the right to universal health care, a real education (not one that is mandated, once again, by corporate interests), a living wage for every working person, affordable child care with the option of one parent's staying home with the kids, and the same kind of leisure time other industrialized countries enjoy.

     The notion that the US has a lock on quality of life is a myth.

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

119. Bush's economy seems to be doing great

     by PONTIFICUS

     "SEEMS" is the optimal word. seems great if your looking through lead-crystal glasses

     Oh, but of course that has nothing to do with the fact that the media is 85 percent liberal!,

     by PONTIFICUS

     here's a list of the liberal media:

     AT&T

     Bertelsmann

     Canwest Global

     CBS Corporation (owned by National Amusements)

     Comcast Corporation

     DBS Group Entertainment

     Fininvest

     General Electric

     Hearst Corporation

     Lagardère Media

     Liberty Media

     News Corporation

     Organizações Globo

     Grupo PRISA

     Sony

     Time Warner

     Grupo Televisa

     The Times Group (distinct from Times Newspapers of News Corportation)

     Viacom (owned by National Amusements)

     Vivendi

     E.W. Scripps Company

     The Walt Disney Company

     yep, bastions of liberalism

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:51pm

120. Bush is a bad conservative because his policies often are poor (liberal) . . .

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

     lol

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

121. Posted by LEEANNG 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

     Hey LEEANNG, while you're enumerating basic human rights, don't forget my basic right to a 60" plasma with kick-ass stereo system.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

122. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     National security is the primary function of the government. I'll put up with federal officers delaying my flight if it guarantees that terrorists won't blow it up.

     What I won't put up with, and what no sane person should want to do, is give the government control of my health care.

     Jane Fonda is a traitor to this country. Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Want more?

     My response:

     Do you really think I am talking about a delay in boarding a plane when I mention the Bill of Rights? You ignorant, self-righteous twit! I am talking about the big ones, the important ones, like habeas corpus (you know, the basis for ALL Western jurisprudence? yeah, that one...), illegal search and seizure, the concept of cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Shall I go on?

     You trivialize the real issues on the one hand then blow all out of proportion someone who was obviously not representative to the vast majority of people who disagreed with Viet Nam. You're probably one of those people who thinks that Martin Luther King, JR. was a traitor because he indicted the US as being the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today". Or maybe when he said the following:

     You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.

     The real traitors to this great nation are the people who deny the people a voice, who deny the people liberty, who deny people the fruits of their labor, all for the benefit of lining their pockets. It's people like you who want to rip citizenship from people whom the state determines is an enemy combatant so that they are no longer protected by what little is left of the Constitution, who wants to give away all that is the public commons just so someone, or a small group of someones, can make an obscene profit from the misuse of those commons.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 1:54pm

123. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

     I would call a huge, unaffordable health care program a bad liberal policy. I'm sure you would at least call it liberal. Right?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 1:55pm

124. Posted by LEEANNG 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

     ka-ching!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:55pm

125. LEEANNG:

     How about the impending bailout of the banking industry? Looks like it's going to happen, just like it did with the S&Ls back in the late 80s. Gee, I wonder which Bush kid will end up making a fortune with this boondoggle...

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 1:56pm

126. Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 09/18/2007 @ 1:45pm

     birds of a feather......................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:56pm

127. funny how that ICKES nut uses reptiles. very jungian...i would argue that the reptilian brain which we often see as "the dark side" is simply that which impels us toward individual survival, the collective effect of which does indeed benefit the whole in the best of enkightened self interest...

     but there's the key. these randians seem to forget the "enlightened" part. their reptilian dominated behavior, devoid of enlightened realizations such as the fact that the individual is also made more secure and thereby arguably freer to pursue his/her own demigodly dreams if his fellow is considered AS MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER SCHMUK TO EXPLOIT, ultimately triggers reptilian self preservation on the part of their more numerous, les wealthy, hated exploitees, who band together, and like an army of ants devour the randian elephant.

     but the analogy, like all analogies, falls short once extended and/or picked apart. the cream will indeed rise to the top no matter how equally we order society, consolodate wealth/power, abuse the same, forget/selfishly isinterpret the lessons of the past, and manufacture some self serving ideological excuse to explain their despicable behavior...

     beautiful in the big picture in the scope of ying and yang, the loving violence of complimentary opposites tearing each other apart while building anew something not quite new.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 1:57pm

128. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

     my god!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:57pm

129. PONTIFICUS:

     Who said anything about it being unaffordable? What makes health care in this country right now unaffordable for many is the fact that it is wholly and fully privatized, and any subsidies are to the corporations, rather than the recipients of the ever-dwindling and ever-devolving quality of that care.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 1:58pm

130. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 1:54pm |

     thank you

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:58pm

131. I would call a huge, unaffordable health care program a bad liberal policy. I'm sure you would at least call it liberal. Right?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:55pm

     it's unaffordable now after putting your country so deeply in debt on the machines of war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:00pm

132. I have a good friend, whom I dearly love, who considers himself to be a confirmed conservative libertarian. He decries socialism - and, in fact, believes that Hillary is a "European style socialist." But he is on disability, which he accepts from the government, and his only complaint about it is that he nearly lost it due to bureaucratic disfunction several years ago. He actually needs the disability due to his bad back, but if his "conservative" cohorts had their way, he would never have been able to get it. He has, or had years ago, a teaching degree. I'm quite sure the rightwingers would say you can even teach from a wheelchair, so he should get a job.

     In a recent discussion, my friend agreed that the US needs some kind of universal health care, but not socialized medicine. And then he went on to say that medicare is a great program, so it should be extended to all Americans. When my husband and I jumped all over him and told him that medicare is socialized medicine, he denied it.

     These things are just labels. And just as it has been said that a bleeding heart liberal is simply a person who has never been mugged, a capitalistic working class conservative is simply a person who has never needed government assistance.

     I dislike Hillary Clinton for many, many reasons. If she is the Democratic candidate, I will not vote for her. I don't know where the quote comes from, but here is how I feel: "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." I voted for Nader in 1996 and in 2004 - and that vote did NOT help the Supreme Court appoint Bush to the presidency. Voter fraud and having a brother as governor of Florida managed that quite nicely all by itself. I then voted for Kerry in 2004, the results of which are apparent. Once again, the powers that be decided who would sit in the White House. And even if Kerry had won (which, of course, he did), things would probably be only marginally better in this country. Kerry would be unlikely to end the war, give us a living wage, or provide universal health care.

     The lesser of two evils is still evil.

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 09/18/2007 @ 2:01pm

133. LEEANNG, give me an example on "an education mandated by corporate interest"

     Also, what is your idea of a "living wage"? What do you mean by that?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 2:01pm

134. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

     IBB, that's a grand "over-arching philosophy"...but doesn't answer my question.

     Can you name some SPECIFIC socialist policy that a "progressive" would oppose?

     If not, then logically there is NO difference?

     If so, I'd just like to hear the differences.

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 2:03pm

135. FROSTY ZOOM:

     You're very welcome. By the way, I see I wasn't the only one who recognized PONTIFICUS' definition of a liberty including his "right" to be a self asshole. That whole 60" plasma bit? Lemme guess... so he can watch "Cops" or "24" in full technicolor radiance while he self-abuses, dreaming about how he wishes he were out cracking skulls and "saving" the world for all the other schmucks like himself, who see watching those same bits of tripe on their own 60" plasma as their own unalienable right.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:04pm

136. PONTI, I said...

     "True, PONTI...just as after Bush, guys like you will claim "That wasn't REAL conservatism!"

     to which you said....

     "He truly has not been a good conservative...."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

     Kinda makes my point, huh? BTW, notice you conveniently forget the THREE TRILLION in debt we racked up or the 3700 dead GIs, or half a trillion lost in Iraq that now needs "one more year of Surge" "to fix".

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 2:06pm

137. why don't you give me a few examples? ----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 1:41pm

     Okay, sure.

     I think you'd agree that a socialist would ask for State control over major energy production and distribution, right?

     So, where does the "progressive" say "No, won't support that. That's socialism, and I'm a 'progressive'!". Taxing Big Oil at 95-99%? Salary caps for CEO and board members? Demand that a percent of profits be rolled back into alternative energy research?

     What?

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 2:09pm

138. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 2:04pm

     you know, it's scary. i teach kids who have "csi" and "24" for breakfast.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:10pm

139. BTW, as self-appointed Archivist....I'm saving this one for the end of the Primaries next year...

     "This also should cement all votes against Hillary. Who here wants to be compelled by law to buy health insurance, even if there is no public or employer-provided subsidy available at any point in time?"-----Posted by ZERO 09/17/2007 @ 6:56pm

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 2:12pm

140. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 2:09pm

     let me think about that. my neurons are getting tired and i don't want to talk myself into a hole.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 2:04pm

     hey mr. cleanse, don't forget to check out the link i left you at the "FAT SUCKS" thread. you'll be glad.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:15pm

141. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 1:54pm

     Do you really think I am talking about a delay in boarding a plane when I mention the Bill of Rights? You ignorant, self-righteous twit! I am talking about the big ones, the important ones, like habeas corpus (you know, the basis for ALL Western jurisprudence? yeah, that one...), illegal search and seizure, the concept of cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Shall I go on?

     Whatever methods Bush has used to fight the GWOT have been duly approved by the courts and/or congress. The fact that you as an individual don't agree with these measures, for whatever reason (I suspect they have mostly to do with BDS) doesn't matter any more than any other individual's opinion.

     You trivialize the real issues on the one hand then blow all out of proportion someone who was obviously not representative to the vast majority of people who disagreed with Viet Nam.

     Oh, but I think that's precisely my point: Jane Fonda was ENTIRELY representative of the anti-war movement then, just as Cindy Sheehan is today. How many liberals have disavowed her views or statements? Please provide evidence to the contrary.

     You're probably one of those people who thinks that Martin Luther King, JR. was a traitor because he indicted the US as being the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today". Or maybe when he said the following:

     You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.

     We're not talking about MLK, here, and to the extent that he advocated socialism, he was dead wrong anyway, no matter how many streets they name after him.

     The real traitors to this great nation are the people who deny the people a voice, who deny the people liberty, who deny people the fruits of their labor, all for the benefit of lining their pockets.

     Do you really think in these kinds of slogans? I mean, I'm not in favor of denying people a voice or denying people the fruits of their labor or denying people liberty. Since I disagree with you, does that put you on the opposite sides of these issues? You're just shadow-boxing here.

     It's people like you who want to rip citizenship from people whom the state determines is an enemy combatant so that they are no longer protected by what little is left of the Constitution,

     Non-citizens, especially terrorists caught on the battlefield, have never been covered by our Constitution. Why do you think they should be now?

     who wants to give away all that is the public commons just so someone, or a small group of someones, can make an obscene profit from the misuse of those commons.

     I realize you're just kind of raving here, but could you be a little more specific?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:19pm

142. MASK:

     You act as if there is only one type of socialist, or that socialism is some monolithic set of ideals. It's not. Examples? Sure.

     I think we would all agree that Hugo Chavez is a socialist. He is also an authoritarian. I have friends who live in Venezuela. They love him. His changes, at least economically, are having a substantial and measurable effect on the people on the ground. Yet he is asserting his authoritarianism at the same time. Now, a simpleton would say to himself, "Self? That socialist is bad because he's authoritarian... so that must mean ALL socialists are authoritarian! I hate socialism!" Someone more thoughtful would recognize that the socialism side of the equation is the socio-economic component to a program which is allowing Chavez to exercise his authoritarian streak.

     Let's look at Mossedegh of Iran. He was a democratic socialist. He pushed for a MORE democratic and MORE secular Iran, rather than a more secular authoritarian (Iran under the Shah) or religious authoritarian (Iran under the Ayatollahs). He was overthrown because of both of his preferences.

     Germany is a parliamentary social democracy. It works rather well. They don't have authoritarianism anymore, they love their universal health care.

     And that's just a handful. One could talk about France, Sweden, Canada, the US (certain aspects, of course), the USSR, Poland, the DDR, and every single one of them represents a different type of socialism. Yes, there is most certainly disagreement among socialists, and disagreement between socialists and progressives. I know many progressives who are very religious, atheist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-gun control, pro-capital punishment, anti-capital punishment.

     The Greens are a "progressive" party. I am a progressive politically. I don't agree with all of their beliefs, nor do I agree with the way they run the party.

     So, you want a specific socialist policy I would oppose? That all depends on which socialist you are discussing. Personally, I abhor any sort of authoritarianism, regardless of the socio-economic stripe. So, any change to the fundamental laws of the land which would serve to abrogate the rights of the individual to, as an individual, show disagreement with the ruling faction, is bad. That means that pretty much anything the USSR or the DDR or Poland did in those respects was bad, and in my opinion, wrong.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:21pm

143. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:19pm

     ¿GWOT?

     get with the plan, doodles. haven't you noticed that bushco dropped that label a long time ago?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:22pm

144. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 2:10pm

     you know, it's scary. i teach kids ...

     Jesus Christ, that IS scary.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:23pm

145. Jesus Christ, that IS scary.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:23pm

     well, their parents don't seem to mind. i teach them music.

     if you want, i can teach you, too.

     how's this:

     "occasionally it will be difficult to decide whether certain chords are compound or added-note chords. a satisfactory analysis can be made only by examining the context of the harmony. etc."

     i understand that. and so do my students (well, those at that level).

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:29pm

146. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 2:06pm

     Kinda makes my point, huh?

     Not really, MASK. When guys like JORCHEIM defend socialism by saying that 'if it failed, then obviously it wasn't REAL socialism' are rationalizing away the real world in favor of a theory. In essence, they're equating socialism with success, a logical fallacy which defines blind zealotry and blind faith. My point is that even though Bush has been a success in the real world, his policies are bound to cause trouble in the long run. See the difference?

     BTW, notice you conveniently forget the THREE TRILLION in debt we racked up or the 3700 dead GIs, or half a trillion lost in Iraq that now needs "one more year of Surge" "to fix".

     Because a war was costly does not mean it wasn't worth fighting. Pretty obvious point, MASK.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:30pm

147. It's interesting how the words "liberal" and "socialist" have become insults. Liberal means, according to that old leftwing representative Microsoft Word, "tolerant, broadminded, generous, unprejudiced, magnanimous, advanced, honorable, beneficent, charitable, generous" and other equally fine definitions. Of course, if one believes that being tolerant, generous and charitable are bad, it makes sense for liberals to be condemned by the right.

     Conservative, on the other hand, means, according to the same source, "uncharitable, unprogressive, unchanging, conventional, inflexible, and obstinate." The only positive definition was "stable," hardly high praise.

     Socialism wasn't in the thesaurus except as a derivative of "social" which means "friendly, polite, hospitable, civil, informative," and an entire host of positive definitions. Socialism is a form of economic and government policies in which everyone shares the burden. It is not an evil "government rules" kind of totalitarianism. That's communism in its Soviet form. Even communism is not inherently evil. Nor is capitalism. All forms of economic policies have their positives and negatives.

     The problem with any system is the way it is carried out. Right now, capitalism has run rampant and is destroying the very people who support it - the laborers and citizens needed to purchase the goods and services it supplies. A balance of capitalism and socialism is probably the best solution with regulations that prevent either one from taking over and self-destructing.

     Some things should be provided by the government, which is, incidentally, supposed to be We the People who pay taxes in order to cover the costs. Education, health care, roads, libraries, safety nets for the disabled and helpless, regulations regarding pollution and fraud, and a multitude of other services are necessary to maintain a civilized, progressive society.

     Hillary's health care system is way too heavy on the capitalist side and way too light on the socialized side.

     Posted by LeeAnnG at 09/18/2007 @ 2:31pm

148. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 2:29pm |

     Jesus Christ, that IS scary.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:23pm

     well, their parents don't seem to mind. i teach them music.

     if you want, i can teach you, too.

     how's this:

     "occasionally it will be difficult to decide whether certain chords are compound or added-note chords. a satisfactory analysis can be made only by examining the context of the harmony. etc."

     i understand that. and so do my students (well, those at that level).

     The fact that you're an educrat explains a lot of things, FROSTY. My daughter was taught by someone like you in school. Her teacher didn't know how to spell at a second grade level or many other things, but boy was she indoctrinated into the leftist critique. Not much good to me (my daughter is now in private school where they actually have standards of learning).

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:33pm

149. Do you really think in these kinds of slogans?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007

     An ironic insult coming from someone who posted THIS a few pages ago:

     Perhaps Mr. Nichols never waited in line at the DMV or the Post Office, butd THESE are the types of folks that Nichols wants to put in charge of health care? Sheesh!

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 2:36pm

150. What do you do for a living Ponti?

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 2:37pm

151. Another fool like Maasch insulting public schools and the teachers who work there.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 2:39pm

152. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     Whatever methods Bush has used to fight the GWOT have been duly approved by the courts and/or congress. The fact that you as an individual don't agree with these measures, for whatever reason (I suspect they have mostly to do with BDS) doesn't matter any more than any other individual's opinion.

     My response:

     That's not true at all. For the longest time, he was circumventing the law for his own ends. FISA courts? Habeas corpus? The 4th amendment? Only AFTER he had been breaking the law did any of those issues get overturned, against legal precedent. How's that for judicial activism, you hypocrite?

     You said:

     Oh, but I think that's precisely my point: Jane Fonda was ENTIRELY representative of the anti-war movement then, just as Cindy Sheehan is today. How many liberals have disavowed her views or statements? Please provide evidence to the contrary.

     My response:

     Um, no. Again, you lie. Is it part of your DNA, or did you pick up that nasty habit from watching the Bush administration channel Nixon from the dead? So basically, you're saying it's ok to lump everyone who disagreed with the Viet Nam War in with Jane Fonda... hmmm, ok. I wonder if you would be reticent about me lumping you into the same category as Liddy, or Hannity, or Limbaugh, or Coulter, or the John Birch Society, or the KKK, or... oh wait...

     Regarding Cindy Sheehan, I know tons who have disavowed her statements. Some are even running for President.

     You said:

     We're not talking about MLK, here, and to the extent that he advocated socialism, he was dead wrong anyway, no matter how many streets they name after him.

     My response:

     Please, show me where we are wrong. Oh, and we're not talking about Martin Luther King, Jr.? Last I checked he was one of the most outspoken critics of the Viet Nam War... so guess what numbnuts... we are talking about him. And it is very germane to this conversations. Now, please explain to me how he was wrong on socialism, without making assertions that are not backed up by facts.

     You said:

     Do you really think in these kinds of slogans? I mean, I'm not in favor of denying people a voice or denying people the fruits of their labor or denying people liberty. Since I disagree with you, does that put you on the opposite sides of these issues? You're just shadow-boxing here.

     My response:

     Slogans? Uh oh folks... I think I hit a nerve here. Strange how you haven't had a problem with your own bit of sloganeering in the past, nor that of your buddies like FRANKSHITS and USC1, and all the other right-wing-nut-jobbers.

     And how is what I said sloganeering? I was pointing out very real issues with those points. Perhaps they were in language that was a little less crude than your norm, but that's because I choose to articulate myself in a manner aedifying to me. Would you like for me to break it down like a fraction for you and explain to you what I meant by what you think is a slogan? I will. Just ask. But something tells me you were just trying to undercut my points by attempting to sully them with some negative, like SLOGAN. Because everyone knows, slogans are BAD!

     You said:

     Non-citizens, especially terrorists caught on the battlefield, have never been covered by our Constitution. Why do you think they should be now?

     My response:

     Not true. You obviously do not know your history. Only in very extreme circumstances has the law of the land not extended to foreigners. And more to the point, I was referring to the stripping of citizenship of Americans so that their legal status could be reclassified as enemy combatant. I was not even referencing foreigners. You should really learn how to read.

     You said:

     I realize you're just kind of raving here, but could you be a little more specific?

     My response:

     You were referring to my comments about the commons. Hmmm, let's see. Mountaintop mining for coal, strip mining, pollution (air, water, land), all of which cause irreparable harm and cause immeasurable damage to people, the planet, etc. Our government subsidizes such behavior by corporations for the benefit of profitability for a small coterie of well-heeled political contributors. Privatizing the Iraq war? Any of this ringing a bell?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:41pm

153. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 2:39pm

     Another fool like Maasch insulting public schools and the teachers who work there.

     It's a nice little con game you've got going there, HMAN, equating the work of teachers with the interests of the public education system. It's the system that's rotten, not the teachers. Nice try, though, I'll bet a lot of people fall for it.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:46pm

154. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     Not really, MASK. When guys like JORCHEIM defend socialism by saying that 'if it failed, then obviously it wasn't REAL socialism' are rationalizing away the real world in favor of a theory. In essence, they're equating socialism with success, a logical fallacy which defines blind zealotry and blind faith. My point is that even though Bush has been a success in the real world, his policies are bound to cause trouble in the long run. See the difference?

     My response:

     I never said those words, but thanks for thinking of me. In fact, I said as much in an earlier post to MASK, when I was discussing the different types of socialism. Just as there are different types of marketism. I realize that shades of grey are not your strong suit, Ponty, my boy, so I will take this slow for you.

     Socialism is not a monolithic theoretical framework.

     Now, give yourself a moment to digest that.

     Socialism is not a religion.

     Go ahead. think some more.

     Oh, and just to correct you on an obviously fallacious statement, Bush has never been a success at anything. He was horrible at business in the "real world", he has been a horrible president, and let's not forget "My Pet Goat".

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:46pm

155. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     It's a nice little con game you've got going there, HMAN, equating the work of teachers with the interests of the public education system. It's the system that's rotten, not the teachers. Nice try, though, I'll bet a lot of people fall for it.

     My response:

     Right now, the law of the land in public schools is NCLB, or No Child Left Behind. You are essentially saying that Bush and his policy are failures. Now, while this may seem like one of those "NO SHIT!" moments to those of us who really don't like the chap, coming from such a boot-licking, sycophantic, water-carrying lackey like yourself, that is a new one.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:49pm

156. JORCHEIM said:

     The real traitors to this great nation are the people who deny the people a voice, who deny the people liberty, who deny people the fruits of their labor, all for the benefit of lining their pockets. It's people like you who want to rip citizenship from people whom the state determines is an enemy combatant so that they are no longer protected by what little is left of the Constitution, who wants to give away all that is the public commons just so someone, or a small group of someones, can make an obscene profit from the misuse of those commons.

     Wow! Defining people who disagree with you as wanting to deny other people liberty, take away the fruits of their labor, take away citizenship rights from those who are not citizens (?)...that's brave. Got anything a little more substantial?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 2:53pm

157. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     Wow! Defining people who disagree with you as wanting to deny other people liberty, take away the fruits of their labor, take away citizenship rights from those who are not citizens (?)...that's brave. Got anything a little more substantial?

     My response:

     Did you not read anything I said? I get the impression that you glommed onto the one part of my post that you felt you could attack because in that one particular excerpt I didn't go into mind-numbing detail (the way I usually do) and you feel that by holding it up and pointing to it as representative of my entire argument, you somehow are making a cogent rebuttal.

     How pitiful.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:58pm

158. Con game, huh?

     I'll post your words again:

     The fact that you're an educrat explains a lot of things, FROSTY. My daughter was taught by someone like you in school. Her teacher didn't know how to spell at a second grade level or many other things, but boy was she indoctrinated into the leftist critique. Not much good to me (my daughter is now in private school where they actually have standards of learning).

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:33pm

     Certainly looks like a slam on public school teachers (and Frosty) to me.

     Again - What's your profession? What "system" do you work in?

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 2:59pm

159. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 2:49pm

     Right now, the law of the land in public schools is NCLB, or No Child Left Behind. You are essentially saying that Bush and his policy are failures.

     That's right, I am. I was talking to MASK about how Bush is not really a conservative, and that despite an overall good record as President he has been behind some bad liberal programs. NCLB is one of them; Teddy Kennedy was the co-sponsor. A real conservative program for reforming the failed public education system would involve giving people, not just rich ones, a choice in where they send their children. That's where I fault Bush.

     Now, while this may seem like one of those "NO SHIT!" moments to those of us who really don't like the chap, coming from such a boot-licking, sycophantic, water-carrying lackey like yourself, that is a new one.

     Interesting psychological note. Like MASK, you assume that everyone who doesn't exhibit a blind rejection of anything that Bush does to be the polar opposite, i.e., a Bush 'boot licker', thus betraying the baseline narcissism of your own view of the world. I don't agree with everything that Bush does, just as I didn't disagree with Clinton on everything. I think you'd have a hard time agreeing with just about anything that Bush does, and yet you call MY thinking ideologically driven. Don't you find that odd?

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:02pm

160. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 2:59pm

     Certainly looks like a slam on public school teachers (and Frosty) to me.

     Only if you define all public school teachers as incompetent, which I don't. It's just the tolerance of incompetence by the system that made it unacceptable to me.

     Again - What's your profession? What "system" do you work in?

     Not relevant to this discussion.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:05pm

161. LEEANNG, I think your concept of Socialism is a little naive, no offence. You begin by claiming it is a society where everone bears the burden. The end of the sentence, though, is "whether we like it or not." You've also done what many do in arguements like this, namely to look at other Soc'st systems that have come and gone, claiming that they wern't REALLY socialism. Nonsense. Any economic socialist system found here would eventually have to include the abrogation of your political and civil rights as well. Economic rights and political rights are intertwined, so unless you can get everyone to agree to the usurpation of the former, the loss of the latter must inevitably follow. And of course, as you lose each one, you will be told its being done "for the people". The only difference was that Stalin, Hitler (also a socialist) Lenin, Mao and small time hoods like Chavez make no bones about what they tried & try to do, while here we'd kid ourselves for 10 years, calling it something else, before we all woke up one day and realized the Constitution had become a useless rag.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 3:06pm

162. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:33pm

     sir,

     i teach privately

     i do this to supplement my income as a musician

     at the american (i'm canadian) university i attended, i finished top of my class in american lit. and second in american history (had an ear-training final the same week)

     in grade 7, my reading level was tested to be at the first year university level.

     please refrain from insulting my intelligence just because you disagree with my opinions.

     oh, by the way. i bet putting yourself in front of a group of kids for a week would quickly change your opinion of teachers.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 3:07pm

163. FRANKSHITS:

     Ok, I am only doing this because I feel you need professional help. And sense everyone else seems to have put you on perma-ignore, I reckon the job falls to yours truly.

     Jimmy Carter didn't enable the Ayatollahs. The Ayatollahs were a direct result of the Eisenhower administration's decision to rip the tenuous tendrils of democracy from Iran, root and branch, for the benefit of the oil companies. As with almost all politics, the Ayatollahs represented a pendulum swing back to another extreme after many years under a secular dictator whom the US consistently supported and backed via financial and military aid.

     Clinton was never found guilty as a rapist. A philanderer, sure. Not a rapist, though. And while he did indeed pass up opportunities to break international law to procure UBL (that's Usama bin Laden, for the uninitiated), Bush did the same thing. Oh NO!!! you say... Say it ain't so!!! you say.

     It is a documented fact that the Taliban in Afghanistan offered to turn over UBL to the US for trial if the US could produce one shred of evidence that UBL was guilty of perpetrating 9/11. We couldn't produce the evidence, we decided to invade Afghanistan instead.

     That would probably explain why, while UBL is one of America's Most Wanted, no where in the indictment against him is there any mention whatsoever of 9/11. But there is a mention of the first WTC bombing. Strange how that works, eh?

     Oh, and I doubt anyone on here is a Stalinist. Stalin was a totalitarian asshole. He killed millions and millions of people. Not exactly my idea of a welcome dinner guest, much less a paragon of political or moral excellence.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:08pm

164. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     Interesting psychological note. Like MASK, you assume that everyone who doesn't exhibit a blind rejection of anything that Bush does to be the polar opposite, i.e., a Bush 'boot licker', thus betraying the baseline narcissism of your own view of the world. I don't agree with everything that Bush does, just as I didn't disagree with Clinton on everything. I think you'd have a hard time agreeing with just about anything that Bush does, and yet you call MY thinking ideologically driven. Don't you find that odd?

     My response:

     Name one thing Clinton ever did with which you agree.

     On a side note, the sad thing is, I hated Clinton almost as much as I hate Bush. Never would I have thought that I would be defending him in any way, shape or form...

     Anyway, regarding Bush, I disagree with practically everything he has done for the simple fact of the matter that he hasn't done anything good. And anything that could have been potentially good has been countervailed or countermanded. Remember all the debt relief for Africa? Yeah, well, vulture funds turned that into a bonanza. Remember all the help New Orleans was supposed to get after Katrina? Yeah... still waiting.

     Can you name one thing Bush has gotten right?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:12pm

165. MT, as long as clowns like you plan to replace the free market with a dictatorship you can't even recognize, blathering on about "balancing" the economy (whatever THAT means-do You know what you mean? Do you even have a coherent philosophy?) we will never get out of the way, we will always push to get GOV out of the way, the real problem.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     Clowns? Oh, the smugness of ignorance.

     What is so terribly difficult to understand about "balance"? Was balance not the intention of the framers of the Constitution? Is there any perfect system? No. The Founders understood that all too well; they recognized that humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. History taught them that power is corrupting.

     There are different kinds of power. There is public power and private power. 1790 predates the Industrial Revolution, the rise of vast private power in the hands of corporations, industries--power that eventually grows so strong that it dominates the public power. It's not all that complicated, Chip; even a simpleton such as yourself can grasp the fact.

     There are competing interests in the economic sphere. There is labor and capital with various subsets. If capital grows too strong, it manages to dominate the private and public sectors; and, like all unchecked power, it is corrupting and abused. The same thing happens if labor grows to powerful (especially in the US where labor's only concerns have been limited to wages, benefits).

     The current state of affairs in the US is testimony to the unbalanced nature of our society. A healthy, functioning society does not lock-up so many of its citizens, it does not have a quarter of its population living under the official poverty line (which is a woefully inadequate measure of what it requires to live survive on), nor does it tolerate all the other horrile out of balance indices that measure quality of life.

     Idiot libertarians always lament the role of the government while completely ignoring the power of corporations. Your "ideology" is not much different from Hitler's garbage. The problem with our government is that it is bought and paid for by corporate money.

     I am simply advocating a seat at the table for labor, the largest economic group in the nation. While big money is free to buy politicians, concentrate the media in the hands of a few and spread the propaganda of its owners the government will not allow that. Power and wealth will continue to be concentrated in the hands of a relative few, and that will lead to the end of what the Founders set out to create over two hundred years ago. It's sad that closed minded, indoctrinated fools such as you are just too dense to recognize that fact. Today it is the poor, labor, the lower white collar sections of the economy that is suffering this fact; tomorrow it will be you and most all others. Tyranny does not discriminate.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:18pm

166. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 3:12pm

     Name one thing Clinton ever did with which you agree.

     NAFTA. Welfare reform. Bombing of Serbia.

     Anyway, regarding Bush, I disagree with practically everything he has done for the simple fact of the matter that he hasn't done anything good.

     Nothing? Not a single blessed thing? Considering how complex the world is, I find it hard to believe that any well-balanced person could not name a SINGLE thing that Bush has done right. And then in the next breath you say that even if he DID do something right (a possibility you have already foreclosed), it would have been outweighed by the bad.

     Denying shades of gray is the very definition of strait-jacketed thinking, I hazard.

     Can you name one thing Bush has gotten right?

     Post 9/11, national security has been reasonably good, if not great. His tax cuts have done great things for stimulating the economy, which is comparable to Clinton's if not better. I'm sure I could think of others, but those are pretty broad.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:19pm

167. Posted by LEEANNG 09/18/2007 @ 2:01pm

     First, let me say if the Republican National Committee had any brains, and really was hiring "operatives" to infiltrate the left-wing blogs....

     they should all sound like LEEANG and try to encourage similar action in 2008.

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:24pm

168. FRANKSHITS:

     Sigh. Ok, I could do without the wall of capital letters. Here we go.

     You said:

     WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT...PURE REVISIONISM...VERY STALINST OF YOU....CARTER COMPLETELY FUCKED UP RELATIONS WITH IRAN LONG BEFORE THE HOSTAGE SITUATION...IRAN WAS A STABLE DEMOCRACY(FOR AN ARAB COUNTRY) AND CARTER TOTALLY APPEASED THE ISLAMONAZIS...YET YOU LIBZ WANT TO APPEASE THESE ISLAMONAZIS TODAY AND CUT AND RUN IN IRAQ

     My response:

     You think Iran was a democracy under the Shah? Um... huh? I honestly don't know how to respond to that, because it is steeped in so much ignorance of history as to be rendered complete nonsense. I'm literally boggled.

     You said:

     HMMM...O.J. WASNT CONVICTED OF MURDER EITHER....EVER HEARD OF JUANITA BRODERICK ???

     My response:

     Yes I have. Again, he wasn't found guilty. You said he was a well-known rapist. And again, in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty.

     You said:

     AND IN THE OVAL OFFICE...MUST MAKE YOU PROUD

     My response:

     Nope, sorry. I know that disappoints you, because you must think I love the idea of our President banging an aide on his desk. But if you are trying to make the point that Clinton was the only President we have had who cheated on his wife, again, I am boggled. It is well known amongst Presidential historians that most Presidents have cheated on their wives while they held the office. Sorry to let you down on that.

     You said:

     HMMM....EXPLAIN THAT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE 3000 DEAD ON 9/11. I'M SURE IT WILL GIVE THEM GREAT COMFORT

     My response:

     Again, not sure how to respond to that. It seems all you want to do is post complete nonsense, instead of actually trying to engage in discourse.

     You said:

     MORE LIB REVISIONISM.....WASNT THERE A VIDEO IN OCTOBER 2001 WHERE OSAMA CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE ATTACKS..????

     My response:

     Yes, found in a cave. Many is the CIA believe it is a fake. Again, pretty well known, unless you get your news from the MSM or the looney bin of the right. I notice you had nothing to say about UBL not having 9/11 mentioned on his America's Most Wanted poster. Interesting...

     You said:

     YOU PREFER HUGO CHAVEZ AS YOUR EXAMPLE....ORMAYBE HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON

     My response:

     Neither, actually. But thanks for asking.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:31pm

169. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 3:07pm

     Oh, Frost, you missed it. Ponti wasn't insulting YOU, he was insulting the system . . .

     But, he won't say what he does for a living.

     Makes you wonder.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:31pm

170. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 2:21pm

     JORCH, I was trying to be very specific in my question. I am NOT equating (a priori) socialism with "authoritarian socialism" (Chavez, Castro, Lenin, etc.)

     I am talking straightforward socio-economic policies, in the context of a democratic government.

     IS there a difference between those who proclaim themselves "progressive" and a socialist (democrats all)?

     You noted opposition to authoritarianism and to changes in "fundamental laws of the land which would serve to abrogate the rights of the individual to, as an individual".

     Okay, what if that individual created a product, something vastly used and successful, and built up their business in a matter of a few years to a multi-billion dollar enterprise (Gates would be an example...Henry Ford, others)?

     Under your ideas of socialism/progressivism...would you see the State come in and abrogate that individual's right to earn BILLIONS of dollars?

     Careful now, remember a fond little policy/idea thrown around lately is "Those CEOs making millions...the 200:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker's pay...etc."?

     I'm not talking about a reasonable income tax rate (or even JOHANNES' pre-Kennedy 90%)...but the State saying "No, Mr Smith, you MAY NOT earn more than $200K and your workers must get a minimum of $50K, health care benefits including dental, 6 weeks paid vacation, maternity AND paternity PAID leave, and you can't package your products in non-Earth friendly packaging, and you can't transport it except on hybrid trucks, and you must get your power from 50% renewables, and any profits over 5%, the Government gets to fund 'vital social programs'"?

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:36pm

171. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 3:31pm

     But, he won't say what he does for a living.

     Makes you wonder.

     Don't be a jackass, HMAN. If I told you, it wouldn't make a whit of difference. Try concentrating on something that matters.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:40pm

172. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 2:30pm

     PONTI, how is the "theory" of neo-conservatism holding up? Democracy blooming like a thousand flowers across the Middle East, Bill Kristol?

     Now, do you think the theory is flawed...or the implementation is flawed? If the theory, then you undercut the final reason for the debacle in Iraq? If the implementation, then you sound JUST LIKE those on the Left who blame failed socialism on implementation.

     BTW, costs of the war don't have anything to do with it. I was referring to the DEBT it engendered and to the fact that conservatives used say "Only we win wars, the libs get into quaqmires like Vietnam!". A real conservative would either not have entered the war, or PAID for it....you know, "balanced budgets"? Used to be principle of true conservatives...apparently no more.

     And a real conservative would have won a war in less time than WORLD WAR-II (and rapidly approaching WW-2 AND Korea!)

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:41pm

173. Well SPENCE, you said alot, so, I'll ignore the insults and just concentrate on a section you wrote, as its getting late. You say all you want is to give labor a place at the table. Yet they have had a serious place in American politics since the early AFL/CIO days. Their wages & perqs have been GENERALLY rising for decades. Do they still not make as much as management for their efforts? No, they don't, and frankly, they shouldn't. I've watched the CEO here work 70 hours a week, engaged in every conceivable aspect of his company that his education, which is extensive, allows him. If this place goes, he drowns. Only he is responsible. All I have to do is find another job. The guys in the plant work hard, but at 3:30 they go home and forget about it. If a machine goes down they sit & wait till its fixed, and get paid. If this place goes there are 100 other places they could go and do the same thing. Balance? No there should be no balance between the CEO and the workers. The CEO should have more, not to their detriment but because of what he does. Let everyone else here try to function without him.

     One of the reasons GM is in such dire straights is because the Execs simply would not get on board with the new high mileage cars. But the other reason is because for 30 years they have been paying labor more and more with no appreciable increase in productivity, and now they can't do it anymore, so you have layoffs. Balance

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 3:42pm

174. PONTIFICUS:

     You said:

     NAFTA. Welfare reform. Bombing of Serbia.

     My response:

     Fair enough. Never mind the fact that NAFTA has been a complete and utter failure at anything and everything for which it was touted... but an astounding success if your goal was to de-industrialize the US and create a maquiladora economy in Mexico.

     Welfare reform? Well, I won't deny the system needed reform. Not sure if anything he did actually did any good. It certainly produced a whole lot of bad... bad, of course, if you think good would have included getting people out of poverty and raising the overall standard of living in the country.

     Serbia? The bombing of Serbia actually strengthen Milosevic's power there. As the military leaders at the time and since acknowledged, it was of limited use militarily to bomb that country. If you have some time I would be happy to get into the why of the bombing... but let's get back to your post.

     You said:

     Nothing? Not a single blessed thing? Considering how complex the world is, I find it hard to believe that any well-balanced person could not name a SINGLE thing that Bush has done right. And then in the next breath you say that even if he DID do something right (a possibility you have already foreclosed), it would have been outweighed by the bad.

     My response:

     Nope, pretty much nothing he has done, of which I am aware, do I consider good for the country. Now, that's not to say he hasn't been fantastic for certain people or sectors in this country. But that has been almost across the board detrimental to the vast majority of Americans.

     You said:

     Post 9/11, national security has been reasonably good, if not great. His tax cuts have done great things for stimulating the economy, which is comparable to Clinton's if not better. I'm sure I could think of others, but those are pretty broad.

     My response:

     Ok, what part of post-9/11? The "My Pet Goat" part, or the shredding of the Constitution via the USAPATRIOT Act (a more Orwellian name I could not have even imagined).

     National security, as has been discussed at great length by many people who are much more in the loop than either of us would disagree. The Iraq War has been a disaster, it has stretched our military to the breaking point (thereby reducing our security), and Al Qaeda is more powerful and more international now than ever.

     The tax cuts have actually been a negative... that is, of course if you believe such people as Warren Buffett and Alan Greenspan.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:45pm

175. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 3:41pm

     Now, do you think the theory is flawed...or the implementation is flawed? If the theory, then you undercut the final reason for the debacle in Iraq? If the implementation, then you sound JUST LIKE those on the Left who blame failed socialism on implementation.

     The theory's fine; it was proven in Germany and Japan. If it has not been perfect in Iraq, we can blame Bush for not being perfect. That's not the same as being wrong, however. Are you perfect? I doubt it.

     BTW, costs of the war don't have anything to do with it. I was referring to the DEBT it engendered and to the fact that conservatives used say "Only we win wars, the libs get into quaqmires like Vietnam!". A real conservative would either not have entered the war, or PAID for it....you know, "balanced budgets"? Used to be principle of true conservatives...apparently no more.

     That's not necessarily true. I borrow money to buy a house, that doesn't make me a liberal. Wars are financed by debt, always have been. It's not a conservative or liberal issue.

     And a real conservative would have won a war in less time than WORLD WAR-II (and rapidly approaching WW-2 AND Korea!)

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:50pm

176. MASK:

     You said:

     JORCH, I was trying to be very specific in my question. I am NOT equating (a priori) socialism with "authoritarian socialism" (Chavez, Castro, Lenin, etc.)

     I am talking straightforward socio-economic policies, in the context of a democratic government.

     IS there a difference between those who proclaim themselves "progressive" and a socialist (democrats all)?

     My response:

     Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.

     I would say that generally, there is a much higher probability of a progressive being a socialist, however, I do know of many progressives who are capitalists. That doesn't mean they aren't Keynsian, but it does mean they are not out-and-out Marxists.

     You said:

     You noted opposition to authoritarianism and to changes in "fundamental laws of the land which would serve to abrogate the rights of the individual to, as an individual".

     Okay, what if that individual created a product, something vastly used and successful, and built up their business in a matter of a few years to a multi-billion dollar enterprise (Gates would be an example...Henry Ford, others)?

     Under your ideas of socialism/progressivism...would you see the State come in and abrogate that individual's right to earn BILLIONS of dollars?

     My response:

     As I have said in the past, I have no problem with someone becoming wealthy... even fabulously wealthy, as in your example. However, one must understand that such a situation is only possible in a society that allows such things to occur, through structures put into place to allow that to happen. For example, a stable capital market allows companies to go through the process of issuing stock and paper to fund expansion. The person who manages to achieve such heights of wealth owes a debt to society as a whole, because his or her success is not the result or product of one particular person's brilliance, but the product of many peoples' abilities and contributions to a society which allows such wealth to be possible.

     Furthermore, I have no problem with someone making more money than they can ever spend, so long as it is not as a result of gaming the system, infringing upon the commons, or as a direct result of taking advantage of others.

     You said:

     Careful now, remember a fond little policy/idea thrown around lately is "Those CEOs making millions...the 200:1 ratio of CEO pay to worker's pay...etc."?

     I'm not talking about a reasonable income tax rate (or even JOHANNES' pre-Kennedy 90%)...but the State saying "No, Mr Smith, you MAY NOT earn more than $200K and your workers must get a minimum of $50K, health care benefits including dental, 6 weeks paid vacation, maternity AND paternity PAID leave, and you can't package your products in non-Earth friendly packaging, and you can't transport it except on hybrid trucks, and you must get your power from 50% renewables, and any profits over 5%, the Government gets to fund 'vital social programs'"?

     My response:

     It is society's prerogative to determine what is good for society at large. Oftentimes that takes the form of government intervention. I am not a Friedmann-ite, believing in the almighty power and wisdom of the so-called free market. It has proven itself neither almighty nor wise on so many occasions it is not even worth my time to highlight them. You are intelligent, and I know you are familiar with those failures, or at least some of them.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:56pm

177. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 3:40pm

     C'mon Ponti. You were so unsurprised when Frosty revealed he is a teacher. I'm wondering if we cannot make a similar assesment with your field.

     Or are you ashamed of your vocation?

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:57pm

178. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 3:41pm

     By the way, MASK, reconstruction of Japan and Germany took far longer than the war did.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 3:58pm

179. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     No, I was wrong, you are incapable of grasping the concept as simple as it is. You are an indoctrinated imbecile.

     The US has the highest level of productivity; the labor in the US works more hours than their Western European competitors. "Higher Productivity" is nothing more than a euphemism for more work, less pay.

     Like all the other simple minded, spoiled little babies you want it all your way.

     Like I said, it's labor today, you tomorrow. You'll have nobody but yourself to blame (although I'm sure you'll be blaming labor, liberals, socialists, and everybody else when that day comes).

     Oh, by the way: Labor just works there, as you pointed out. Management is running the show; the responsibility is all theirs.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:59pm

180. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 3:41pm

     By the way, MASK, reconstruction of Japan and Germany took far longer than the war did.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 3:58pm

     Correct. Now tell us how many casualties the U.S. had during THAT reconstruction?

     (Mask - pardon my theft of your line, though I'll save you the effort)

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:06pm

181. hey folks,

     haven't had time to read any of your posts since my last.

     had to pick up my son from his grade two class at public school.

     funny thing. on the way home he kept muttering something about "peace, bread, and land".

     anybody have an idea what he meant by that?

     well, thanks. "see" y'all later.

     ponti. don't take anything you said personally. you didn't really mean it.

     off to teach some music.

     "hey, honey! gotta go! have you seen my copy of Das Kapital?........................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 4:06pm

182. FRANKSHITS:

     You said:

     NOT A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY....BUT YOU LEFT OUT THAT I SAID IT WAS A DEMOCRACY FOR AN ARAB COUNTRY....

     My response:

     No, it was never a democracy under the Shah. You don't know your history. Period.

     You said:

     THAT FACT YOU DONT REALLY DEBATE MY ACTUAL POINTS TO YOU BUT JUST GO OFF ON TANGENTS REALLY MAKES YOU INTELLECTUALLY BORING TO DEBATE WITH...

     My response:

     What points? Everything you post is some attempt to start a fight. You haven't actually engaged any a debate so much as attempted to to be some sort of ignorant agent provocateur. I have dealt with literally every "point" you have brought up, and have done nothing to provide any sort of support for your proclamations. Perhaps it is boring to debate, but that's what happens when you have nothing cogent to say, and continually are found lacking.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:07pm

183. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 3:57pm

     actually i'm a musician. teaching pays for the dsl.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 4:07pm

184. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 4:07pm

     I stand corrected.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:09pm

185. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 4:06pm

     that's the best mask impersonation i've ever seen

     :+]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 4:09pm

186. SPENCE, I gotta tell ya, you sound like a Socialist. By the way, if insults make you feel like a bigger man, a typical trait with insecure ranting types, you must be jest the tallest dude in the wurld!:)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 4:11pm

187. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     If the shoe fits...

     It is the smugness of fools like you on the right, the condescending ignorance that demonstrates the need to appear superior.

     So what if I am a socialist? I am not advocating socialism, only a balance in our economy, society, government. How can you argue against creating a balance between the competing interests? You can't, unless you're an ignorant moron that wants it all his way, even though he's too dense to understand where that leads (i.e., his own demise).

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

188. Jorcheim:

     Sloganeering? Me? I just posted some simple facts and statistics. That's all. I know they're inconvenient, but I also notice that no one argues with them. Probably because they can't. Don't you just wish Nichols and the rest of The Nation could be this honest? Not that they ever would...too busy pushing an agenda.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:22pm

189. Well, we all gotta go sometime, when I go down, may my voice be the last thing you hear.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/18/2007 @ 4:25pm

190. USC1:

     I wasn't referring to any particular posts from today, just your usual way in general. While you are nowhere near as bad as FRANKSHITZ, you generally don't do a very good job of backing up your points with facts or solid arguments. It's always about some lame-brained agenda. And that's honest. I won't deny many on this board has an agenda... from both sides of the coin. But if you are trying to argue that you are "honest" and "fair-minded" about most of your posts, I think you found a not-so-sympathetic set of ears.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

191. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     I meant figuratively, dumbass.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:32pm

192. MTSPENCE05:

     I got your back! :D

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:36pm

193. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 4:06pm

     Help yourself, HMAN...now let me tell you what PONTI (as HAPPY did) will try to counter...."Our enemies in Iraq haven't surrendered yet, as the Nazis and Japanese did!".

     So essentially Bush has fought a war LONGER than WW-2 and PONTI is trying to compare it to WW-2....yet in WW-2 we actually DEFEATED our enemies, something Bush & Co. apparently can't do with more time!

     The "World War-II/Iraq" analogy fell apart years ago. The Right wants to make "reconstruction" and "autonomy" analogous...but then try to obfuscate the "no more casualties in Europe after May 1945" (or "August 1945 in Asia") analogy.

     Just as they try the "Marshall Plan" argument for the money we've wasted....yet even in comparative dollars, we've spent more than the Marshall Plan did AND got fewer results (reconstruction) AND had MORE literally wasted, stolen, or LOST than EVER was under the Marshall Plan.

     So...PONTI wants to do his "WW-2" comparisons...make him.

     All the way down the line!

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:36pm

194. I shouldn't waste my time with Chip. He thinks Zinn made everything up. If he doesn't believe it or agree with it, then it's not true.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:39pm

195. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 4:21pm

     It's true, CHIP, he's not. (Although actually Empty is an "anarcho-communist"--Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/12/2007 @ 2:42pm)

     And while he holds those principles, he doesn't advocate them. Just "balance".

     Of course...that means he is being dishonest and advocating something he doesn't truly believe in!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:39pm

196. MASK:

     You said:

     Of course...that means he is being dishonest and advocating something he doesn't truly believe in!

     My response:

     Or perhaps he recognizes that society cannot survive without compromise.

     I know, I know... you are trying to make a joke.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:43pm

197. Posted by MARY

     No, mary, it means I'm mature enough to understand that having it all my way is not good for everybody. You have to be pragmatic, reasonably, willing to compromise and work with those you're opposed to. It's how a democracy is supposed to work.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 4:43pm

198. I guess I finally scared FRANKSHITZ away... like a fresh stiff wind blowing across a pile of offal... blows all the flies away.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:44pm

199. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:43pm

     No, not really. Ultimately Empty has to do one of two things...

     permanently give up on his "anarcho-communism" as a pipe-dream, in the face of what you rightly note is a society that MUST be compromised with. In which case why remain an "anarcho-communist at heart", if you KNOW you're NEVER going to get it implemented and MUST compromise your principles?

     Or he could stick with his ideals, and fight for "incrementalism" which would lead to his anarcho-communist society, even if it was a struggle which might go on after his death?

     But if he's willing to compromise and accept "balance"...then his "heart" is one of "the balanced approach", not "anarcho-communism".

     Of course, when needled for definitions of "balance", he merely gives "progressive" ideas. So ultimately, he's a "progressive", but likes the AIR of being an "anarcho-communist", so that he can rail against any authority that comes up, even a left-friendly one.

     Same reason he isn't going to vote...he likes thinking he's not part of the hoi-polloi of even his kindred on the Left.

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:58pm

200. These fools on the right think they're for democracy; they're nothing more than a bunch of brown shirts. The same arrogance, blind confidence, ignorance, self serving attitude. The "all my way" attitude, the disdain for compromise is a hallmark of fascist, Nazi ideology.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:00pm

201. Anarcho-communism is not suited for such a complex, integrated economic system such as what we have. That's just not realistic, mary.

     Why should I vote for a corporate sponsored stooge, mary? You talk of incrementalism? It is the morons like you that are incrementally taking the US to a far right, anti-democratic theocracy controlled by corporate interests. Just vote Repub and you'll get there sooner.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:04pm

202. FRANKSHITZ:

     Silly nitwit? LOL... not really so good with the epithets, are you?

     And I think that your decision to not respond to my comments has more to do with your monumental ignorance of history than with my so-called revisionism. You're just not man or woman enough to admit it, even to yourself. You keep thinking, if only I knew a little more history, like my idols Rush and Sean and Laura and G. Gordon and Michael and Ann... I could prove this infidel WRONG!!!

     Sadly, they are either willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest enough to lie to you, but I hate to tell you, they wouldn't help either. Your entire world is a lie. Your entire way of thinking rotten to the core. You are nothing more than the butt of a few borderline funny jokes. It would actually be really rather depressing, if I actually gave a rip.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:04pm

203. And I have to do nothing, mary.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:04pm

204. MTSPENCE05:

     So would it be accurate to say that you are most of a Bakuninist? It certainly sounds like it.

     Or maybe a secular distributivist?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:06pm

205. Oh, what's this, Jr is going to expand the FHA? That's what happens when the market is allowed to regulate itself.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:11pm

206. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

     As long as you're willing to admit that you have a "lame-brained" agenda. (psst...that was a rhetorical statement)

     Posted by usc1 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:11pm

207. So would it be accurate to say that you are most of a Bakuninist? It certainly sounds like it.

     Or maybe a secular distributivist?

     Posted by JORCHEIM

     I fear power. It is always abused, even by the most well meaning men and women.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:14pm

208. Posted by FRANKSHITZ

     Does your mommie know you're playing on the computer?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:17pm

209. USC1:

     No agenda here... well, that's not true. I simply believe that the major decisions of this country should be left up to a well-educated, ever-expanding middle class of thoughtful humanists. Unfortunately for your position and the good of the rest of the US, the policies that you have unabashedly supported on this very blog have done the very opposite.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:20pm

210. MTSPENCE05:

     I agree 100%. Lord Acton, as you yourself, was absolutely correct.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:21pm

211. All these loons that place their faith in the "free" market are ignorant of history and lacking the intelligence to understand where that leads.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 5:26pm

212. FRANKSHITZ:

     You do realize you are simply embarrassing yourself, right? So, ALUDRA, how many times are you going to change your handle?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:27pm

213. MTSPENCE05:

     I would have to agree, once more. The very idea of a "free market" is a misnomer (by design, of course). Our market is one of the most highly-regulated (if not the most highly regulated) in the history of humankind. It is precisely the illusion of freedom which makes it so powerful.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:28pm

214. "Another fool like Maasch insulting public schools and the teachers who work there.

     Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 2:39pm |

     I only insult the unionised system that has abandoned the interests of the student at the expense of providing a modern and usable education...... in exchange for a government work program for many teachers who have never taught anyone anything other than indoctination of the status quo...which leaves it up to those who provide jobs to graduates to teach remedial reading and begining math ..Proof?

     Ask the clerk at the grocery store to actually count out loud your change ...

     only a fool would leave their children in such a system...so, I guess I was a fool for a while...

     Posted by john maasch at 09/18/2007 @ 5:56pm

215. Ask the clerk at the grocery store to actually count out loud your change ...

     only a fool would leave their children in such a system...so, I guess I was a fool for a while...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     You obviously had a substandard history teacher.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 6:01pm

216. "You obviously had a substandard history teacher.

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 6:01pm

     Yours teach you to rob banks?...must have been a union teacher?

     Posted by john maasch at 09/18/2007 @ 6:17pm

217. JOHN MAASCH:

     Personally, if I had to choose between someone who used to rob banks, and someone who continues to support the illegal invasion, looting, and destruction of an entire country, I'm going to have to go with the former bank robber.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 6:23pm

218. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 6:23pm

     I am sure you would choose EMPTY... But if my daughter ever choose an "Empty" type, I wouldn't waste any time or effort to run him off.. it would be very easy...just put pressure on him to survive like anyone else....the noise you hear will be his jail door slamming..after he robs you of your stuff for.."jerking him around", which I am also sure you are more than capable of doing...

     Good luck with your choice, but I hope you won't have to depend on him for anything....food, housing, income, insurance, integrity, honesty,credibility, ability to finish anything, you certainly can't rely on his paying any meaningful taxes to support all of the "redistribution(fairness) programs",....and you better carry a union card... ....

     Posted by john maasch at 09/18/2007 @ 6:29pm

219. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/18/2007 @ 5:56pm

     I went to public school all the way through . . . and a public university as well. I can count your change. And even a few more complicated tasks. I even learned something about history.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 6:43pm

220. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 4:06pm

     Correct. Now tell us how many casualties the U.S. had during THAT reconstruction?

     Obviously the situations are not identical, although the basic concept of reconstruction is the same. The war in Iraq is still going on, fueled by Al Quaida, Iran and Syria. Pointless to argue with you when you ignore basic facts like this.

     Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2007 @ 6:51pm

221. PONTIFICUS:

     The war continues because we continue it. We invaded a country which had never initiated hostilities toward us. Period. As long as you ignore those facts, the debate is pointless.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 6:59pm

222. Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007 @ 6:51pm

     PONTI - See Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 4:36pm

     Good call, Mask.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/18/2007 @ 6:59pm

223. Nichols-This is total bullshit. Clintons plan is the way to go to get coverage to everyone. Once you crawl out of your hole and get some clue of how the majority of society lives you may recognize the need for political and economic compromise to get things done. As opposed to spewing your hate around among the same pathetic group of losers who waste time on these narcissistic blogs-get off your ass and actually do something to improve society; which is what Senator Clinton has spent the majority of her life doing…you will find compromise and working with all parties involved is the only way to get anything done…Senator Clinton is right!!!

     Posted by james martin at 09/18/2007 @ 7:38pm

224. I fear power. It is always abused, even by the most well meaning men and women.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 5:14pm

     Then why aren't you a libertarian? Since you're not, you ARE willing to invest power in the State for "balance"...yet claim to know that it will "always be abused even by the well meaning"?

     So...why aren't you supporting either the Anarchist movement or if more "realistic", the Libertarians???

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 7:46pm

225. Posted by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 6:59pm

     Yep, PONTI loves his "World War-II" analogy...except that that means the Bush has been a total failure. After all, Roosevelt took on an empire that covered almost of all of Europe and ANOTHER empire that covered almost all of Asia and the Pacific...and beat them in less than time than it took Bush to figure out he needed a "Surge".

     And after the capitals fell, and reconstruction began, you didn't have GERMANS and JAPANESE launching attacks (some suicide) against the occupation forces.

     BTW, note PONTI blames Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda...while every report has shown that the vast majority of the attacks have come from IRAQI Sunnis, not associated with Al Qaeda (certainly not friendly to Shiia Iran)....and that BUSH has installed a Shiia government that would be friendly to Iran.

     Want another WW-2 analogy, PONTI...imagine if Truman had installed a Communist sympathizing socialist as President of West Germany in 1948 or let all the capitalists flee the fledgling Japanese Government in 1947 and only leave the Japanese Bolsheviks in power???

     Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 7:53pm

226. by HMAN23 09/18/2007 @ 6:43pm

     You stand out in the masses who can't perform the same tasks...but then you are an attorney!!!!!......:)

     Posted by john maasch at 09/18/2007 @ 9:41pm

227. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/18/2007 @ 9:41pm

     i went to public school and can even write little ditties for you to sing.

     my wife went to public school in mexico and she's brilliant.

     and i take my son to public school five days a week. we couldn't be happier with the attention he is getting.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 10:02pm

228. Wow, what a joke of a plan from Ms. Rodham! What would be the penalty if you could not pay for the "required" health insurance? Would you lose the current limited but crucial right you have to be treated in an emergency? In other words, what would happen to the existing mandate that hospital emergency facilities treat patients with health crises, whether or not they have health coverage or funds to pay?

     Hillary has indeed come up with another plan that would make things even worse than they are.

     Posted by tremaine at 09/18/2007 @ 10:15pm

229. len mosse,

     doesn't sound to me as if zero is unhappy at all. he/she wants what most of us want...something better than we have. and for him/her to disagree with clinton's approach to achieving that (as do i) should not incite you to suggest he/she become an ex-patriot. stay and work, zero!

     Posted by bazaar at 09/18/2007 @ 11:00pm

230. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 10:02pm

     Maybe yours works...but in the US it is a full blown failure and it ain't because of lack of funds...

     Posted by john maasch at 09/18/2007 @ 11:54pm

231. Making it mandatory to buy health insurance doesn't even sound plausible. There's always going to be a percentage, rather large in my estimation, of people who won't buy it. What are they going to do, hand out tickets for not purchasing it? This is dumb. I therefore believe that Americans will love and embrace it.

     Posted by Dethtol at 09/19/2007 @ 01:13am

232. why not ask Americans who come from other countries what is better? how can people complain about so called socialized medicine witout experiencing it? i have lived in Australia for last 10+ years and the system is overwhelmingly better than what we have in the US. in fact, i couldnt even get insurance in California very easily now or it would be very expensive and that doesnt mean id even get good care. in Australia everyone is covered (safety net), we see CHOICE in whatever doctors we need whenever we want, we pay for it thru taxes at about 1.5% up to $100,000 taxable income and another 1% for higher income, and many also have private insurance at approx $150/mo to use private hospitals for non-urgent care if desired. businesses do not pay for health care--people do. the system isnt perfect, but it is very high quality, everyone is covered, and the cost is affordable and universal. insurance shouldnt be required, it should be purchased by the government (community) with leverage and every citizen should be billed for it based on income. this isnt gray offices from black and white movies of soviet union; this is modern, affordable, high quality, in color---doyeee!

     Posted by ojai44 at 09/19/2007 @ 04:59am

233. Reply to james martin: for me, the clintons have had their go. im sorry, but no matter how brilliant and lovely she may be, i say in with the new. she has already slept in the white house for 8 years and although she wasnt President, i want someone with a new perspective. she is too steeped in an old paradigm and buddy, im in the real world. ive had it with these 'oldies'; bring on the new!

     Posted by ojai44 at 09/19/2007 @ 07:35am

234. I don't need facts, I have my conclusions and I'm sticking to them

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 09/18/2007

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/19/2007 @ 07:46am

235. Morning, People! Time to eat bagels, drink coffee , print some more books and do battle here once again!! Ha HAAA! :)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2007 @ 07:54am

236. Posted by OJAI44 09/19/2007 @ 07:35am

     Here Here!!!

     Well said

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/19/2007 @ 08:01am

237. I have not the time to read through the whole thread; summation:

     Hillary's plan would require all to have private insurance via private insurance companies, with some subsidized through guvt money, all would go to private doctors.

     I don't like it, but the idea that this is socialized medicine is completely wacked. One would have to believe Iraq had massive stockpiles of wmd's to parrot such nonsense.

     Posted by crabwalk at 09/19/2007 @ 08:04am

238. Maybe yours works...but in the US it is a full blown failure and it ain't because of lack of funds...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/18/2007 @ 11:54pm

     well, y'all better fix it, then.

     having schools that only the wealthy can afford will lead to a each generation having fewer and fewer people being able to afford it.

     and that will be your country's ruin.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:26am

239. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 02:31am

     saddam was evil. no doubt.

     show us evidence of iraqi sponsored terrorism. please. evidence. please. evidence. please. evidence. please.

     would you like to hear about u.s. sponsoring terrorists?

     and how can you support israeli apartheid?

     did you support it in south africa?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:30am

240. Posted by OJAI44 09/19/2007 @ 04:59am

     i hope they read this

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:32am

241. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/19/2007 @ 07:54am

     be careful, every print shop i have entered is a toxic nightmare, with the air full of solvents and god knows what else.

     as for battling--bring it on, decepticon!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:36am

242. One would have to believe Iraq had massive stockpiles of wmd's to parrot such nonsense.

     Posted by CRABWALK 09/19/2007 @ 08:04am

     iraq is full of wmd's--wicked mejdool dates [en.wikipedia.org]

     yum!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:44am

243. So...why aren't you supporting either the Anarchist movement or if more "realistic", the Libertarians???

     Posted by MARY

     Try reading all of what I posted, mary.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 09:17am

244. FROSTY

     Thanks for the warning, really. Been in printing for a while, we have moved to all water based inks and do a lot of self monitoring, so its safe. And as for Decepticon.. JEST WUT EGGZACLY YEW TRYIN TUH SAY? :)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2007 @ 09:19am

245. Good luck with your choice, but I hope you won't have to depend on him for anything....food, housing, income, insurance, integrity, honesty,credibility, ability to finish anything, you certainly can't rely on his paying any meaningful taxes to support all of the "redistribution(fairness) programs",....and you better carry a union card... ....

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     Buffoon! I work, I pay taxes. And--unlike your sorry ass--I have served the country (and you want to talk of honesty, integrity?).

     Your daughter? Would I have to pull a number, wait in line?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 09:20am

246. Exactly what ink do y'all use, Chip?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 09:22am

247. Maybe yours works...but in the US it is a full blown failure and it ain't because of lack of funds...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     According to Rush and all the others, right, old man?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 09:27am

248. Why can't the US mainstream just drop all the ideology? Here in Canada, the system is not perfect, but everyone is covered and, despite lobby group lies to the contrary, the per capita cost of administering our system is significantly cheaper. We have always been able to choose our own doctors - again, contrary to the B.S. one sometimes hears in US health care debates. The answer to my question is that the ideology is cover for the greed of those companies which profit from the status quo. Your existing health care system is driven not by desired health outcomes but by simple greed. The real Clinton health care legacy is that Bill campaigned on universal health care, his party had control of both houses of Congress and what did he give you instead of health care? NAFTA! Talk about a sellout.

     Posted by paul bigioni at 09/19/2007 @ 10:27am

249. Between her desperate attempts to be militaristic, her support for war profiteers and military contractors, her allegiance to the plutocracy, and the goal of making a Federally-mandated market for insurance companies out of every American, Hillary Clinton is appearing to be a direct descendant of Ronald Reagan. She's terrible.

     Posted by ZERO 09/17/2007 @ 6:53pm

     Zero, Once again, you nailed it. Hilary hasn't switched her political views, the democratic party has shifted to the right to where the middle of the road dem used to be a republican. The republican party has shifted so far to the right that it's pretty much off the map.

     One thing to keep in mind is that all of the candidates running for the office of the president are sucking up to the big donors and making promises behind closed doors. We the public won't really know what is up their sleeves until after the fact and we've been screwed once again.

     I don't know if public financing of campaigns is the answer or not, but it sure as hell couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/19/2007 @ 10:35am

250. having schools that only the wealthy can afford will lead to a each generation having fewer and fewer people being able to afford it.

     and that will be your country's ruin.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 08:26am

     A bigger problem here is a school system that no one can afford to send their kids to, and it has nothing to do with money.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 10:38am

251. "Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

     ..... MacEachern said the decision was made because the U.S. hospital was the best place to have it done due to the type of surgery required.

     Stronach was diagnosed last spring with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The cancer is one of the more treatable forms but Stronach still required a mastectomy -- which was done in Toronto -- and breast reconstruction."

     So, how did that clinic and treatment not happen in Cananda, but in the US with it bad health care programs?

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 10:41am

252. Sorry MT, hate to be a bore but no company info out on the web. Orders, old boy.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2007 @ 10:43am

253. According to Rush and all the others, right, old man?

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 09:27am

     According to graduation rates, levels of achievement and any other measurement you want to use...find out how much the evil corporations have to spend to bring the reading and math levels up to high school level for many of their employess before hiring...

     or how many companys have had to hire people from India, China, Asia and others due to lack of qualified engineers, science back grounds..since we crank out so many " high demand, techno genius English, History, and Literature majors" in college who are useless in the commercial markets..Sound familiar EMPTY?...and scream for unions to put them in a place where they can't be fired...

     Educated in fields that has no demand...and complain they are being jerked around, blame the system..and then rob banks..

     oh yeah, the schools are working just fine..

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 10:56am

254. show us evidence of iraqi sponsored terrorism. please. evidence. please. evidence. please. evidence. please.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 08:30am

     Do you wonder why several notorious Terrorists took refuge in Iraq as Iraq's having "sponsored terrorism"? ....1973 in Munich, the Achilles Lauros high jacking, the first World Trade Center plotter(s), etc.?

     How about $25k per suicide bomber in the Israeli/Palestinian `struggle', does that constitute sponsoring terrorism?

     The only serious debate is Saddam's direct ties to 9/11....IMO, within the realm of plausible, though no fool-proof evidence yet!

     Posted by Happy at 09/19/2007 @ 10:57am

255. Posted by PAUL BIGIONI 09/19/2007 @ 10:27am

     well said, compatriot

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:00am

256. JOHN MAASCH:

     You are comparing apples to oranges. No one said you can't get great care in the US. In fact, if you have the money then the level of care in the US far surpasses that of almost anywhere in the world. If you have the money...

     We are discussing the fact that there are so many people who are uninsured or vastly under-insured because they simply don't have the money to self-insure, the way I am quite sure the Liberal MP Belinda Stronach of Canada does. I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, John, but it's really quite simple.

     There are countless people in this country who go without the most basic of care, simply because it is priced out of their range. The health care industry does everything they can to squeeze every last nickel of profitability from their hospitals, their doctors, their drugs... to the point where, on low-profitability care like triage or wellness visits or check-ups or preventative care, the companies either a) jack up the price to limit the amount of that type of care is provided, freeing up doctors to practice only the high-profitability procedures like surgery, b) deny coverage to people with less than perfect health, c) deny payment for certain procedures, despite typical medical protocol, or d) all of the above and a host of other practices. Those are the facts. Those are the facts germane to this discussion.

     Just right here in Pittsburgh, the largest mental health facility in the state is being shut down in the next couple of months and torn down to make way for a new high-profitability care center. Not because we don't need mental health facilities... much to the contrary. It's being done for the pure profit motive.

     Certainly some people have the right to choose. Unfortunately, in this country, if you don't have the money, your "right to choose" becomes an "option to survive". It's really that simple.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:01am

257. "Buffoon! I work, I pay taxes. And--unlike your sorry ass--I have served the country (and you want to talk of honesty, integrity?).

     Your daughter? Would I have to pull a number, wait in line?

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 09:20am |

     Honesty, intergrity? From a bank robber? You really want me to respond to that line?

     As far as my daughter..you aren't good enough to breathe the same air in the same room as she..your classless response about her is for all to see and proves my point better than anything I could ever say....

     ..I feel about you as I do about dog shit I have stepped in...just wipe it off and move on as the smell does go away the farther you are from it...., as your family has had to do..

     The fies are getting cold, you big tax payer...and you serving the country? You should be serving 10-20...your KP duties in the military are nullified by your "service after the military"...

     Did you serve fries in the Army, too, mister big tax payer?

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:03am

258. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 10:41am

     this woman is the daughter of frank stronach*, founder of one of canada's biggest companies. she's loaded!

     i know that none of my friends, my family or my co-workers could afford to go for major surgery in the u.s.

     *On September 6, 2005, Frank Stronach announced that he and Magna International were committing $2 million to start a model community for people displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The Toronto Star reported that "Magna Entertainment Corp. is [currently] providing housing for about 260 evacuees from the New Orleans area at a racetrack training facility in Palm Beach County, Fla., and will move them to a new community in November. Auto-parts giant Magna International Inc. and MEC are scouting for about 500 to 1,000 acres [2 to 4 km²] in an area of Baton Rouge in Louisiana to set up trailers and infrastructure... 'we would like to build a small community where we would try to be sponsors for the next five to seven years,' [Stronach] said in an interview." [1] Some further details were announced on October 6, 2005 and the new development will be called Canadaville.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:05am

259. Maasch - as usual, you speak in cliches and overbroad generalizations.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:06am

260. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:01am

     My point is , if you let the Hillarys of the world change the system into the post office then the Canadian woman would have no where to go...and neither will we...you will kill off all inovation and improvements, as does all govt programs designed to "help" that turn into unionised govt job programs..

     Again, walk into any govt office and just watch...ask anyone who works at any mid level corporate job or small business and ask them to compare for you...

     all the crap here about the evils of conservatives(even when we have none in office anymore), and your types want to put the govt in charge of the health of your children...why? After all you have seen govt do? why?

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:08am

261. Oh... and how about this. We have the largest nursing shortage this country has ever seen.

     It's not because we lack people qualified to be nurses. It's because these for-profit corporations (even the not-for-profits whose profits go to paying exorbitant compensation packages for their executives) cut the personnel to the bone and expect 1 person to do the work of 2-3, sometimes 4 people. And for less money, to boot.

     How do I know this? It's because I know many nurses, doctors, and other hospital workers and administrators, have dated nurses in the past, and have a brain. Most of us don't have the ready cash to spend on hiring our own personal nurse the way the wealthy do. Even most people who make good money can't do that. It's simply not financially feasible.

     So the point is, we reorganize the entire health care system, force the system to produce results in the form of healthy patients rather than healthy profits, and things will get better, across the board. And that includes making our system a single pay system. If you want coverage over and above what would be provided, by all means, go buy it. But this whole concept of making health care only available to people who can pay for it is stupid, it's criminal, and it's immoral and ghastly.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:08am

262. How about $25k per suicide bomber in the Israeli/Palestinian `struggle', does that constitute sponsoring terrorism?

     "struggle" you say!!!!

     DAMMIT HAPS, I BET YOU'D `STRUGGLE' IF SOMEONE CAME AND TOOK YOUR HOUSE FROM UNDER YOU.

     i'm too pissed to continue!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:09am

263. JOHN MAASCH:

     No one is saying that we should turn health care into the post office (which is extremely efficient, I might add). And all your attempts to obscure that fact, and to muddy the rhetorical waters with red herrings and straw man arguments is not going to change that. Sure, you'll confuse the stupid, the ill-informed... not sure which of those into which you fall, (or maybe you have some vested interest in keeping people unhealthy... maybe you work for Merck? Pfizer?) but the end result is, you are simply forestalling the inevitable. So instead of trying to lie your way into the debate, or misrepresent everything with which you disagree, how about be honest here. What would it hurt?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:11am

264. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:01am

     quite right about ms stronach. plus, she's a super-flip-floppin' party switcher.

     she's vile.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:11am

265. JOHN MAASCH:

     I hope you aren't trying to say that there have been no medical innovations to come out of places like Germany, Sweden, France, or Canada. Then you really would be showing your ignorance... and your obvious partisanship.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:14am

266. FROSTY ZOOM:

     Even when I know nothing about someone, I can usually guess what their situation is. MAASCH wanted to try to skew the debate with an outlying example, rather than the norm. You have what, MAYBE a couple thousand people coming to the US from Canada per year for such procedures? I wonder how many lives are saved there and how many lives are lost here because of the differences in health care... that is the truly important question.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:16am

267. Jor,

     "I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, John, but it's really quite simple. "

     Not always...the unisured are not the poor masses of people living under bridges...I am unisured and have been since my children were born..BY choice..I did the math and followed the same probability tables as they do in calculating premuims...

     $12k a year including premiums and deductables...I paid cash, in cluding appedindix(sp), 3 braces, and all drugs...and still came out ahead...the rest of the premiums went to the dinner table at home or whatever...now in my 50s I bought medical savings account(like IRA) and catrostrophic care policy.

     USE your heads...THINK, DO THE MATH,...I will not be found in the post office line of some govt hack telling me to come back after they go on break...that line is for goofs like EMPTY so he an celebrate the programs.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:17am

268. "(which is extremely efficient, I might add). "{

     At delivering ads and junk mail..

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:19am

269. ...i'm too pissed to continue!

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 11:09am

     Shit, sorry, I'd Rather DRIVE YOU CRAZY :-))))))!

     Posted by Happy at 09/19/2007 @ 11:19am

270. "(even the not-for-profits whose profits go to paying exorbitant compensation packages for their executives) cut the personnel to the bone and expect 1 person to do the work of 2-3, sometimes 4 people. And for less money, to boot. "

     One of my best friends is CFO of Loma Linda and he says they net 3% at end of year....he refutes all your evidence and will give another complete set of issues you never thought of..

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:22am

271. JOHN MAASCH:

     You said:

     Not always...the unisured are not the poor masses of people living under bridges...I am unisured and have been since my children were born..BY choice..I did the math and followed the same probability tables as they do in calculating premuims...

     My response:

     Actually, it is a very easy concept to grasp, and again, I am astounded you don't get it. Sure, you chose to be uninsured. There are many more, certainly a larger proportion based on the numbers I have seen and the anecdotal evidence I see on a daily basis through my line of work, who want coverage and cannot get it, either because they get red-lined out (yes, it still happens) or because they have pre-existing conditions.

     You are assuming that YOUR situation holds true for everyone, and I am telling you that it is quite the opposite. Your situation is an outlier. Plain and simple. And here's the other thing. Most people simply cannot come out of pocket, at ANY point in the lives, for such a large (even a much smaller) amount. And since our health care system puts very little emphasis on prevention (because prevention simply isn't profitable), it's all about curing. That means, problems that could have been circumvented, or at least drastically slowed simply through early detection, i.e. prevention, end up becoming way too big for the average person to afford to fix once it gets to a certain point.

     You said:

     $12k a year including premiums and deductables...I paid cash, in cluding appedindix(sp), 3 braces, and all drugs...and still came out ahead...the rest of the premiums went to the dinner table at home or whatever...now in my 50s I bought medical savings account(like IRA) and catrostrophic care policy.

     My response:

     Health insurance companies are in it for profit. It does not cost that much money to provide preventative care to people. You were getting shafted by the insurance company, and you didn't even have the good-old-fashioned common sense to realize it.

     You said:

     USE your heads...THINK, DO THE MATH,...I will not be found in the post office line of some govt hack telling me to come back after they go on break...that line is for goofs like EMPTY so he an celebrate the programs.

     My response:

     Sounds like the only one here not using their head is yourself. I have done the math... numerous times. You seem to forget, I work in this industry. So I see it on an almost daily basis. You are wrong. Sure, your decision worked out fine for you. And that's great. I'm truly happy for you. But your situation is not the norm. And I have hundreds of clients and many more pieces of anecdotal evidence to support my position, along with numbers provided by the GAO. You only have your own situation. I think I can rest my case on that.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:30am

272. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:14am

     No, I am not saying that....

     ...I come from a medical family and was going into medicine myself, but changed my mind at the last moment...I just hate to see the whole system destroyed and turned into a typical govt operation... and with the millions expecting a different result after repeating the same effort..letting govt do it...and getting the same shitty result..only to be met with, " we will fix it later.."

     Look, govt health care is coming ...that train has already left the station..so you should be happy...I am preparing NOW for an alternative, for you will NOT SEE ME OR MINE WAITING IN LINE ..NEXT TO EMPTYS OF THE LAND.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:30am

273. " I am telling you that it is quite the opposite."

     JOR,

     I am telling you I am in the "40 million"...

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:32am

274. JOHN MAASCH:

     Regarding the Post Office, it is the most efficient organization in the world. Sad to burst your bubble, but it is completely self-funded, with no other funding coming from the treasury, it pays its employees very well, with great benefits, and handles all the mail that the companies like Fed Ex and UPS refuse to handle, because it is simply not profitable for them to do so. Your ideology blinds you to the realities of your surroundings.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:32am

275. .."and you didn't even have the good-old-fashioned common sense to realize it. "

     Sure I did, thats why I made my choices..

     ...YOU are going to get shafted by the govt..again....and YOU DON'T REALIZE IT.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:33am

276. JOHN MAASCH:

     One of my clients is one of the former pre-eminent brain surgeons in the US. My best friend's father is head of pathology at Duke University Medical Center. They would both tell you you're wrong, and a moron to boot.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:34am

277. you will kill off all inovation and improvements,.......

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 11:08am

     well JOHN MAASCH you are wrong

     how's this:

     "We can actually potentially repair and regenerate the injured nervous system," says Michael Fehlings, M.D., Ph.D., a neurosurgeon at Toronto Western Hospital in Canada.

     Dr. Fehlings is studying Cethrin, a drug given during spinal surgery.

     "You apply this directly over top of the exposed spinal cord," he says.

     The drug works by blocking the pathway that prevents nerve cells from regenerating. In a study of 37 patients with severe injuries, one-third had a significant recovery. One in five had a major recovery.

     or this:

     Fertility experts are hailing a medical breakthrough at McGill University.

     More news from Montreal

     A baby grown from an egg ripened in a laboratory, outside the mother's body, was born last August in Montreal. Experts say the process used to produce it is a medical breakthrough. They say it gives hope to women unable to produce eggs suitable for fertilization.

     or this:

     19 Feb 2007

     Local Massachusetts Doctor Using A New Medical Breakthrough That Is Providing Relief To 86% Of People Who Suffer Chronic Back Pain* (*According To American Journal Of Pain Management)

     A proven new non-surgical technology originally developed by a Canadian Medical Surgeon eliminates low back pain by actually correcting the problem at its source. It's called the "Lordex Lumbar Spine System," and it uses a special kind of therapy called "closed decompression" that alleviates pain by taking pressure off the nerves in the lower back (the "lumbar " region of the spine).

     or this [from the university of toronto (public)]

     2004 Cameron A. Ackerley, Peter R. Durie, M. James Phillips, Geraldine Kent described the definitive experimental model of Cystic Fibrosis in which the whole spectrum of organ pathology seen in man is reproduced. This model is now the standard for investigative work in cystic fibrosis e.g. pre-clinical gene therapy studies . John W. Callahan with Don J. Mahuran and Richard D. Bagshaw published a comprehensive proteomic file of lysososomal integral-membrane proteins which is an invaluable clinical and research resource.

     2003 Tom Wolever identifies that Acarbose improves the glycemic profile and insulin sensitivity in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled on diet alone.

     Raymond Tellier, Susan Richardson, Anne Matlow and co-workers played important roles in the 2003 Toronto SARS outbreak, developing the first molecular diagnostic test for SARS-Co V in Toronto (Tellier), for describing SARS infection in children (Richardson, Tellier, Matlow), for development of infection control guidelines for adults and children (Matlow), and for developing and refining diagnostic testing for SARS-Co V infection (Richardson, Tellier).

     2002 Josef Penninger and Peter Backx Scientists have identified two genes, known as angiotesin converting enzyme (ACE) 1 and 2, with critical roles in heart function – one contributes to heart failure and the other protects against it

     Tom Wolever discovered that Acarbose prevents type 2 diabetes. Low glycemic improves beta-cell function in the people with impaired glucose.

     Tony Pawson and Frank Sicheri solved the structure of a protein, called EphB2, a molecule that is known to be active in colon cancer. This work revealed how a particular part of the EphB2 protein, called the juxtamembrane region, is responsible for turning the protein on.

     Khosrow Adeli discovered the underlying mechanism of diabetic dyslipidemia using an animal model which has far reaching implications in the understanding and management of both obesity and diabetes.

     M. James Phillips, Gary A Levy, Philip A. Marsden and co-workers discovered the critical involvement of the human fgl2 (prothrombinase) gene in the pathogenesis of fulminant viral hepatitis in man as had been shown in mice.

     2001 Tony Pawson and Mike Tyers have identified a way in which our cells regulate when and if genetic material (DNA) is duplicated.

     M. James Phillips, Renxue Wang, Ibrahim M. Yousef, Victor Ling and co-workers discovered that targeted deletion of the main bile acid transporter in mice (spgp gene) was non-fatal because the animals developed a new polyhydroxylated bile acid which is excreted by a previously unknown canalicular membrane bile acid transporter.

     Jim Dennis and others identified the Mgat5 gene and a family of Sugar-binding proteins called galectins as a key regulator of T cells in the immune system. Benoit Bruneau and others have created the first mouse model relevant to the study of congenital heart disease in humans.

     Gabrielle deVeber completed the first large-scale, multi-centre study to determine the incidence and characteristics of sinovenous thrombosis, a type of stroke that occurs in children due to blood clots blocking the brain's venous flow, establishing that this condition in children is a serious disorder that results in neurological impairment or death in half the cases.

     Cynthia Guidos, identified an important mechanism that determines how white blood cells develop. This discovery provides insight on how the immune system develops, both in normal and disease states.

     Michael Salter in collaboration with Josef Penninger's laboratory came to the discovery of a new genetic mechanism involved in pain modulation that could lead to an entirely new approach to pain control.

     Khosrow Adeli provided the first evidence that a link exists between an insulin signalling gene (Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B) and the development of hyperlipidemia (increased blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides) in an animal models of diabetes.

     Stephen Scherer, and Lucy Osborne identified a previously unknown genetic basis for Williams syndrome. Williams syndrome is a genetic condition (estimated to occur in one in 20,000 people worldwide) which causes medical and developmental problems.

     Charles Deber discovered a protein defect that underlies a milder form of cystic fibrosis, also known as pancreatic sufficient CF, which occurs in 10-15 per cent of CF patients.

     Michael Dosch led a team of researchers to determine that multiple sclerosis (MS) and type I (juvenile) diabetes mellitus are far more closely linked than previously thought, including the role cow milk protein as a risk factor in the development of both diseases for people who are genetically susceptible.

     Lori West lead her research team to discover that infant heart transplants can be performed safely and successfully despite major blood type incompatibility between the donor and the recipient.

     Stephen Scherer and post-doctoral fellow Kazukiko Nakabayashi discovered what the largest gene is possibly in the human genome, with 100 times the chemical agents than the average gene.

     Johanna Rommens, identified the ELAC2 gene that leads to inherited prostate cancer.

     Josef Penninger and others identify the CD45 protein, one of many switches responsible for turning off hormones and proteins that control the human immune system.

     2000 Ernest Cutz discovered a new form of congenital surfactant deficiency and a new variant of pulmonary interstitial lung disease in infants.

     Tony Miller, Cornelia Baines and others report results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study for women age 50 to 59. The study shows more cancer detection for women undergoing annual mammography in addition to clinical breast exam and self-examination, but early diagnosis of breast cancer is not resulting in fewer deaths.

     Mary Hannah and others complete the International Term Breech Trial and discover that delivery by caesarean section is best for breech babies at term and does not increase the risk for the mother.

     Reza Emami develops a software program designed to help identify and classify genes that are linked to illness. After studying the entire genome of an organism and grouping similar genes into families, the program can look at a virus or tumour and identify the genes that have an impact on the infected cell.

     Janet Rossant is elected to the Royal Society in recognition of her work on the genetic control of normal and abnormal development in the early mouse embryo that provides insight into what can go wrong in early pregnancy.

     Peter St George-Hyslop and others announce that a new Alzheimer's vaccine is ready to be tested on human subjects.

     Geoff Clarke and others demonstrate that mutant genes that contribute to inherited neurodegenerative conditions like retinal degeneration and Parkinson's disease confer a constant risk of programmed cell death.

     Josef Penninger and others discover a protein that suppresses colorectal cancer in mice and human cell cultures.

     Roderick McInnes and others identify retinal stem cells in the adult eye, a discovery that opens the door for retinal regeneration as a possible cure for damaged or diseased eyes.

     Emanuela Mundo and others identify a genetic variable prevalent in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder, a discovery that may provide insight into the cause and treatment of this disease.

     or this:

     On the horizon

     In 1997, ZEN spent 33 % of its $729 mn R&D budget in the cancer area. It has seven new anti cancer compounds in development to treat breast, colorectal, and non-small-cell lung (NSCL) cancer. Of these, closest to commercialization is Faslodex (ZD 9238), a pure anti- estrogen now in Phase III clinical development for patients with advanced breast cancer.ZEN completed a royalty deal with Canada's AnorMED (Langley BC) to license the latter's anti cancer agent AMD 473, a third-generation platinum compound active against cisplatin- and carboplatin-resistant tumors in animal studies. It may work on humans for NSCL, ovarian, lung, colorectal, and bladder cancers. Phase I clinical trials started in 1997. by Vivian Lewis

     yep, we ain't gettin' nothin' done.

     too busy sucking the public tit.

     to paraphrase a republican of days gone by:

     It is better to stay silent and let people think you are an idiot than to start typing and remove all doubt.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:35am

278. JOHN MAASCH:

     And furthermore, having a single pay health system does not equate to the government running everything. I realize that it's a difficult concept for such a simpleton to grasp, but here's the deal. The only thing that is controlled is the funding. Simple. And it would cover everyone. Everything else is open to personal choice. And it does not preclude you from buying, or NOT buying, extra coverage.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:37am

279. Posted by HAPPY 09/19/2007 @ 11:19am

     well at least that made me smile

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:37am

280. "And furthermore, having a single pay health system does not equate to the government running everything."

     You know as well as I that this will not happen...it will be a no choice govt program....the left is completely anti private becasuse profit is a dirt word for them...and they are coming with a national health program. Enjoy it.

     This will be a govt boondogle...so be it.

     I, as I said, will not be in that line.

     Gotta go.

     I am off to the airport for first leg of China trip.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:44am

281. Don't forget Hillary was raised in a Republican household.

     Posted by phatboy08 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:44am

282. Honesty, intergrity? From a bank robber? You really want me to respond to that line?

     As far as my daughter..you aren't good enough to breathe the same air in the same room as she..your classless response about her is for all to see and proves my point better than anything I could ever say....

     ..I feel about you as I do about dog shit I have stepped in...just wipe it off and move on as the smell does go away the farther you are from it...., as your family has had to do..

     The fies are getting cold, you big tax payer...and you serving the country? You should be serving 10-20...your KP duties in the military are nullified by your "service after the military"...

     Did you serve fries in the Army, too, mister big tax payer?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     Yeah, honesty, integrity. What do you know of either, you war dodging coward? You dodged the war while others without a mommie and daddy to pay their tuition didn't get to take refuge on a campus. And now you can't even admit you dodged the war; you post long rationalizations claiming you did nothing different from millions of others. Wow, what honesty, integrity.

     I did my time in prison; I did my time in the military. Committing a felony does not negate my service. Contrary to what you believe, you cannot go back and change history.

     As for you daughter, I can only hope she's not the same stupid whore you are.

     Dog shit? That's the smell of your breath, old man, the odor of corruption, hypocrisy that dwells within your sorry old, bald ass.

     And, yes, I pay taxes, you old fool. I may not pay as much as you, but, then of course, I'm not reaping a profit off of Third World labor that is oppressed by its authoritarian "communist" government.

     Integrity? You actually believe your own bullshit rationalizations, don't you? That's sad.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:46am

283. EMPTY HEAD, "Yeah, honesty, integrity. What do you know of either, you war dodging coward? You dodged the war while others without a mommie and daddy to pay their tuition didn't get to take refuge on a campus. And now you can't even admit you dodged the war; you post long rationalizations claiming you did nothing different from millions of others. Wow, what honesty, integrity. "

     ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzenough said.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:47am

284. Sorry MT, hate to be a bore but no company info out on the web. Orders, old boy.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     I just wondering who the manufacturer is, that's all. So sorry. I don't know a sinlge printer that's so secretive of what type of ink they use.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

285. And that's just a handful. One could talk about France, Sweden, Canada, the US (certain aspects, of course), the USSR, Poland, the DDR, and every single one of them represents a different type of socialism. Yes, there is most certainly disagreement among socialists, and disagreement between socialists and progressives. I know many progressives who are very religious, atheist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-gun control, pro-capital punishment, anti-capital punishment.

     The Greens are a "progressive" party. I am a progressive politically. I don't agree with all of their beliefs, nor do I agree with the way they run the party.

     So, you want a specific socialist policy I would oppose? That all depends on which socialist you are discussing. Personally, I abhor any sort of authoritarianism, regardless of the socio-economic stripe. So, any change to the fundamental laws of the land which would serve to abrogate the rights of the individual to, as an individual, show disagreement with the ruling faction, is bad. That means that pretty much anything the USSR or the DDR or Poland did in those respects was bad, and in my opinion, wrong.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person

     Jorcheim,

     I commend you for such excellent commentary, this really broadens the scope and contextualizes one of the most crucial discussions ongoing in this country. Many conservatives, represented in the form of Pontificus, Chip Thorton, Happy, etc., attempt to define socio-economic conditions in shrink-wrapped simplicity, hardly advancing the conversation beyond the early twentieth century Social Darwin "poverty is caused by personal inadequacies" crowd.

     Socialism is the most misused term in the conservative vocabulary, being crudely thrashed about the way liberty and freedom was by 1980s Republicans, as they capitulated to the policies of Apartheid in South Africa. Socialism most commonly, in context to domestic American politics, is conflated with state authority. The most successful economies in recent decades (Japan and its fellow Asian neighbors) all ascribe to state-run policies that synthesize the role of government and private industry in fluid cooperation in order to achieve shared goals. This has proven efficient and rational.

     The United States has always used the government to advance industrial interests, despite the specious claims of laissez-faire boot-strappers. Who, if they were to follow their own rhetorical vitriol, should be the ones to "leave America" and pursue their theoretically abstract neoclassical dreams in Somalia; a land where the government restricts itself to its limited role of military duties- unlike the dreaded civic-minded, socially-conscious, nanny-states found in hell-holes like Norway, Sweden or Germany, where industrial and societal advancements are yet to be realized (according to our conservative interlocutors).

     Posted by Oustbush at 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

286. "Contrary to what you believe, you cannot go back and change history. "

     Nope...you are what you are....

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

287. Well, since he won't be here to get a response, I guess I will respond for the benefit of the peanut gallery.

     No, I don't know that it will be a national health care plan, the way he envisions it. In fact, if everything else I have seen is any indication, it will be as private as possible, even if that's not what is best for America. The lobbyists will somehow slip in their own little pet laws and loopholes, and it will probably end up screwing the little guy again. You know, like that Medicare drug benefit program much lauded by the right?

     But I guess history doesn't mean much to the right-wing-nut-jobbers.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

288. Jor,

     I will be here reading from airports and China...

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:49am

289. "But I guess history doesn't mean much to the right-wing-nut-jobbers.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am"

     Or the left...they keep wanting more and more govt in the face of the facts that govt can't manage shit.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:51am

290. And thus the well earned retort.."Good enough for govt work"..

     Well, not for me or mine.

     Good luck with the new program, er, rights, er, entitlement, er taxes....

     enjoy.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 11:52am

291. Or the left...they keep wanting more and more govt in the face of the facts that govt can't manage shit.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     Read about 1929, asswipe.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:53am

292. Oh, if only the US had a government like China, everything would be great, huh, old man? No unions, regulations or anything else to get between you and your profit.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 11:56am

293. No offense MT. Its just a blanket rule, and there's too much of a trail on here

     And BTW JORCHIEM: THE POST OFFICE??? EFFICIENT??? Consider yourself lucky man. The guys in my area are lucky if the know the difference between a letter and a box! I'd avoid them by just using the machines, but they don't freakin' work either.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2007 @ 11:59am

294. OUSTBUSH:

     Thank you for your kind words. And I agree with you, you hit the nail right on the head. Conservatives choose to falsely paint progressives and democratic or anarcho-socialists with the same brush as authoritarian styles of socialism, like the USSR, Cuba, even Venezuela now, all for the attempt at discrediting true, honest commentary on the state of affairs here and abroad.

     They hate it when they get the same treatment, even when the current crop of "conservatives" bear little to no resemblace to people like Barry Goldwater, and instead look and sound more like John Birch Society rejects.

     And your analysis of the Chicago school Friedman-ite laissez-faire-ism is right on the money. As I have stressed in previous posts, our economy is one of the most, if not the most, heavily controlled and regulated markets in the history of the world. While not a command economy, it is constrained by rules and laws which have made it easier for companies to make a profit... even if that profit is as a result of the direct exploitation and expense of those with less power. It's disgusting that they continually misrepresent practically every single issue about which they argue. Sadly, the more ignorant of the sheep actually listen to and buy into their misrepresentations of the world.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 11:59am

295. CHIP THORNTON:

     Yes, as a whole, it is incredibly efficient. I would challenge you to do some actual research on the Post Office before guffawing out of ignorance. The Post Office handles literally millions of letters and packages every day, and they lose a very small number of them, and yet you always get your mail. It's dependable, it's safe, and guess what... there is a reason such luminaries as George Washington and Ben Franklin considered one of the most important aspects of a modern nation a functioning, dependable postal service. It has been one of the best ideas they ever divined, and has served us well for over 2 centuries.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 12:04pm

296. Or the left...they keep wanting more and more govt in the face of the facts that govt can't manage shit.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 11:51am | ignore this person

     Maasch,

     I recognize your frustrations with opposing comments proving more formidable than you'd like, but such broad, course statements like this are even beyond you. Does the government offer you and your family protection post-Sept 11? I've heard you and others while defending Bushcorp, argue that the government has prevented numerous terrorist plots and efforts to kill Americans. How is it logical that the institution of government can coordinate this enormous assemblage of military personal, equipment, technology, infrastructure, etc., but not manage the funding of health services, similar to how other industrialized nations have successfully managed for decades?

     Posted by Oustbush at 09/19/2007 @ 12:07pm

297. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

     The Post Office has never lost a letter of mine. Here at work DHL, FedEx and UPS routinely lose or damage shipments; they will not pay the full amount of loss, and they make it difficult to file a claim.

     The campaign against the Post Office is a long one, perpetrated by those that cannot stand to see something outside of the "free" market work. The employees are well paid and no one gets rich of the operation--anathema to the "free" market nuts.

     Do you even know what ink is being used? I doubt it.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 12:09pm

298. JOHN MAASCH

     'scuse the 'idiot' part in the lincoln quote.

     broke a person rule about not insulting

     i copy'n'pasted lincoln's quote and was going to change 'idiot' to 'moron'.

     just kidding. i was going to put 'wrong'.

     insults have no place in this forum.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:14pm

299. Thank you for your kind words. And I agree with you, you hit the nail right on the head. Conservatives choose to falsely paint progressives and democratic or anarcho-socialists with the same brush as authoritarian styles of socialism, like the USSR, Cuba, even Venezuela now, all for the attempt at discrediting true, honest commentary on the state of affairs here and abroad.

     Posted by JORCHEIM

     Yeah, our choices are a "Wild, Wild West" laissez-faire economy with the government owned and operated by corporate America or a drab, oppressive Stalinist like system. One extreme or the other. Never mind the mixed economies of Western Europe, Japan. Like spoiled, little, greedy brats they want it all their way. (Mean while, they're getting rich off the backs of Chinese labor.)

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 12:16pm

300. funny thing. these two posts:

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:01am

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 11:05am

     and then these:

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:14am

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 11:35am

     are the SAME POSTS AT THE SAME TIME

     mine are just later 'cuz i'm off in google land looking for evidence.

     cool.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:24pm

301. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:59am | ignore this person

     I suspect our conservative friends do not enjoy seeing their comments attached to your responses, since you so effectively challenge their superficial world-views. And I would add, that even the Chicago school Freidman laissez-faire-ites are beyond the barking noise seen here, as I have heard Chicago economists openly acknowledge the role of government influence in the energy sector. They admit that gasoline is artificially priced and does not reflect true costs; $2.75 a gallon does not account for the obscene taxpayer subsidies applied to the military costs necessary to patrol Persian Gulf territories, finance Middle East wars, and defer environmental costs resulting form resource extraction and use.

     Posted by Oustbush at 09/19/2007 @ 12:24pm

302. It never ceases to amaze me how terrified average americans are of "socialized" health-care. As far as I'm concerned its just basic human decency to provide quality medical care to every citizen.

     Here in Canada we don't have the best system in the world by far (it would be even better if american hospitals weren't continuously poaching our doctors and nurses), but families don't have to declare bankrupcy to cover medical bills (still the most common cause for bankrupcy in the U.S.).

     It just isn't ethical to force a person to chose between appropriate medical care and financial solvency.

     Why can't america and its leaders see this?

     Posted by farwalker at 09/19/2007 @ 12:37pm

303. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person

     Nice posting from you and Frosty Zoom, and others. Hillary Clinton is not to be trusted with this issue. She is too cozy with corporate lobbyists and has not the established history or record refuting such concerns. Good afternoon to all...mine must be sacrificed to many dreary chapters of solving for X.

     Posted by Oustbush at 09/19/2007 @ 12:41pm

304. I am off to the airport for first leg of China trip.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 11:44am

     wait a second.

     doesn't china have socialized medicine?

     doesn't china have socialized EVERYTHING?

     bet that helps keep costs down.................

     You're off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz

     You'll find he is a Whiz of a Wiz if ever a Wiz there was

     If ever, oh ever, a Wiz there was the Wizard of Oz is one because

     Because, because, because, because, because

     Because of the wonderful things he does

     You're off the see the wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:44pm

305. OUSTBUSH:

     Exactly right. About Clinton and about the Friedman-ites. Good posts all around.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 12:46pm

306. Why can't america and its leaders see this?

     Posted by FARWALKER 09/19/2007 @ 12:37pm

     leave america out of it.

     the "leaders". simple answer.

     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 12:52pm

307. Posted by OUSTBUSH

     I very much appreciate your well informed, calm, cool posts. I wish I had the patience, tolerance you, Jorcheim and others have for the ignorance of these right wing fools that love to come here and regurgitate the garbage they get from Fox News, Limbaugh, the Volkischer Boebachter, etc.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 12:57pm

308. Empty, simple question...

     Do you favor investing more power in the hands of the Government to help "balance" things out in the economy?

     Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 12:59pm

309. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 11:59am

     Posted by OUSTBUSH 09/19/2007 @ 11:48am

     gentlemen, i've noticed that when i post an unanswerable retort to JOHN MAASCH'S posts, he does just that: doesn't answer.

     i'm a musician, but this forum has lead me to dive head first into economics. i've posted this before, but no one will ever comment. i would appreciate your insight:

     this is my summary of the extreme's of economic thought and my proposed solution (before the river runs dry):

     "freedunomics"--the river flows unto the sea, and each individual jumps into the swirling eddies, hoping to get caught in a current both gentle and swift that will safely carry them to the awaiting tropics.

     "controlanomics"--it is decreed that the river shall be damned, correction dammed, and we shall harness the power of all the river's energy on your behalf in order to make things go round and round and round and round.

     "Frostynomics"-- "Honey, get off that friggin' blog and go get us some water."

     "Uh, what's that, darlin'? Uh, yeah, right away."

     I, Frosty Zoom, do hereby declare, to use the smallest of buckets when i go to the river. I will endeavour not to spill a drop. I will try to save every drop i have fouled and will return this life-giving force back to it's flow (almost) as clean as the moment i first fetched it.

     "Te amo, ahorita regreso"

     "Adios" ("to god")

     thanks in advance

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 1:01pm

310. BULLETIN ...

     JOHN MAASCH, SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, SUSPICIOULY "MARRIED WITH CHILDREN", IS PUTTING OUT THE SIGNAL OF BEING ... A LARRY CRAIG REPUBLICAN. NOTICE THE REPEATED EMPHASIS HERE ON ... AIRPORTS

     I am off to the airport for first leg of China trip.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 11:44am

     I will be here reading from airports and China...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 11:49am

     How much foot tapping and reaching for the invisable tiolet paper on the floor of the next stall will be on tap for MAASCH and his "fellow travellers"?

     How wide will the stances get?

     In the new Republicant Party of real phoniness and real fudge-packing, LARRY CRAIG is the totem, the leader, the model.

     Oafish nobody JOHN MAASCH may understand absolute zero about the government and the economy, as JORC has eloquently demonstrated. But he certainly knows the "secret handshakes" and the "passwords" that the gain entrance into the inner sanctum of the LARRY CRAIG wing of the party: the airport men's room stall to which MAASCH has a CRAIG-like drive toward entering ...

     Posted by John_Shaft at 09/19/2007 @ 1:06pm

311. I am merely relating my own experience gentlemen. Again, if your branches function well, more power to you. Mine, however are bona fide fuckups (Pardon my Polish).

     ct

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/19/2007 @ 1:25pm

312. Do you favor investing more power in the hands of the Government to help "balance" things out in the economy?

     Posted by MARY

     It's already been posted, mary. Go back and read it.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 1:40pm

313. I have to agree with everything John says. Hillcare is just another NAFTA fiasco. Pour billions into the insurance companies and maybe they will let us see a doctor. No, no, a thousand times no. Medicare for all. It's just that simple. Let the insurance industry turn their talents to something they are good at, like collecting parking fines or investigating contractor fraud in Iraq. Personally. Without armored vehicles. In bright red hats. With targets on them. They do that and they'll actually EARN their money.

     Posted by Noodle at 09/19/2007 @ 1:51pm

314. Nichols hit the nail on the head - Hillary, like her husband before her, will cater to those who fill her coffers; in her case the pharmaceutical and insurance industry. She talks about consenus, but when you only include the powers to be in the round table you have pre-decided your consensus. On health-care reform we need a major paradigm shift and someone with the courage to buck the system - Hillary is not the one with that courage (Kusinich is, but unfortunately hardly anyone looks his way).

     Posted by galderink at 09/19/2007 @ 2:10pm

315. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 1:40pm |

     Well, how about take a moment and answer it "again"....unless you actually smell the trap and are trying to avoid it?

     In case you forgot, the question was...

     "Do you favor investing more power in the hands of the Government to help "balance" things out in the economy?"

     Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 2:17pm

316. What is so terribly difficult to understand about "balance"? Was balance not the intention of the framers of the Constitution? Is there any perfect system? No. The Founders understood that all too well; they recognized that humans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. History taught them that power is corrupting.

     There are different kinds of power. There is public power and private power. 1790 predates the Industrial Revolution, the rise of vast private power in the hands of corporations, industries--power that eventually grows so strong that it dominates the public power. It's not all that complicated, Chip; even a simpleton such as yourself can grasp the fact.

     There are competing interests in the economic sphere. There is labor and capital with various subsets. If capital grows too strong, it manages to dominate the private and public sectors; and, like all unchecked power, it is corrupting and abused. The same thing happens if labor grows to powerful (especially in the US where labor's only concerns have been limited to wages, benefits).

     The current state of affairs in the US is testimony to the unbalanced nature of our society. A healthy, functioning society does not lock-up so many of its citizens, it does not have a quarter of its population living under the official poverty line (which is a woefully inadequate measure of what it requires to live survive on), nor does it tolerate all the other horrile out of balance indices that measure quality of life.

     Idiot libertarians always lament the role of the government while completely ignoring the power of corporations. Your "ideology" is not much different from Hitler's garbage. The problem with our government is that it is bought and paid for by corporate money.

     I am simply advocating a seat at the table for labor, the largest economic group in the nation. While big money is free to buy politicians, concentrate the media in the hands of a few and spread the propaganda of its owners the government will not allow that. Power and wealth will continue to be concentrated in the hands of a relative few, and that will lead to the end of what the Founders set out to create over two hundred years ago. It's sad that closed minded, indoctrinated fools such as you are just too dense to recognize that fact. Today it is the poor, labor, the lower white collar sections of the economy that is suffering this fact; tomorrow it will be you and most all others. Tyranny does not discriminate.

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 3:18pm

     That's what I posted, mary. You're such a smart girl, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'm not in the mood for your little bitch games.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 2:26pm

317. FROSTY ZOOM:

     That made me laugh. Especially the part about your wife. I know that feeling all too well.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 2:38pm

318. What do people think Medicare, Medicade and the Veterans Administration is? The Federal government provides 50% of the health care dollar now. 35% is provided by private insurance companies. The rest is from self funded plans or staight out of the pocket of patients.

     Posted by mhhensel at 09/19/2007 @ 2:51pm

319. PLAIN BRUCE:

     You said:

     A few points need to be refuted. First, as I pointed out earlier, nurses in the private system in Sweden get paid up to 50% more than in the private system.

     My response:

     I am assuming you meant to say "public" for the second "private". And that's entirely possible. I would have a couple of questions. First, if that is the case, then are there still enough public nurses to work in public positions? And if so, what could possibly be keeping them there, instead of getting a private sector job? I am not posing rhetorical questions here, rather honestly trying to get to the bottom of this.

     You said:

     So we will likely get fewer nurses due to less pay in an already hurting field if we switch to socalized medicine. (If you don't believe me, I point to the planned 40% cuts in physician Medicare reimbursement over the next 7 years-what effect do you think that will have).

     My response:

     The planned cuts in Medicare reimbursement are due to the upcoming burden on the system, due to underfunding. With a properly funded social health care system, that would not be the issue, and you can look at England or France as prime examples of precisely that point.

     Regarding the presumed shortage of nurses, I would be willing to bet that is not the case, for the simple fact of the matter that nurses, at least the ones I know, don't like their jobs most often because of being overworked. The pay is not really the issue. When the work of 2-4 nurses must be done by 1 nurse, as is so often the case in our present system, yet that single nurse only gets paid the wage of 1 nurse, rather than a stepped-up wage based on the additional workload, that is a major disincentive to remain in the health care field. I know. My mom works at a hospital, 2 of my former girlfriends are or were nurses, and a good portion of my clientele are nurses.

     You said:

     Second, there is alot of truth to what John says. Switch to HSAs (predominantly) and you will see prices fall. First, because there will be little need for the excess overhead doctors face(extra employees that handle the paperwork for example). Secondly because competition drives down costs. As evidence, I point to the decreasing costs of LASIK, plastic, and vasectomy surgeries. Their prices have dropped over the last ten years despite technological improvements and they are the closest thing we have to free-market medicine.

     My response:

     One of the things you seem to miss is that every single one of the examples you tout are elective procedures, none of which required to live a happy, healthy life. The very reason the costs for those procedures have fallen is due to the fact that there is still a massive profit margin built into the process. That is precisely the opposite of what we are discussing here. We are talking about cheap, reliable, high-quality preventative care... the type of care in which the profit margins are scarce to non-existent.

     You said:

     Lastly, government has a good bit to say in your health care decisions. As examples, I will use the patient who was denied a MRI because his back pain had not been going on for at least four weeks, never mind that he had classic signs of nerve impingement; and the patient who had to pay for her own blood tests because Medicare said they weren't necessary, never mind that her doctor ordered them; and the patient who had to change BP meds because Medicare didn't want to pay for his current prescription, never mind that he was well-controlled. (and for all of these examples, we had to have extra employees to furble through the paperwork to get it settled.)

     My response:

     Well, anyone can pull individual anecdotes out of thin air and use them to back up specious claims. I don't doubt that sometimes situations like what you describe do in fact happen. But they are not the norm. Far from it, actually. Now, are there problems with Medicare? Without a doubt. This most recent change to the program, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, was and is a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle giveaway to Big Pharma. It's just that simple. And what I am looking for is a solution which helps the greatest number of people achieve the best possible health. And if the wealthy, who would like to have elective surgery, want to pay for it, they should be allowed to do so. This is, after all, a free country. But in the same breath, all people should be guaranteed a certain baseline of health care. A modicum of humanity in this profit-driven world of which you speak is far from a bad thing.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 2:54pm

320. PLAIN BRUCE:

     Yous said:

     Lastly, I have met and read about several doctors who accept absolutely NO third-party payers and are able to charge about 50% less than we do for office visits (with bigger discounts for certain tests) because their overhead is so minimal.

     My response:

     You're right about this. Medicare overhead is substantial. Like I said in a previous post, no system is perfect, and no system should rest on its laurels. In Medicare's case, the two main problems are the overhead costs and the money going for the wrong things. But that was a political decision, rather than a decision based on fairness and necessity.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 2:56pm

321. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 2:26pm |

     Well, after endless discussion of "the problem" and of course a liberal (or is that "progressive") use of ad hominem attacks, you finally said something, though un-specific....

     " am simply advocating a seat at the table for labor, the largest economic group in the nation."

     Okay...HOW....EXACTLY do you propose doing that? And how will that NOT be investing more power in the Government?

     Oh, in case you forgot...

     I fear power. It is always abused, even by the most well meaning men and women.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/18/2007 @ 5:14pm

     So, will the "most well meaning men and women" IN LABOR...do that as well???

     Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 3:17pm

322. Try reading it again, mary.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:18pm

323. PLAIN BRUCE:

     You said:

     One other point to factor in--much of Medicaid and some of Medicare reimburse less than cost, oftentimes MUCH less. This, of course, drives up costs for everyone else, particularly the "cash-paying."

     My response:

     Actually, one of the primary reasons "cash-paying" as you called it is so expensive is that hospitals and caregivers have to make up a substantial portion of the profit margin. One of the main factors free marketeers always fail to take into consideration is the profit that these companies are expected to make by their shareholders, even if making that profit ends up hurting the patients for whom they are supposed to be caring.

     Add to that the exorbitant salaries of the executives of these for profit companies, and you have a pretty big couple of reasons for cash-care being so expensive.

     Another issue that hardly ever gets any mention is the outrages overcharges by doctors and hospitals that occurred throughout the 70s and 80s, even part of the 90s. That sucked a ton of money from the system, making it less likely to remain solvent with the same payout as before. This was rampant practice, as numerous doctors with whom I have spoken have explained. This was not one of those situations where a doctor here or there was gaming the system. It was more like, "Everyone else is doing it, I should too..." situations. The government started cracking down on it.

     I do find it ironic that the doctors that were the most egregious law-breakers then are oftentimes the most vocal proponents for fully privatized care and the most vehement opponents to any sort of socially responsible health care system.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 3:19pm

324. (What kind of little game is mary playing today?)

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:23pm

325. I do find it ironic that the doctors that were the most egregious law-breakers then are oftentimes the most vocal proponents for fully privatized care and the most vehement opponents to any sort of socially responsible health care system.

     Posted by JORCHEIM

     Isn't it always that way?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:25pm

326. " I've heard you and others while defending Bushcorp,"

     No, you haven't...Bush lost me years ago on immigration..we are not safer because of open boarders and he won't manage the borders. I do not feel safer going through the clownish searches at the airports and with govt unionised worker scribbling on my boarding pass with a bic pen, taking away my vitamins, but letting me keep my scissors....in their spiffy new uniforms.

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 3:30pm

327. A perfect job world for the likes of EMPTY...finally a job he is well suited and qualified to do...complete with govt union card, health care, mandated breaks, holidays, pension, new uniform complete with shirt patches, and a new Bic pen with which to scribble on boarding passes at the scanner and a voice to yell,.."BAG CHECK!"....and he can't be fired. Perfect.

     ...sounds almost as good as, "Fries are up!!"

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 3:33pm

328. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 2:38pm

     thanks.

     my declaration of frostynomics, however metaphorical, is nonetheless my philosophy of life.

     live small.

     cheap'n'fun!

     off to work

     shalom

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 3:39pm

329. JOHN MAASCH:

     So did you show up again just to make fun of MTSPENCE05, or to remind us of how vapid, shallow, and intellectually dishonest you are?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 3:40pm

330. Sounds like the complete opposite of the poor bastards in China and other Third World countries that you chisel a profit off of, huh, old man?

     Tell me something, old man: Why do unions exist? I mean were they already here when humans first began to walk upright on the savannahs of Africa? Or did they develop as a result of the abuses of capital? Can you answer that, you old fool?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:40pm

331. And can somebody explain to the old fool why the border with Mexico is so wide open?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:41pm

332. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/19/2007 @ 1:06pm

     An obvious soulmate to EMPTY..both from the same, ah,...class...

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 3:43pm

333. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 3:40pm |

     I show up for the entertainment value, especially after one of you "bright lights" wallow in your self celebration as you fool your selves in your believe you have "really shown the truth to a particular statement of another.." or refuted another with your facvtual brilliance..Please.. As far as this gem..

     "So did you show up again just to make fun of MTSPENCE05.."

     EMPTY makes fun of himself evryday without help from anyone else...and nmow he has a buddy in Shaft..

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 3:49pm

334. That's it, you pig, wallow in your ignorance, hypocrisy. That's what your parents did, that's what your children, grandchildren will do; and all the while y'all can tell each other how right y'all are.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 3:53pm

335. JOHN MAASCH:

     You said:

     I show up for the entertainment value, especially after one of you "bright lights" wallow in your self celebration as you fool your selves in your believe you have "really shown the truth to a particular statement of another.." or refuted another with your facvtual brilliance..

     My response:

     I find it rather ironic that you feel that way when you have yet to refute any point I have made. So either you are a) a worthless provocateur whose only goal is to elicit some response because you feed off the attention, b) an intellectual gadfly who simply cannot manage to formulate proper arguments without devolving into ad hominem, c) completely intellectually dishonest and devoid of any true intellectual pursuits beyond pushing hot buttons on a public blog, or d) all of the above.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 4:01pm

336. Posted by JORCHEIM

     How about just an ignorant brown shirt that must pollute a site he doesn't agree with?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 4:04pm

337. MTSPENCE05:

     I was trying to give him at least a little bit of benefit of the doubt. :D

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 4:10pm

338. Hey, old man, how do you reconcile chiseling a profit off repressed Chinese labor with your lord and savior Jesus? You're a Pharisee, old man. You would have been amongst those in the Hebrew hierarchy endorsing the cruxifiction.

     Once the civil war was over and it was plain to see that the Bolsheviks were there to stay, you would have applied for a party card along with all the other opportunists.

     You would have been an ardent supporter of the National Socialists.

     You are a parasite, nothing more.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/19/2007 @ 4:15pm

339. Hillary's plan just shows that she is bought and paid for. The one thing her plan guarantees is growth in the health insurance industry.

     Posted by krolson1 at 09/19/2007 @ 5:01pm

340. PLAIN BRUCE:

     You said:

     When some hospitals first were privatized in Sweden there was a flight of nurses to the private hospitals (who could blame them?), but this was back in early 1990s. The private hospitals took the best of the best (that is a bit of an assumption on my part, but logical), and the public system was stuck with those who didn't make the cut. Obviously, the system could not accept all of the nurses seeking employment, thus the others were stuck in the public system. (Ironic historical fact: private hospitals were so popular and in demand that the gov't limited the number of private hospitals that could be created--it seems they got in the way of Sweden's idea of "fair and equitable distribution of health care." No word on how they justified continuing with the already-private hospitals.).

     My response:

     It seems that you are under the impression that I believe the entire health care system should be publicly owned. That's not the case. I have no problem with privately run hospitals, assuming they provide proper care for their patients, and that the profit motive does not undermine that care, as it so often does in this country.

     As far as private hospitals taking the best of the best in Sweden, I think that's a pretty huge assumption, one I will have to investigate. I'm willing to admit ignorance of Sweden's nursing situation, providing you are willing to countenance the possibility that you could very well be wrong.

     You said:

     Yes, there is underfunding of the current Medicare system. I don't argue that. However, you want to extend coverage to every American (and illegal immmigrant) that wants treatment. I have grave doubts that the underfunding would be corrected. Using Sweden as an example again, their government realized that nearly 60% (60%!) of tax revenues was going to health care alone--not to welfare programs, but just health care. In fact that was one of the driving reasons to create their private system.

     My response:

     Again, no one is claiming that the Swedish system is perfect. However, I would like to point out that the average Swede, at least from the polls and the numbers and the anecdotal stories I have seen, are much happier with their system, than the average American. Regarding the underfunding, I have a feeling that if we weren't spending ridiculous amounts of money on an illegal war, and a massively bloated Defense budget to boot, I doubt we would have any problems whatsoever funding a comprehensive health care program in this country.

     The bottom line is, we simply mis-allocate the tax income in this country to such a gross extent that it does not, in any way, shape, or form represent the needs of the average American. And I believe that is the crux of the issue. While Sweden's system may in fact be underfunded, it is designed to benefit the average Swede, not the rich muckity-mucks at the expense of the average Swede.

     Also, I am curious to know the sources for your information about the Swedish health care system. Oftentimes, that tells more about your views than anything else.

     You said:

     England is a bad example to use for this argument. Their system is rife with underfunding, late payments, and sometimes no payment at all. Many doctors and nurses in the NHS are working longer hours than contracted without any reimbursement at all for these extra hours. Those are the kinds of things that don't get reported by the bean-counters.

     My response:

     Yet the average doctor does well in England, no? Now don't get me wrong... I abhor people doing work and not being compensated fairly for it. However, I know literally thousands of people personally who are paid a salary in this country, and yet are vastly overworked, far beyond their contracted hours. In fact, practically every Wal-Mart in America is rife with that sort of thing.

     Now, I recognize this is a bit of a specious argument, but my point is this. This country does not have a health care system in which the primary goal is to provide good health care to its population. It is designed with one thing in mind... profit. And that, no matter how you slice it, is wrong. I don't think profit is a bad word, despite conservatives' claims to the contrary. What is a bad thing, however, is profit being held up as the greatest goal for all activities. Some things are more important than making money. And I personally believe that affordable health care is one of those things.

     You said:

     This is my point. I used the examples precisely because they are elective, and thus not covered by insurance (although my wife would argue that my vasectomy was essential to her happy, healthy life). They demonstrate what could happen to health care costs if we let the market dictate prices. Yes there would be profit, but you seem to think that that is a dirty word. It is precisely that profit that would allow doctors and hospitals to hire more and better nurses (to increase that nurse:patient ratio). It is also the profit that would allow for newer and better technology and medicines which in the long run can make health care cheaper for everyone. BTW, about one of those doctors that doesn't accept insurance--he charges $45 for an annual physical; we charge over $100.

     My response:

     The example of Big Pharma blows that theory out of the water. Again, it is not their goal to provide curative treatment for anything. It is to bring the most profitable products to market. Why else would they spend so much money on the development and marketing of drugs to make your penis like concrete, yet they continue to market pain medications that have known deadly side-effects. It's profit, baby! It has NOTHING to do with improving people's lives or health.

     You said:

     No specious claims here. These are examples of what I deal with every week--and I'm just one doctor (who limits Medicare to <=10% of his practice. Care to guess why?).

     My response:

     I don't doubt that you deal with those situations. Really, I don't. But I know numerous doctors who would say precisely the opposite of what you claim.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 6:21pm

341. " you have yet to refute any point I have made...."

     E) You have made no points worth noting or refuting.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 4:01pm

     Posted by john maasch at 09/19/2007 @ 6:21pm

342. JOHN MAASCH:

     f) You're a self-righteous, ignorant, mongoloid whose only concern is himself, and making himself feel important to fill the ever-expanding void in your life.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 7:57pm

343. And can somebody explain to the old fool why the border with Mexico is so wide open?

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/19/2007 @ 3:41pm

     cheap slaves

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 9:39pm

344. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/19/2007 @ 6:21pm

     actually, he has spoken quite eloquently.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 9:50pm

345. Duh this Edwards wife. Why wouldn't she lie alone somewhere and treat her ailment. Instead, the poor woman is scuttling around and is an easy prey for republican news outlets. I heard her husband'd made tens of millions of US$. Hey you better give back the money, don't use it for political purposes. Read this.

     ---------

     Edwards' Wife Bashes Clinton Health Plan

     Sep 19 08:33 PM US/Eastern By JIM DAVENPORT COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Elizabeth Edwards accused Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton of copying the health care plan outlined more than seven months ago by her husband, John. The New York senator has failed to lead on an issue in which she has extensive experience, Edwards said.

     "Does Mrs. Clinton's plan seem very familiar to you?" Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Mrs. Clinton has--seven and a half months after John unveiled his health care plan--unveiled a health care plan that is in every material respect just like John's." Edwards calls Clinton's plan "John Edwards' health care plan as delivered by Hillary Clinton."

     Posted by Helen DAO at 09/19/2007 @ 10:31pm

346. It's not just about universal healthcare.

     Without a Democratic (& progressive allies) congressional supermajority there won't be ANYTHING! It's just as imperative to give a Democratic President a Democratic Congress similar to what FDR had in 1933 when he was able to set the agenda in his first 100 days for the next decade transforming the American way of life for the better despite the stiff-necked opposition of the rightwing reactionaries (whether Democrat, Republican or otherwise ) and their ignorant nasty stinking stingy backward racist superstition-ridden followers!

     If Hillary's stated program isn't up to your expectations, then the People have to make her do the correct thing. You're going to have to make her --or whoever gets into the White House--do it. When Americans make enough noise and get animated with a vengeance things happen.

     ----

     Greenpagan [greenpagan.blogspot.com]

     ====

     Posted by greenpagan at 09/19/2007 @ 11:34pm

347. John Stossel?

     Really... you are quoting John "Never met a corporation I didn't like" Stossel? You gotta be kidding me. He is about as solid a source of expertise as a zygote.

     LVLIBERTY1, you really need to get out more. Stop swallowing the right wing bullshit. It's really sad.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 12:28am

348. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:43pm

     the insurance companies are one of the most powerful "institutions" in canada.

     our politicians are bought and paid for just like yours.

     just a supposition but,

     "wouldn't it make sense for the pols to help their insurance buddies set up a private health care system by letting the public one die until people clamour for something "better"?

     lots of money to be made.

     just a supposition. no one in power would ever admit to that, now would they?

     nonetheless, i couldn't be happier with my medical care.

     i wouldn't trade it for the "system" y'all are forced to "live" with.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:34am

349. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/20/2007 @ 12:49am

     well, we live almost exactly the same way, chez nous

     try cutting out the meat. it may change your view of violence as a means of solving problems.

     good to know that if we've got a REAL problem, we can see a doctor.

     that option would be impossible for us in the u.s.

     and that option would be impossible for most of my friends if they lived in the u.s.

     and i do pay my taxes.

     night, night

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 01:07am

350. When are these Dems going to start working for us. We hired them to work for us not corporations and big bubiness. Sen. Cliton please realize what this so called health care package you are trying to get us to swallow is not any good. How can people afford health insurance when we hardly can make it now and you want to make it a law to have health care and let the corporations and big business off yet another hook so they can get richer and we keep loosing more. Don't you get it your BIG BUSINESS and GREED is killing us. We the peaple not we the CORPORATIONS and BIG BUSINESS.

     Also instead of letting the bush idiots keep on with this OIL WAR the DEMS need to stick to thier guns and but a bill with a DATE of withdrawl out of Iraq and and funding for the deployment only and if that what ever you want to call him vetos it just send it back again and again,again..... or don't send any bill at all. Come on who's side are you really on? We need you to work FOR US !!!

     Posted by lwmm47 at 09/20/2007 @ 01:57am

351. John Edwards has a better health plan than any other presidential candidate and it is ignored by the press. In fact, the press slavishly follows Clinton and Obama as if they were the only Democratic candidates for President.

     Posted by cschumacher at 09/20/2007 @ 06:38am

352. It is disappointing that an obviously skilled writer, as Mr. Nichols isn't equally skilled as a reviewer. His diatribe is self-serving and political-speak, and is inaccurate. Worse, he offers no commendation to someone attempting to solve the national crisis of health insurance. With approaching 50 million people in the US without insurance something simply must be done, but people, like Nichols, find it too easy "shoot fish in a barrel", meaning, anyone that offers a solution to this problem, or Hillary is too easy a target, regarding this issue, "she just has to be wrong".

     Well, kindly give me the facts as to why she is wrong, instead of political regurgitation. And, it would be helpful if you addressed(attacked) the problem instead of someone that offers a solution. (Of course its your job, don't weazel out!)

     Posted by robbythecat at 09/20/2007 @ 07:55am

353. LVLIBERTY1, you really need to get out more. Stop swallowing the right wing bullshit. It's really sad.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 12:28am

     JORC,

     Guess you missed this during your hiatus from the site, but ... LVLIBERTY1 claims that he reads left-wing news and jihadi bulletins almost exclusively. Says he is "monitoring" these people (curiously, leftists whom he despises -and- fundementalists who are his doppelganger). However, we have to assume he is reading the "A-B-Cs of jihadi, especially for old-fart English speaker!" sites since he has never lived in an Arabic speaking nation (that is, he claims to have lived in UK and Singapore). No way should we accept any such confabulations of extra-English linguistic competence on his part; confabulations that come so easily to the rapid rightwing assclown across the board ("war on christmas", "we know for certain where the wmds are located, in the sunni triangle").

     Given LVLIBERTY1 also has a big interest in monitoring homosexuality -- he approvingly cited J'erry bin Farwell's 9/11 "blame America" rant -- one wonders if he is following these sites as well. Y'know, seeing what kind of muscled, sweaty manly bodies and fisting techniques spice these particular webpages.

     It would all, of course, be of a piece (or is it ... of a piece of ass?) with the disengeniously and covertly gay Repulsive Party for which men's room stall stud LARRY CRAIG is figurehead.

     Posted by John_Shaft at 09/20/2007 @ 07:57am

354. In fact, the press slavishly follows Clinton and Obama as if they were the only Democratic candidates for President.---Posted by CSCHUMACHER 09/20/2007 @ 06:38am

     According to the polls....they are. John Edwards scores only 7% (seven) in South Carolina, next-door neighbor to his homestate of North Carolina.

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 09:05am

355. Jesus, are we STILL on here? NICHOLS must be thrilled!

     Topic Change: Just curious, I'm generally not a reality show fan. Best case, Survivor might be interesting this time but only cause its in China, worst case, I think the Dinados from Big Brother should be taken out and shot just for being the way they are. However, I'm wondering what everybody thinks about this thing with the Kids in the Desert? Any Opinions?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/20/2007 @ 09:10am

356. Jesus, are we STILL on here? NICHOLS must be thrilled!

     Topic Change: Just curious, I'm generally not a reality show fan. Best case, Survivor might be interesting this time but only cause its in China, worst case, I think the Dinados from Big Brother should be taken out and shot just for being the way they are. However, I'm wondering what everybody thinks about this thing with the Kids in the Desert? Any Opinions?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/20/2007 @ 09:10am

     a) it's because everybody NEEDS health care.

     b) all those shows are SURreality shows. if you want reality, watch king of the hill or the simpsons. better yet, turn of the t.v.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 09:56am

357. JOHN_SHAFT:

     That's actually really funny. But yet it doesn't surprise me in the least.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 09:56am

358. Well, CHIP is atleast partially right.....really no point in discussing health care, Hillary's or otherwise, since NOTHING is going to actually be DONE about it until January 2009.

     and that's 16 months from now!

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 10:02am

359. Fun quote of the day from John Stossel:

     "I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market."

     I think this pretty much says it all.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:27am

360. More fun from our Freddie-Mercury-mustashioed maven of corporate lies:

     "There are plenty of threats we should be worried about, like war and poverty and smallpox and terrorism. Is global warming one? I am skeptical, because I have seen so many hysterical media alarms come and go. The globe is warming, and man does seem to be playing a part, and many good scientists are alarmed. But climate models suck at predicting the future. The alarmists always get most of the press attention. It may be that if there is warming, it will cause more ocean evaporation, which will cause more clouds, which will mitigate the warming. We don't know what will happen. Far better to adjust to whatever happens, with the technology that we will have down the road, than wreck the lives of everyone today, with the sort of boondoggles that some politicians propose."

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:32am

361. Well, CHIP is atleast partially right.....really no point in discussing health care, Hillary's or otherwise, since NOTHING is going to actually be DONE about it until January 2009.

     and that's 16 months from now!

     Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 10:02am

     since NOTHING is going to actually be DONE about it until AFTER THE REVOLUTION!

     no worries, DHS. i wouldn't hurt a fly. ask them.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:33am

362. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 10:27am

     wow! that was worth the google!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:34am

363. FROSTY ZOOM:

     I just find it funny that I would get grief for dismissing such an obvious shill for corporate America. I mean, really. How do you even argue with someone who is either so completely stupid, or so completely on the take?

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:42am

364. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 10:42am

     or both.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 10:53am

365. FROSTY, I think I'd opt for your second choice and turn off the TV. Thank God for my Books. Just got a kick out of the "Kids gonna fix the parents screw ups" theme, since it fit with my feeling that this country will not be truly straightened out untill the Boomers/semi Boomers are out of the picture.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/20/2007 @ 11:21am

366. This is getting fun. The amount of bile and bullshit spewed from this guy's gaping corporate maw is astonishing.

     "Unfortunately, the greed of the organic farmers is now a significant threat to public safety."

     I actually laughed out loud at that.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:30am

367. Rarely do I cut and paste articles, no matter how good or germane, but this was just too good. Hope you enjoy.

     ABC's Apologies for John Stossel's Lies About Organic Food Are Inadequate

     The San Francisco Chronicle 8/21/2000 Cultivating the Truth About Organics By Brian Halweil

     I WATCHED IN DISBELIEF as John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC's "20/20," delivered a half-hearted apology August 11 for falsifying evidence in a report that claimed organic produce is potentially more dangerous than food raised using toxic agrochemicals, antibiotics, added hormones, genetically engineered seeds and massive animal-feeding factories.

     In his apology, Stossel did admit that some tests he relied on to support his conclusion had never been conducted. But he shrugged that off as a minor oversight, maintaining that because organic farmers favor manure and other natural fertilizers over synthetic chemicals, organic produce carries a greater risk of E. coli infection and "could kill you."

     What wasn't mentioned is that most of the manure spread on land in the United States is, in fact, used by conventional farmers. The difference is that organic farmers are the only ones required to farm in a way that might minimize the risk of E. coli or other food-borne illness. Organic certification standards require that all raw manure is applied to the fields or orchards at least 60 days, and sometimes as many as 120 days, before the produce is harvested -- a period that allows for ecological processes that eliminate harmful microbes. (The pathogens become food for other soil organisms or degrade from exposure to the elements).

     Conventional growers, in contrast, can spray on raw, uncomposted manure (even on fruits and veggies that are but days from being harvested), in addition to human sewage sludge and slurry from industrial animal farms -- all practices that are explicitly forbidden under organic regulations.

     There has been no systematic analysis of whether organic or nonorganic foods carry a greater risk of E. coli O157 -- the particular strain that is so deadly to humans and that we hear so much about in the news -- but the prevailing epidemiology of this bug points to the safety of organic over conventional farming. Nearly all cases of E. coli 0157 result from consumption of contaminated meat, a function of the conditions of industrial factory farms and meat processing plants. For livestock that are used to eating mostly grass and straw, the feedlot diet of grain concentrate encourages the proliferation of E. coli 0157 in the animal's gut, while the highly confined and unsanitary conditions facilitate transmission of the bugs between animals. At the same time, overuse of antibiotics in the feedlot diet virtually ensures the potency of emerging microbes. Meanwhile, meat packing at breakneck speed, often in close proximity to animal carcasses and feces, paves the way for additional contamination.

     In those cases that do occur in produce, the E. coli generally enters the food chain at the packaging and handling stage, not the farm environment.

     Here are a few other things that weren't mentioned:

     ABC's false claims relied almost exclusively on testimony of Dennis Avery of the agribusiness-funded Hudson Institute, whose thoughts on pesticides and food-borne illness have already been widely discredited. Last year, Avery manipulated data from the Centers for Disease Control in order to back his claim that organic produce carries a greater risk of E. coli than nonorganic produce. CDC officials have stated that their data do not support Avery's claims -- a fact that might deter most journalists (even TV journalists) from relying on Avery as a source.

     The report also played down the risk of pesticide residues, claiming (with data that did not exist) that organic produce has no fewer pesticide residues than nonorganic produce. In truth, organic produce -- from bananas to peppers to strawberries -- has been consistently shown to carry fewer toxic pesticide residues than nonorganic produce. Some of the more recent evidence includes the January 1998 issue of Consumer Reports, which tested 1,000 pounds of organic and nonorganic produce, and found that organic produce consistently carried the lowest, and least-toxic, pesticide residues. (The fact that even foods grown without pesticides may contain trace pesticide residues is the unfortunate consequence of past pesticide use which has left background pesticide levels in the soil, water supply and even our bodies.)

     Perhaps the most basic oversight of the report was the failure to mention that organic farming -- the fastest growing sector of the food economy -- offers tremendous hope for reconciling the toll that industrial, chemical-dependent farming has taken on rivers and streams, topsoil, wildlife and the environment in general. By relying on a sophisticated understanding of crop diversity, nutrient cycling, predator-prey interactions and other ecological processes occurring in the field, instead of chemical quick-fixes, organic farming provides a model for improving the way we currently grow most of our food.

     The fabrication of information on an ABC news report -- not to mention the neglect of extensive evidence disputing its conclusions -- raises serious questions of journalistic integrity. According to Brill's Content magazine, over the last two years, Stossel has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from various industry and conservative groups, including agribusiness interests. At the very least, this gives the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and with the organic food market in this country growing by more than 20 percent a year, there is no shortage of groups who feel threatened -- agrochemical companies, biotech companies, and nonorganic food manufacturers and retailers.

     "All we have in this business is our credibility -- your trust that we get it right, Stossel reminds the audience in his apology. Unfortunately, for his and ABC's reputation, this realization has come too late.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:32am

368. You know FROSTY, whenever I hear some of our more radical friends discussing "the Revolution" (or whatever euphemism they use for it, since the actual term is rather passe')....

     I'm always reminded of how Laureen Hobbs and the Ecumenical Army guys turned out in "Network" once they got their show and started fighting about royalties and distribution rights!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 11:36am

369. I would also recommend checking out John Stossel's WikiPedia entry. It does a fine job of providing a solid overview, both positive, and negative, of his entire career.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:42am

370. MASK:

     All that proves is that humans are fallible. It doesn't diminish the need for real change, real fairness, and real democratic oversight of the system.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:44am

371. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/20/2007 @ 11:21am

     well,

     we're just a product of our parents

     plus ça change, plus c'est un poquitín diferente

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:04pm

372. "Unfortunately, the greed of the organic farmers is now a significant threat to public safety."

     ADM TO THE RESCUE!!!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:07pm

373. Don't forget ConAgra and Monsanto too!

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 12:15pm

374. MASK:

     thanks for making me remember. i saw that movie when i was a little kid.

     reading this, however, sure brings back memories

     this should be required viewing (reading) in high, nay grade, nay pre-school:

     You people and sixty-two million other Ameicans are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books. Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome, god-damned force in the whole godless world. And woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people and that's why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communication Corporation of America. There's a new chairman of the board, a man called Frank Hackett sitting in Mr. Ruddy's office on the 20th floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what s--t will be peddled for truth on this network. So, you listen to me! Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television is a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, story tellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business. So if you want the truth, go to your God, go to your gurus, go to yourselves because that's the only place you're ever gonna find any real truth. But man, you're never gonna get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We lie like hell! We'll tell you that Kojack always gets the killer, and nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker's house. And no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry. Just look at your watch - at the end of the hour, he's gonna win. We'll tell you any s--t you want to hear. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds - we're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:19pm

375. In the farmhouse of the Ecumenical Liberation Army in one of the film's most outrageous scenes, lawyers and agents are discussing lengthy, legalese contracts regarding their interpretations of production fees with Great Ahmed Khan and Laureen. Exploding in anger, Laureen refuses to lower her distribution charges. When Mary Ann Gifford (Kathy Cronkite) and Laureen are embroiled in an argument and Gifford yells "You f--kin' fascist!", Khan fires his pistol into the air to silence both of them: "Man, give her the f--kin' overhead clause!"

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:21pm

376. Don't forget ConAgra and Monsanto too!

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 12:15pm

     i live in one of the richest agricultural regions in canada.

     it is now almost entirely covered with deKalb GMO corn and, get this, Cropland Genetics GMO soy

     thank god i've found farmer george, doña gema, and farmer yolanda!

     the peaches! just as good as any mango from actopan, veracruz.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:24pm

377. LVLIBERTY1:

     Here's the difference. I admit that I am a hypocrite. Freely and openly, to all who will listen. My own clients know how much I hate the way the system works, and guess what? They LOVE me for it. They realize that because I understand TRULY how the system works, I make decisions regarding their money based on their best interests vis-a-vis the market REALITIES, rather than market MYTHS.

     So no, it's not a matter of biting the hand that feeds. My clients feed me, and well, all because I provide a great service to them that they cannot find anywhere else.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 12:56pm

378. Here is the anthem of our time.

     http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=NJ2ZyZo0V6w [youtube.com]

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 1:05pm

379. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 12:21pm

     THAT's the scene I was thinking of. Chayefsky was an equal opportunity satirist, taking on Big Media/Big Business and the easily purchased "revolutionaries" of the Ecumentical Liberation Army.

     Makes me wonder....is Air America Radio the modern equivalent of "The Mao-Tse Tung Hour" that replaced Howard Beale?...heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 2:03pm

380. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 1:05pm

     watched the first minute.

     i'll finish tonight.

     i don't think LVLIBERTY quite understood the sarcasm.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:37pm

381. I understood it Frosty. The sarcasm was part of the cause of my sadness. That sarcasm reflects inner hurts and lack of hope that is the experience of many young people in this country and elsewhere.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/20/2007 @ 3:02pm

     yeah, i understand. but it's not just young people.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 3:12pm

382. LVLIBERTY1:

     I literally laughed my ass off off when I read your admonishment of me. I'm not even really sure how to respond to that. Seriously. Just because you don't like it, or you disagree with the sentiments, that does not give you license to attack me personally, on the basis of a song.

     Do you have any idea how ignorant and condescending you sound? More than that, do you have any idea how counterproductive that sort of attitude is when dealing with people with whom you disagree?

     I feel sorry for the people you are trying to "help". Your kneejerk reaction to something so brutally honest is precisely why practically everything you post on this blog is full of complete compost. No, that's too kind of a word. Compost implies something can actually grow from the refuse. Your words are effluence, the flotsam and jetsam of a society gone horribly wrong. I have seen and smelled sewage sluices with a greater grasp on reality than you, and your posts simply reinforce that observation.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 3:16pm

383. LVLIBERTY1:

     You talk about Jesus, and ministry to those whom you feel need such outreach, and yet it is clear from practically every post you have made that you have no idea what Christ was truly preaching... no idea that he held a very similar view of the power elite that the band you so denigrated, and myself, hold currently. Perhaps you should ruminate on that instead of spewing partisan bullshit that is nothing but party rhetoric from precisely the same types of people Jesus threw out of the temple.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 3:19pm

384. sorry, should have been minister*

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 3:44pm

385. Actually JORCH, I'd hate to tell LVLIB this (he's supposedly on his way to LA now)...

     but guys like him are the reason I have no faith in Christianity as a transformative religion. (Little faith in any such belief-system).

     The fact that an "emissary" of the "Prince of Peace" is so stridently pro-war, and has even suggested nuclear massacre as a more appealing scenario to an honest armistice...gives me just one more example of where I think religion is more trouble than it's worth.

     Through in the more extreme examples from Islam (as well as Judaism)...and there's not much religion has going for it. Despite their claims, religious wars have been a much worse blight to humanity than the "atheist wars" (of the Communist aggression).

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 3:58pm

386. FROSTY, I read the Mongol language better than, (I hate to say) I remember my French, and I bloody well can't figure out what "poquitin" means, dammit. :) If you are trying to tell me that we react to our upbringing, I agree to a point. Our self absorbtion and polarized nature are a result of the wealth our parents created for us and the divisions in the country we grew up with, for example. But at some point we have to stop looking at our screw ups as some ancient seed planted by our parents that took unwanted root. Fact is, liberal or conservative, we are just not cutting it the way our folks did. I'm beginning to wonder whether it takes such international and economic crisis as 1929 & WWII to straighten us out. We are, as the late writer Balint Vazonyi described us, "The Generation that never grew up"

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/20/2007 @ 4:00pm

387. MASK:

     On this we are 100% simpatico.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 4:08pm

388. CHIP THORNTON:

     I would agree with that sentiment to a point. I think it comes down to the fact that, you're right, we have simply had things too easy. But more important than that, it's been too easy in all the wrong ways. We have allowed ourselves to cripple our society, our economy, our bodies, our minds with all the worst trappings of the capitalist and consumerist models... and this whole rugged individualism crap? It's a farce. No one who is being honest with oneself can say with a straight face that their success has been by their own labor only.

     We are a selfish, self-centered lot, and ignorant to boot. And that is the structure for the downward spiral of our existence.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 4:13pm

389. As you say, agree to a point. But why does capitalism, or the free market, a more representative term, have to be the villian? It still brings more benefits, economic and political, to a larger number of people than anything else. Other systems offer to bring a lower amount of benefit to everyone, and some even manage to do it consistantly, but like I said to someone on here once, you don't trade in a dented Buick for an Escort w/a shiny paint job: You fix the dent.

     I also would never discount the help and or teamwork I've had in life to get where I am. I can do that and still maintain my individuality though. Never give THAT up. Individualality Crap?? Damn you sound like Patton :)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/20/2007 @ 4:30pm

390. CHIP THORNTON:

     Capitalism per se is not the villain. The villains are the ones who prevent any sort of market constraints, constraints which would insure a much more fair and equitable distribution of wealth, constraints which remedy many of the market failures over which Adam Smith himself sweated bullets.

     However, it is the very nature of capitalism to become ever more exploitative. Without a large amount of democratic buffering, capitalism becomes literally a Wild West of lawlessness, as we have seen in places like the former Soviet "republics", banana republics of our own hemisphere, and practically the entirety of Africa.

     And regarding individuality, I think you misunderstood my point. I was referring to the "rugged individualism" myth of the US. It permeates our entire culture. And I do believe individualism is of the utmost importance, but only in conjunction with a proper understanding, value, and appreciation for how all those individuals should interact within society at large. What we lack in this country is humility. Our hubris literally knows no bounds. Hence we are trying to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to the world... or at least, those are the lies we tell ourselves so that we can assuage our own ignorance and guilt regarding what we are really doing in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 4:45pm

391. chip thorton:

     poquitín means "a teensy bit" in mexican slang

     the more things change, the more things a just a little bit different.

     ciao

     off to play some jazz..........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 5:00pm

392. Surely any health care system which is based on the heavy involvement of 'For Profit' companies and institutions is fundamentally wrong. Can it really be morally correct to make profit out of someone who has the misfortune to need medical treatment. If a state run health care system which is free at the point of use to everyone, regardless of their financial ability to pay, and which is based solely upon that person's medical need is a socialist policy, then I say "Socialists Arise !" The only person who has reason to decry such a policy is someone with a vested interest in making money out of sick people, rather than any genuine concern for the needs of the sick.

     Posted by Angam at 09/20/2007 @ 7:45pm

393. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 4:45pm

     That slight "faux pas" on "individuality" is where you lose me (as well as many others). Sure, you corrected it to "rugged individualism" (the stereotype much maligned by the Left).

     But the initial punch was one against "individuality". Now, you probably think "Nothing in socialism crushs the individual, the artist is still free to make their art...the writer to write any book they want...the inventor to create whatever they wish to create."

     But that's not where it ends. Under socialism, the successful artist, or writer, or especially inventor becomes popular. Their work gains them great wealth. And that wealth is taken from them to distribute to the LESS artistic, less creative. Thus their work is taken from them and given to those who didn't earn it.

     And THAT is the key reason people (like me) fear and loathe it.

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 9:52pm

394. MASK:

     The faux pas to which you refer was not mind. Go back and reread my original post on the subject. I specifically referenced 'rugged individualism", a particularly American concept. So there was no correction of my post necessary, only a deeper explanation, since it was obvious thet CHIP THORNTON misread, as you did, my original post.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:08pm

395. should have said MINE, rather than MIND. Damned laptop keys are so small...

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 10:38pm

396. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 10:08pm

     Apologies. But I think you will admit that even without the "rugged", individualism takes a hard rap from you guys on the Left.

     Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 10:47pm

397. MASK:

     No, I don't agree. I am all for individualism. Indeed, it is the cornerstone of western thought. However, the "rugged individualism' of American mythos is in truth nothing more than hyper-nationalism of the most indiscreet kind. Hence the constant comments I hear about the US being the greatest country on earth, regardless of any empirical data available proving such a statement's veracity. Or the constant refrain I hear from businessmen who have "made good", when they speak of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Now, I will be the last person to say they didn't work themselves to the bone to get to where they are, but for them to make the claim, as they so often do, that they got to their position on their own, without any help from others, again, is the very height of hubris and self-delusion.

     We in the US have an over-inflated conception of our importance in the world. Some of that was thrust upon us in the wake of WWI and WWII, yet much of it, indeed the great majority of it, is self-imposed.

     If it takes a tough rap from progressives and liberals, it deserves to. It is a lie, and worse, it is one of those BIG LIES of which Goebbels spoke so highly. What we lack is an honest accounting, a true humility, of what we realistically represent. It's delusional thinking like "rugged individualism" which leads us to such folly as the Iraq war, regardless of how well- or poorly-intentioned we truly were.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2007 @ 11:22pm

398. Good night, all. My bed beckons.

     Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2007 @ 12:19am

399. My bed beckons.

     Posted by JORCHEIM 09/21/2007 @ 12:19am |

     duh, i imagine it's kinda far from here.

     BUAJAJAJAJAJA (evil mexican laugh)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 02:07am

400. Well, Jorcheim, Its a shame, sometimes to hear people so easily claim they are not the greatest in the world. Certainly one does not get to that point by having such an attitude. Obviously we have made mistakes throughout our history, its just the left today seems to try and make the above point with such...relish. You probably have guessed that I believe we are, I hope we stay that way, and I make no apologies for either. The principles inherent in the Constitution & Declaration are something to be aspired to, so lofty are they, and frankly we are not there yet. But I have seen no system throughout history (with the possible exception of the early Greek States and the Swiss) who have created such a system where man's dignity is given such import, where law and not man rules, where you have the OPPORTUNITY to do almost anything you want without giving leave to another for the simple reason that he was born "higher" than you. Trying to ram this system down others unwilling throats is wrong, though: Its not for everyone. I've decided from what I've seen the past 12 or so years (not to belabor the point)from my generation, that I'll take a Theodore Roosevelts view of the world any day. The world USED to look to us, and my biggest problem with George Bush (whom Theodore would have regarded as a buffoon) is that his ridiculous, & more important pointless sword rattling including his "torture bill" has made us just like everyone else. A shame.

     Have a good day,

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/21/2007 @ 07:58am

401. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/20/2007 @ 11:22pm

     Well, JORCH...two things-

     1. More people are trying to come here (not just from Mexico and Central America) than are trying to leave (even disillusioned liberals heading to FROSTY land).

     2. NO politician...ever...will run on "America isn't that great". So essentially your politics are DOA. Sorry, but that's reality too.

     Posted by Mask at 09/21/2007 @ 09:11am

402. has made us just like everyone else.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/21/2007 @ 07:58am

     no. not exactly. every "nation" is an entity unto itself. let's just say that you're disappointed that things are going doooowwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn,

     but, overall, y'all are still doing pretty well. your concern shows that there still is hope for a better interpretation of what this whole "america" deal is about.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 09:14am

403. 1. More people are trying to come here (not just from Mexico and Central America) than are trying to leave (even disillusioned liberals heading to FROSTY land).

     Posted by MASK 09/21/2007 @ 09:11am | ignore this person

     so, essentially america has become a filter.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 09:16am

404. testing 1. 2. 3.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 10:16am

405. FROSTY, I note you said I'm might be dissapointed we are going down. Aren't you?

     I'm thinking my gen's got another 30 years or so in power-Perhaps if we can hold on that long, we'll make it.:) Got high hopes for the next group.

     Also, you said "y'all are doing pretty well" which makes me think you're either from out of the country or Alabama. Might I ask where? (I love meeting and talking to foreigners-so much to learn-my wife said once "didn't your mother ever tell you not to talk to strangers?)

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/21/2007 @ 10:52am

406. You know, Mask your right. I asked JR once to let me know the first time he hears of throngs of immigrants landing happily on the shores of Europe looking for a better life.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/21/2007 @ 10:56am

407. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/21/2007

     some of my speak is detroit based.

     english lacks a clear second person plural so i must improvise.

     how's "youse"?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/21/2007 @ 5:13pm

408. I think some Democrats forget how hard it is to get anything past Republicans in the Legislature? How come nobody takes into account that maybe the Clinton Health proposal is so that there is a chance of approval instead of no insurance what-so-ever.

     Posted by kimway at 09/23/2007 @ 03:27am