Single-Payer Health Care Would Stimulate Economy

There is an unhealthy tendency on the part of politicians and journalists to see discussions about economic recovery and health care reform as separate debates.

In fact, one of the most important steps on the road to economic recovery – or, more precisely, toward a new, responsible and sustainable prosperity – involves the fundamental reform this country's broken health care system.

But it must be the right reform: the establishment of a national single-payer style healthcare reform system by expanding the existing Medicare system to cover all Americans. According to a new "Single Payer/Medicare for All: An Economic Stimulus Plan for the Nation" study released today by the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association, such a reform would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues into the economy. This reform would, according to the study, add $100 billion in wages to the currently sputtering U.S. economy.

Indeed, notes the NNOC/CAN, the number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008. "These dramatic new findings document for the first time that a single payer system could not only solve our healthcare crisis, but also substantially contribute to putting America back to work and assisting the economic recovery," says NNOC/CAN c o-president Geri Jenkins, RN.

Specifically, notes Jenkins, expanding Medicare to include the uninsured, and those on Medicaid or employer-sponsored health plans, and expanding coverage for those with limited Medicare, would:

1. Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008) -- and jobs that are not easily shipped overseas

2. Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues

3. Add $100 billion in employee compensation

4. Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues

"Through direct and supplemental expenditures, healthcare is already a uniquely dominant force in the U.S. economy," says the study's lead author, Don DeMoro, who directs the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, the NNOC/CNA research arm. "If we were to expand our present Medicare system to cover all Americans, the economic stimulus alone would create an immense engine that would help drive our national economy for decades to come.

The union is highlighting its "Single Payer Job Recovery" plan with a major rollout today and activists with Progressive Democrats for America and other groups that support single payer are staging a national call-in to Congress Thursday. Here's the PDA Action Alert on the new push for single payer:

Congressman John Conyers will reintroduce HR 676, his single-payer healthcare bill in the 111th Congress. Please ask your representative to cosponsor the bill and actively work with Rep. Conyers to gain additional cosponsors. In order to ensure HR 676 is part of the healthcare discussion in Congress, we need 150 cosponsors by the end of February.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, President-Elect Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, called for "a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare" in testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions as part of the solution to our healthcare crisis. His plan also includes health insurance corporations. Only HR 676 would implement a sustainable, fair, and efficient solution to the healthcare crisis as well as providing economic stimulus.

While single-payer healthcare proponents have made good headway in the House, there is still no companion bill in the Senate. Urge Sen. Edward Kennedy to sponsor a companion bill to HR 676 in the Senate.

Comments (251)

1. Might as well get it over with, it's going to happen anyway. We're doomed (due to decades of tepid or non-reform) to such a system.

   I only hope it doesn't get much worse than now too soon. It will, but maybe after some time if we're lucky.

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 09:04am

2. "Indeed, notes the NNOC/CAN, the number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008."

   You bet...all these fine workers now work for the govt!!!!!!!!!!

   Perfect...I only hope they will be unionised and use the model of efficiency demonstrated in the Post Office and recently TSA.

   Will they get spiffy uniforms? How about right before your major surgery that you have waited 1 year on a list,as they call your number, 2,000,345 and after your medical problem has become worse..they go on strike!!! and in support,the PO, TSA and the typing pools strike in support of nurse!!

   Or even better, right before elections..the threat of a strike spurs all Dem party candidates to back a wage increase!!

   Will each new govt worker get a sign or pin on the nurses hat that they can turn around that says, "ON BREAK", or "Next Nurse PLEASE" as they head to the mandated break room passing by the line that winds around the corner and out into the street?

   Think Post Office with the drive for efficiency and innovation of the TSA..maybe even the FACE sincerely given the blue haired old lady as the hand pops up and says STOP at the metal detecftor, the Bic pen comes out of the new uniformed pocket, and scribbles placed on the boarding pass and a hand wave to come through as the ever eagle eye suspiciously checks out grandma as she passes through to get her walker and shoes...meanwhile, the bomb materials the FBI sends through on spot checks goes bye un noticed or recognized.

   I can hardly wait..but..it will be free!!!

   I wonder if this will speed up the already exodus from California of those who create jobs or make any money at all as the tax man eyes them yet again.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 09:22am

3. And as Mask says..

   ..that run away freight train has already left the station and headed right for your paycheck..

   Well, not for me or mine.

   Good luck with your health....for it will soon go from "Govt Health Care" to "Govt Don't Care", shut up and take a number...and if you read the contract..what was covered last year will not be covered next year..gotta pay those pension increases..

   Yikes.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 09:27am

4. Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to survive. I just lost my wife and the private medical aid where she paid less than $200.00/mth for a family of four. Under COBRA I'm required top pay $1500.00 for a family of three per month. I earn $2600 gross per month, how on earth can I afford this insurance. There is a lot of hot air about single payer coverage, but nothing is gonna be done. You bet my option is the emergency room for any ailment. To hell with the bill that follows. I need a bailout.

   The Michigan my Child Insurance caps eligibility at $2300.00 per month for a family of three. I'm $300.00 above the limit. What on earth does the $300. buy in terms of insurance if I do not qualify to get my two children this federal/state sponsored insurance.Can someone do something about this daylight robery.

   Posted by chapsaj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:28am

5. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 09:27am

   Yeah because the current system is doing a real bang up job Jom.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:31am

6. http://tinyurl.com/4czeo

   Kind of interesting piece. Lays out all the myths that Jom and others believes and answers them.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:35am

7. Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

   Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

   Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

   Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

   Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

   HEY JOM, those are the stats our current healthcare system has gotten us. If we keep it up we might meet up with the non-industrialized countries in 20 years.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:37am

8. It's about time this was brought forward it is long overdue, the health care system is a mess and needs to be fixed. The cost and the fact that most folks can't afford any coverage is disgusting in the richest country in the world!!! Every working citizen is entitled to health care and all their family members; it is not a system that works for the privileged few only. The insurance companies have made a killing for years off of the backs of hard working people, trying to get out of paying for medical treatments with any tiny discrepancy they can find. Time for them to take a back seat so we can have a system that works for all Americans so they can all enjoy good health.

   Posted by Caj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:39am

9. Wow, you guys need to read Paglia more often. She does an incredible job of illuminating your blind spots. Two examples from her lastest column on Reader Letters follow in the next two posts:

   http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/ 2009/01/14/obama/print.html

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 09:46am

10. From Calmile Paglia ************************************************************

    Have you noticed how much the call for combating global warming crusade has in common with how we got into the Iraq war?

    In both cases, there are "experts" who tell us that evidence justifying action is undeniable. They say, "The risk of doing nothing is too great for us to do nothing." And as a fallback position they say, "Even if we're wrong, we'll still be doing some good in the world."

    Kind of makes me think man-made CO2 emissions will turn out to be the biggest case of nonexistent WMD since Saddam Hussein's nukes. (Or maybe even bigger!) What do you think?

    Jim Carroll

    Wonderful letter! I became a vocal opponent of the onrushing Iraq incursion when I was shocked by the flimsiness of evidence presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations in 2003. Similarly, I have been highly skeptical about the claims for global warming because of their overreliance on speculative computer modeling and because of the woeful patchiness of records for world temperatures before the 20th century.

    In the 1980s, I was similarly skeptical about media-trumpeted predictions about a world epidemic of heterosexual AIDS. And I remain skeptical about the media's carelessly undifferentiated use of the term "AIDS" for what is often a complex of wasting diseases in Africa. We should all be concerned about environmental despoliation and pollution, but the global warming crusade has become a hallucinatory cult. Until I see stronger evidence, I will continue to believe that climate change is primarily driven by solar phenomena and that it is normal for the earth to pass through major cooling and warming phases.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 09:46am

11. From Calmile Paglia (on your "hero" who took down Sarah Palin): ************************************************************

    Ideology-driven attacks on Palin became clotted liberal clichés within 24 hours of her introduction as John McCain's running mate. What a bunch of tittering lemmings the urban elite have become in this country. From Couric's vicious manipulations of video clips to Cavett's bourgeois platitudes, the preemptive strike on Palin as a potential presidential candidate has grossly misfired. Whatever legitimate objections may be raised to Palin on political grounds (explored, for example, by David Talbot in Salon) have been lost in the amoral overkill that has defamed a self-made woman of concrete achievement in the public realm.

    And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. As a guest on NBC's "Today" show during my 1992 book tour, I was astounded by Couric's small, humorless, agenda-ridden mind, still registered in that pinched, tinny monotone that makes me rush across the room to change stations whenever her banal mini-editorials blare out at 5 p.m. on the CBS radio network. And of course I would never spoil my dinner by tuning into Couric's TV evening news show. That sallow, wizened, drum-tight, cosmetic mummification look is not an appetite enhancer outside of Manhattan or L.A. There's many a moose in Alaska with greater charm and pizazz.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 09:46am

12. I sent an email similar to this to The Nation yesterday in hopes someone would take interest in it. After reading Nichols piece, it would appear that he is my target.

    I am an emergency physician who has channeled three decades of frustration into producing a video "Health, Money and Fear" about why our sick health care non-system is so expensive, what it says about us and what we can do about it. It is available for viewing, in chapters, at www.ourailinghealthcare.com

    Check it out! Including interviews with nationally know authorities, it's not like anything you would expect from an ER Doc in Oregon. My intent is to contribute to the debate.

    I am deeply disturbed by the noise emanating from the Beltway that suggests that despite all the talk of change, in health care, we are going to get more of the same. We can't allow that to happen. Health care reform isn't about health care any more. It's about the political process in which big money influences big decisions. We must educate and motivate people to yell louder than the lobbyists. "Health, Money and Fear" is a tool to be used by those who agree with this.

    Anybody may call me at any time to discuss this. 541-740-4065

    Best regards,

    paul phochfeld@msn.com

    Posted by phochfeld at 01/14/2009 @ 09:47am

13. Yeah because the current system is doing a real bang up job Jom.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:31am

    So you want to give it to govt.

    Perfect.

    Enjoy it

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 09:48am

14. .Can someone do something about this daylight robery.

    Posted by chapsaj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:28am |

    I sypmathize with you, the costs are totally ridiculous. We need a system like they have in Europe, one pay system and that covers all Dr's visits/hospital etc!! We all have to pay so much through our job and the Gov subsidize the rest, that won't go down too well with lots of folks but it's the only fair way to let all people be covered. As I said earlier, this cannot be right that folks are hurting in the richest country in the world.

    Posted by Caj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:49am

15. Oh, and the subject is absolutely stupid.

    America already spends a high proportion of GDP on healthcare than any other country in the world. So the way to fix the economy is to spend more on healthcare?

    Well if retardedly simplistics ideas are what will save this country, I'll note that lawyers make more than nurses. Why don't we spend more on lawyers to really get our economy humming?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 09:51am

16. So do you think the pro-life crowd will favor single-payer if you tell the; that it results in waiting lists of over a year for elective procedures, such as abortion?

    Posted by Mistral at 01/14/2009 @ 09:59am

17. Give me liberty or give me death.

    I'd much rather die in my 70s living the life I want to live rather than having a nanny government dictate a healthy diet for me for the purpose of prolonging my agonizing hunger into my 80's.

    I'm not a smoker, but I prefer to live in a society where I am free to choose the live I want to live.

    I'm not a drinker, but even the 25,000 or so annual traffic fatalities related to alcohol don't make me long for the days of prohibition.

    Quality of life is far more important to me than quantity.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:00am

18. CCC,

    I do not dispute your facts completely, just offering some facters you may not have considered that can skew the facts on first look...

    1. The US has an influx of 3rd worlders pouring into the country with 3rd world problems..PLUS some communitys are running 80% out of wed lock births!! Children having children with no responsible men with in 100 miles..MIGHT have an effect on facts.

    2. Single mothers and no education allowing for a fine life style on the govt.$ 7 is not a career...MIGHT affect chec k ups and preventive care..MIGHT effect stats?

    3. Cheeseburgers have an effect? Obese society may experience shorter life spans..obseity does not come from poverty..but wealthy societys.

    4. Easy...third world invasions who bring with them all the diseases we eliminated years ago..

    5. Life style choices influence any of this..?

    My point is there may be factors you never considered...

    It really doesnt matter..you are going to get the health care you are demanding...and you will share it will all the illegals already here and the 10s of millon who will come here to get it ..free of course.

    Good luck with that. Enjoy.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:02am

19. Think Post Office with the drive for efficiency and innovation of the TSA..

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 09:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    When you want to consider the 'efficiency' of the free market, think about your private health insurance. Go ahead, give them a call and try to figure out and correct the charges on your bill.

    Or think about cable TV vendors. Give them a call and ask them to explain all of the charges and packages and rates.

    Or think about the service you get from the folks at Best Buy, or Circuit City, or pretty much any retail outlet. The cirtainly don't get paid enough to actually KNOW anything...let alone CARE about anything you might need.

    Or better yet, try your cellular vendor. Make sure you have your 40-page bill in front of you when, after being on hold forever, you finally get some minimum-wage flunky who can't even tell you what phone you've got.

    Or best of all, try calling pretty much any computer vendor, or Microsoft itself, and ask for technical support on something. If your lucky enough to get someone who actually speaks English, you then get towade through his 'flow chart' with every option ending in "reformat your hard drive and re-install the operating system (bye bye data.)

    Oh yes, free market is soooooooooo much better.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 10:19am

20. Over the Christmas holidays, I have LOTS of out-of-town relatives and shipped stuff all over the country. I went to the Post Office to ship it all. The line was out the door - but they had about 20 people working, some taking letters directly from people in their cars, I spent less than 5 minutes at the actual counter talking to the person who helped me, she was extremely nice, funny, AND efficient, I paid less than I would have spent at FedEX or UPS, and every package arrived where they were supposed to, ontime, and within days.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 10:23am

21. LIL,

    Your belief in govt over free market(we do not have a free marrket) has been known by all and excepted by me as part of who you are.

    I am not interested in changing something that can not be changed no matter what the circumstances.

    Glad the PO got your stuff there and on time. If that had been their goal in the first place then maybe UPS and FED would never had a chance to explode in growth due to a need...and all those high paying jobs would never have been created by a demand for something better..and instead..maybe working for the PO..

    Enjoy.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 10:36am

22. i still don't see why anyone in business (other than health insurance) would have a problem with such. seems a big drag on american business this distraction...

    and if anyone complains about the liklihood of higher future taxes to pay for such...ever try to buy the stuff from a private insurer?

    sure, give fools and the wealthy tax credit options for private care if they want, but why?

    and by the way, the doomsaying about how awful other "socialized" national medical programs are strikes me as a tad intelligence insulting and absurd considering the mess that is the "no pre-existing condition", "won't pay for that", "refuse coverage for", "sure you cant have insurance - until you get sick" trainwreck of a healthcare system we have.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/14/2009 @ 10:37am

23. So do you think the pro-life crowd will favor single-payer if you tell the; that it results in waiting lists of over a year for elective procedures, such as abortion?

    Posted by Mistral at 01/14/2009 @ 09:59am

    No, because the reality is that the bueacrat charged with the responsiblity of making the program appear successful will find the low-hanging-fruit of increasing abortions of difficult/ high risk pregnancies greatly reduces infant mortality rates to make the system "appear" better than it is.

    The pro-life crowd is very aware of how valuable abortions become to the beauracrats in this instance.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:40am

24. Posted by chapsaj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:28am

    I'm sorry for you loss. If you work for a small employer, I'd advise you to get him to cut your monthly gross by $400, getting you under the cap for state aid. If he is a decent fellow, he should find a way to pay you the $400 under the table so that you don't have to pay tax on it.

    Good luck.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:45am

25. What's with spamming Camille Paglia, Darin?

    BTW, again, as far as global warming goes....you've already lost the war.

    Unless you want to take my bet on the 2012 Republican nominee totally contradicting John McCain and saying "There ain't no such thing"...???

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 10:49am

26. Over the Christmas holidays, I have LOTS of out-of-town relatives and shipped stuff all over the country. I went to the Post Office to ship it all. The line was out the door - but they had about 20 people working, some taking letters directly from people in their cars, I spent less than 5 minutes at the actual counter talking to the person who helped me, she was extremely nice, funny, AND efficient, I paid less than I would have spent at FedEX or UPS, and every package arrived where they were supposed to, ontime, and within days.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 10:23am

    Lillian,

    I live in Chalotte. Every single Christmas card we recieved this year was opened.

    My mom mailed my nephew a $100 Target card. It was stolen. She sent his Financee a gift card, It was stolen.

    I'm not making this up.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:52am

27. Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 10:49am

    What war did I lose? Are you staying that irrespective of what global temperatures do over the next decade, the federal government will confiscate 10% of my earning and sacrifice it up as an offering to Mother Gia?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:54am

28. Oh and back on the thieving going on at the Post Office: nobody is surprised and nobody cares enough to do anthing or report it becasue nobody expects anything better from the government.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 11:00am

29. I've said it before I'll say it again: Nobody wants socialized medicine. No, not even you who thinks you want it.

    What you want is for the poor to receive healthcare even if they can't afford it. That is not the same thing as socialized medicine. We manage to feed the poor without having socialized food. We manage to transport the poor to their jobs without forcing the entire country to ride a subsidized bus next to a stinking, vomit soaked drunk.

    Socialized medicine is a deal with the Devil. You give up your freedom to get something you want, and in the long run, it's not worth it.

    Continue to press politicians to fund healthcare for poor people without wrecking the system that the other 95% of the population uses.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 11:07am

30. How do I get 95%? Well of the 40 million uninsured, 12 million are illegals. That makes 30 million. Of those, I'd guess about half are simply people who change jobs and are without coverage for less than a year, but get counted as unisured.

    That leaves 15 million chronically unisured in a population of 300 million. That's 5%.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 11:10am

31. If you study all the facts surrounding single payer, it becomes clear that it is the best and most economical solution. We currently spend 15+% of our GDP on health care, the highest of any industrialized nation. And yet we rate last among industrialized nations in almost all quality measures. The next less expensive system among industrialized nations is France's at 12.5% of their GDP. They have the highest ranked system. If we continue on our current track, we will reach 20% of GDP by 2020. Expanding the current system to cover all will quicken our move to the 20% level.

    The estimates of the value of single payer to our economy by the California Nurses Union are low if they do not include the savings and opportunities for US businesses. Single payer is expected to save about 25% of our current cost. Businesses and employees will pay substantially less tax to fund single payer than they are currently paying in premiums. Companies will be relieved of their liabilities for health care for retirees. This will increase businesses' ability to expand. It will enable greater US entrepreneurilism. Additionally, we will be able to close down a third to a half of our prisons if we cover mental health and addiction. This will be a huge cost savings to local governments.

    Winners in single payer are citizens and providers (25% overhead savings). Losers are drug companies and insurers. However insurers should compete for the administration contracts - they are better than gov't at minimizing overhead with technology.

    Support HR 676!

    Posted by Nicole635 at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20am

32. Let the repubs fiflibuster this so they can show real Americans how much they depise the middle class of this country.Then the middle class can and will rise up and vote the creeps out of office.We need a single payer health just like the V.A.(sounds like soclialism to the repubs).We need congress to act now so call your reps. in congress to get the ball moving.

    Posted by crease at 01/14/2009 @ 11:41am

33. Posted by crease at 01/14/2009 @ 11:41am

    Or the Repubs can fold and turn over anothe 15% 0f US economy to dolts in Washington and those who believe them...as the middle class sees yet another pay roll deduction that will EVER increase as the services it was designed to do shrink in qualoity and amounts....along with the middle class as they become nore govt dependant and taxed into the lower class.

    Crease..good name...for that is all you will have left in your pants when the tax man is done giving you free health care..

    Enjoy.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 11:47am

34. As a first step, the federal government should fully fund Medicare. Any economic stimulus the federal government attempts is going to be eaten by increased taxes from the state. Fully funding Medicare would save the states billions and allow them to avoid raising taxes.

    Posted by tgpaul at 01/14/2009 @ 12:01pm

35. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 10:54am

    The political war on global warming, Dartin. It's over. It was over when even Dubya surrendered and admitted that it was true, and McCain nailed the coffin lid shut last Fall when he ran on it being real and man-made.

    Only ones left who don't think so are the same percentages who think "Bush was a good President"....i.e. you and maybe 28% of the country.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:18pm

36. If you study all the facts surrounding single payer, it becomes clear that it is the best and most economical solution.

    Posted by Nicole635 at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20am

    As a first step, the federal government should fully fund Medicare.

    Posted by tgpaul at 01/14/2009 @ 12:01pm

    The most "economical" thing to do is to let old people (and other undersirables) die. The Nazi's called them useless eaters.

    When you make promises of stealing from the 5% (who are propbably morally suspect to begin with, you know, probably) to fund the 95%, politicians tend to get a lot of support.

    When you greatly diminish the healthcare of 95% so that 100% can have the same shitty care, you tend not to get as many votes.

    When you can solve this puzzle, you will have your socialized medicine.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 12:24pm

37. The political war on global warming, Darin. It's over. It was over when even Dubya surrendered and admitted that it was true, and McCain nailed the coffin lid shut last Fall when he ran on it being real and man-made.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:18pm

    What's that Mask? Did I hear you say, "Mission Acomplished"?

    Was the war over when China relinquished Hong Kong to Brittian? Was the War over when the pussies on college campuses forced the US to evacuate Siagon (meaning communism forever in Vietnam)?

    You may have won the war to piss away trillions of dollars on useless sacrifices to Environmentalist Gods. The won'te make the Earth get hotter in order to prove you were right.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 12:30pm

38. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 12:30pm

39. Only ones left who don't think so are the same percentages who think "Bush was a good President"....i.e. you and maybe 28% of the country.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:18pm

    At one point, only 28% believed the world was round.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 12:31pm

40. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 12:31pm

    Yep, and then SCIENTISTS proved they were right and that left a wacko fringe (still in existant to the 1970s) called the "Flat Earth Society" who denied Copernicus, as well as Columbus and Neil Armstrong.

    You've lost the war, Darin. Again, you want to bet that the 2012 Repub nominee is going to come out and say "Global warming is hoax! Not only does mankind have nothing to do with it, it doesn't exist!!" And then be forced to say "Yes, I'm saying that Senator McCain in 2008 was dead wrong and we can burn all the carbon fuel we want and no harm-no foul on the environment!"

    I got a $1000 I'm happy to lay on the table.....will you?

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:40pm

41. Darren_TBFT writes: "Posted by chapsaj at 01/14/2009 @ 09:28am

    I'm sorry for you loss. If you work for a small employer, I'd advise you to get him to cut your monthly gross by $400, getting you under the cap for state aid. If he is a decent fellow, he should find a way to pay you the $400 under the table so that you don't have to pay tax on it.

    Good luck."

    Glad to see you've joined us in advocating government funded healthcare.

    Posted by Guiles at 01/14/2009 @ 1:03pm

42. The premise of the original article is wrong. If single payer health care is not more efficient then our current system it makes no sense to do it. The promise of a single payer system is that it can reduce duplicate systems that health care providers need for multiple insurance companies and can provide a framework where the drugs that have the best cost to benefit ratio are the prefered treatment method. Both of these should result in net job loss in for paper pushers in doctors offices, hospitals and insurance companies due to reduced paperwork and in marketing (where 50% of their expendatures are) in pharmacutical companies. There may be additional jobs for actual medical providers like nurses, but theoretically better preventative care from universal coverage should reduce employment in those areas as well. It is a huge mistake to sell universal health care as a jobs program except in the benefits it will provide to employers outside the healthcare industry, because they no longer have to deal with spiraling health care costs.

    If we sell universal heath care as a jobs program we are confirming the worst fears of those who oppose it.

    Posted by Guiles at 01/14/2009 @ 1:34pm

43. $775 billion: Expected cost of the economic stimulus plan. $1.2 trillion: Projected federal deficit for 2009.

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    Political priorities by the numbers. Read more about it on the Borgen Project website (borgenproject.org)

    Posted by Alenka at 01/14/2009 @ 1:38pm

44. Glad to see you've joined us in advocating government funded healthcare.

    Posted by Guiles at 01/14/2009 @ 1:03pm

    Did you read my post of 11:07?

    Depending upon the wealth of the society, we can afford to give the poor many of the things they need. (And politics is the proper way to determine the definition of "poor" and "need".)

    What's interesting about this debate is that the poor have insurance. It's called Medicaid (or Medicare for the elderly poor).

    We're not talking about poverty here. We're talking about working people who can't afford health insurance that has increased in price 10% - 15% per year every year for the last couple of decades.

    These aren't the people we're typcially talking about when we talk about anti-poverty programs.

    I understand the allure of thinking you can solve an intractable problem with one, simple, universal solution. But any person who is wise can tell you that if there were easy answers there wouldn't be problems. Universal Healthcare, or single payor, or whatever you call it has thousands of problems. Pick up and UK, French, Canadian, Japan, etc paper and you will see the problems. It just looks attractive because it makes one highly visible problem go away quickly.

    The way to fix this problem is to force all companies to do away with coverage tied to employment. Force people who can afford it to buy coverage that can't be canceled if you get sick. (That's different for allowing people to wait until after they are sick to go and get coverage then.)

    Got to go

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 2:03pm

45. I got a $1000 I'm happy to lay on the table.....will you?

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:40pm

    What if the Repub or any candidate says,

    I will end the..

    Carbon tax

    Gasoline tax added plus reduce the old rate

    Income tax

    Corporate tax

    Global Warming Save the Planet tax(especially if the next 4 years remain colder as they have been the last few years)

    and all the additional taxes and fees assigned to caring people by the progressives in govt.

    AND, I will drag ALGORE in front of the congress to explain his fraud schemes and how much he has earned on them.

    especially if the multi trillion dollar defict reigns amongst Carter like high inflation...

    and tops it off with...

    I will not approve any Federal loan to any state for their over blown spending that their own people can not pay ...and if they want a loan from the FEDS to even consider, they MUST be, a tax cut, $2 cut in spending for every dollar borrowed and no increase hidden in fees.

    I will, by excutive order on the first day, cut 10% of all govt employees across the board, except military...and will do so every year of my term.

    I will put a gate on all borders.

    I will cut to 20 from 30 the number of TSA clowns at airports and shift them, along with exess IRS agents to the border patrol..

    and I promise not to run in 4 years unless a poll demands I do.. BUSHFOOLS can conduct the poll.

    I will ignore all things PC..

    This guy could have a good chance as any, especially when the current recovery plans fail as much as the spending of Bush and poor regulationary policys have,...only 4 time worse. It could be wide open again...

    What Hillary gonna run? Biden?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 2:08pm

46. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 12:52pm

    Maybe if people could AFFORD healthcare they could get the type of preventative care that stops things like diabetes from becoming deadly. I know you guys are quick to dismiss one statistic with another as long as it agrees with your point. However the same extenuating circumstances you uphold can also be easily debunked. It too me one sentence to put your diagnosis into question LVL. People don't get medication and don't go for check ups because it costs too much money. They would rather wait it out and see what happens. This countries biggest healthcare issue is that people don't get preventative care. They wait till the problem explodes and then go to the ER. Why do you think it is that people don't get preventative care that could stop things like diabetes?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 2:11pm

47. The taxpayer is already paying 60% of the total health care bill. We have a health care non-system which maximizes profits instead of maximizing health and minimizing suffering. It's estimated that servicing the insurance industry adds 25% to total cost without adding ANYTHING to health. If we had a more efficient system we would plenty of resources to give a basic package of health care to everybody.

    Will we be able to pay for everything for everybody? No. Since resources are finite, we will have to make some difficult decisions about what is cost effective. If you want it and we can't afford it, you can have it but you will have to pay for it on your own. Oh, my God, that's rationing! Yes, it's rationing public resources rationally instead of irrationally as we are today, based on profits.

    Reality check. When people get sick, we take care of them. If they can't pay the bill, we all pay the bill. So it saves ALL of us money if we take care of each other from the outset. Publicly financed, privately delivered health care with some kind of system to facilitate making difficult decisions about what "we" can afford is inevitable. The sooner we get there, the more resources we will have to do it right. We are headed for a meltdown. Is Daschle listening?

    Posted by phochfeld at 01/14/2009 @ 2:19pm

48. Oh also I want to point you guys to something. People in Jordan have the same life expectancy as United States citizens. So the "greatest nation on earth" can't top the Mid East in life expectancy. It's close to Jamaica. Lower than Israel.

    While I don't dispute your views Jom and LVL at the same time there are countries who are in perpetual warfare that have higher life expectancies than us.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 2:21pm

49. where is the fake doc? we need more drivel.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 2:23pm

50. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    good point, but you seem to be suggesting that Jordanians live in perpetual warfare. which of course is false.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 2:25pm

51. You've lost the war, Darin.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Why do you keep saying that? Could a war change the shape of the earth (round of flat)? Could a war change the nature of matter (wave or particle)? Could a war change whether we all die from heat or all die from cold? Could a war change the existence of God? Could a war change the speed of light?

    Certain things just are and humankind's opinions of them matter very little.

    Plus, you should probably know that my favorite response to my wife (who is quick to point out when everyone agrees with her) that I am perfectly comfortable with the prospect that I am the only person on Earth who is correct.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 2:32pm

52. Posted by phochfeld at 01/14/2009 @ 2:19pm

    "It's estimated that servicing the insurance industry adds 25% to total cost without adding ANYTHING to health."

    So your idea for improving the efficiency of the health care system is to put the government in charge? What's your example of success with this approach, the US Post Office? And if the government can run things more efficiently, which industry should we NOT nationalize? In fact, if your hypothesis is correct, shouldn't we just adopt the model of the Soviet Union, or Cuba? And if not, why not?

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:42pm

53. no matter how you cut it a single payer system makes sense. why reinvent the wheel? such systems have been implemented and work just fine throughout the world.

    are they perfect? is anything in this world?

    our current system costs more, does less, on the macro scale, than the vast majority of single payer plans throughout the world.

    one thing i have noticed about such systems is that even the private healthcare cost is kept down as a result of having to compete with the public.

    again...if the wealthy or hardcore aynranders or hardcore fans of overpriced bullshit want to keep private insurance...

    tax credits for all of 'em!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/14/2009 @ 2:46pm

54. Universal coverage? First, look at the disaster in Massachusetts

    By Examiner Editorial - 1/11/09 To much fanfare from both right and left in 2006, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to require all residents to buy health insurance. A new state health insurance clearinghouse was created, with taxpayers subsidizing those who couldn't afford to buy coverage. Then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, promised that "every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance." Yet just two years later, Romney's much-heralded "solution" -- touted by many as the model for a national program -- has become an embarrassing flop.

    Just a year after the universal coverage law passed, The New York Times reported, state insurers were already jacking up rates to twice the national average. According to Dr. Paul Hsieh, a physician and founding member of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, 43 mandatory benefits -- including those that many people did not want or need, such as invitro fertilization -- raised the costs of coverage for Massachusetts residents by as much as 56 percent, depending upon an individual's income status. So much for "affordable" health care.

    Small businesses with more than 10 employees were required to provide health insurance or pay an extra fee to subsidize uninsured low-income residents, yet the overall costs of the program increased more than $400 million -- 85 percent higher than original projections. To make up the difference, payments to health care providers were slashed, so many doctors and dentists in Massachusetts began refusing to take on new patients. In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam.

    The irony is that

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:46pm

55. that Massachusetts officials reluctantly admitted that, despite increased enrollment, the state is still far from universal coverage -- the original goal of the landmark law. To make matters worse, Massachusetts is grappling with a multibillion-dollar deficit while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick desperately tries to slow down those still-spiraling health care costs, which he said last week were "not sustainable." If this sounds just like Canadian-style socialized medicine, that's because it is. Massachusetts residents now pay more for less access to health care, yet their state still has an uninsured problem!

    Government mandates -- even those originally billed as "market-based solutions" -- always turn into a "rights-violating road to disaster," Hsieh says. Barack Obama's health policy advisers should take a good look at the smoldering wreckage in the Bay State before trying to impose any such "universal coverage" on the rest of the nation.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:47pm

56. "In the state with the highest physician/patient ratio in the nation, some people now have to wait more than a year for a simple physical exam. "

    Sounds very similar to reports regarding the 'successful' socialized medicine in every other country that has adopted 'universal health care'. It means defacto rationing for most people. Of course, the wealthy and the privileged will remain unaffected.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

57. Oh also I want to point you guys to something. People in Jordan have the same life expectancy as United States citizens.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 2:21pm

    Most of you know I am an actuary. One of the things I do is approve mortality rates for use in pricing.

    In setting mortality rates, we talk about the mortality "smile". In a nutshell if you graph mortality on the the Y-axis (up and down) and amount of coverate on the X-axis (sideways) you get a smile (A smirk, actually).

    Here's why for less than $100,000 of coverage, the insurer can't really afford a lot of underwriting tests so people "anti-select". That is, people who know that they are below average health are more likely than average to buy life insurance. Duh!

    At about $250,000 the insurer is collecting more premium and it becomes cost effective to test for AIDS, cholesterol, smoking, cocain usage, etc. This causes less health lives to be "rated" and pay a higher premium. Duh!

    At $1 million of coverage, it is cost effective to add a doctor administred EKG test for people over 50. So some of these people can get "preferred" rates or "super-preferred" rates. Mortality goes down. Duh!

    At $5 million a curious thing happens: mortality goes back up. Beyond $1 million, the insurer is paying for just about every test there is to accurately assess the proposed insured's health so there are no more tests for people rich enough to need $5 million to protect the loss of income from premature death. However, we start seeing a lot more claims due to private planes, snowmobile accidents, foriegn travel, etc. Basically, people become so rich that they engage in dangerous activities that increase their mortality rates relative to thouse slightly less rich.

    The US is on the upswing side of mort.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 2:53pm

58. I have a feeling that socialized medicine in this country is going to boil down to needing to beg someone with the responsiblity and work ethic of a postal or MVA clerk for chemotherapy. No thanks!

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:54pm

59. Hey, here's an idea! We have 8.2 million unemployed people in this country. How about we raise $1 trillion from 'the rich' in taxes, and give them all jobs making $121,951 per year? If there's not enough work to do, we can simply employ 4.2 million of them at GM making Hummer H1's. Then, we can employ the other 4.2 million of them in 'green' jobs tearing the Hummers apart and recycling them! Fantastic!

    I just LOVE lefty economics!

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 3:05pm

60. I would like to pose a quick debunking of this fallacy that if we had single payer health care that illegal immigrants would be able to use it. How would an immigrant who hasnno social security number gain access to care? The system would work much like the current healthcare where they type you social I a database and eligibitly comes up. So again HOW could illegal immgrants abuse that if they don't have a social?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:10pm

61. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 3:10pm

    Thanks HAPPY! Glad to be back for the Obamanation!

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 3:13pm

62. Ponti,

    While most who work and pay for services expect a higher level of services, the idea of Post Office and efficiency in the same sentence WILL send us to the doctor...

    but here, home of all things govt and "fair", land where profit is a dirty word and where the word "windfall profits" really mean something...I stiil do not have a meaning of the term..I thought the idea is to get the highest possible profit the market will bear..oh well...

    The Post Office, TSA, and Public School Teachers Unions, and Govt employees unions ARE the efficiency model of choice and admiration.

    You are shouting into a vacumn.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 3:14pm

63. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 11:46am

    "Somehow, this reminds me of ads that touts Big Savings if you'll just come on in and open your wallet!"

    You will note, HAPPY, that those 'the more you spend the more you save' advertising campaigns work remarkably well. Kinda like Ponzi schemes. The rubes always go for the 'something for nothing' schtick, thus our new Democratic president.

    "BTW, Jenkins believes in the infallibility of AGW models as well and the this really COLD winter is absolute proof of his `belief'!"

    And, of course, we all know that said infallibility would be even MORE confirmed if hit got hotter...or stayed the same.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 3:16pm

64. Personally, I'm just waiting to hear Obama's plan to address the coming unemployment issue, all based on leftist economic concepts. First, of course, he will need lots of money, so it will begin with a huge tax increase on 'the rich'. Then, to multiply the wealth thus created, perhaps he will hire millions of people to wander the cities, breaking windows at random. The he could hire millions more to repair said broken windows. Obama could tout the benefits to the US glass industry, the US caulk industry, the US auto industry (which makes the vans that drive both glass breakers and glass fixers to work). He could even mandate $100,000 salaries for each new job 'created'.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 3:38pm

65. Not really more progressive lvl. I just happen to know that it's not only life style changes that are always needed. There are preventable issues that can't be solved with life style changes. Yes diabetes and heart disease are generally prevented through positive lifetsyle choices. However certain forms of cancer need check ups in order to prevent them. I know everything you are talking about but it doesn't invalidate my point that while peoplle need to work out and eat properly they also need preventive care to catch things like breast cancer, prostate cancer or diabetes that is acquired without having a terrible diet.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:53pm

66. The regressives love to talk about family values, but their agenda - supporting big business and the already obscenely wealthy, really harms families in many ways.

    The post by chapsaj illustrates just one of the many problems working people have with health care. One of my family members, a woman who has run her own business for about 20 years, had to take a second job just to pay for her health insurance. She has a 6 year old and only sees him a couple of evenings a week, half a day on Saturday, and on Sunday. If she takes time off, she loses her insurance because it's tied to the number of hours she works. Before the huge increases in premiums, she was able to pay for her insurance out of her income.

    I am getting ready to retire at the age of 62. Medicare doesn't kick in until I'm 65, so I have to use my personal and vacation days to pay for my premiums for the next 3 years. (And, yes, I know I'm lucky to be able to do this!) I live 450 miles from the nursing home in which my mother resides, and she appears to be dying. Unfortunately, it's not clear if she will pass away in the next day or two or in the next couple of weeks. I can't afford to take the time off to stay with her that long. She suffers from extreme dementia and would probably not be aware of my presence. My son lives near her, so she's not without family and she is very well-cared for. However, this is beside the point, especially since a visit with her would be more for my peace of mind than it would be for her well-being. I would like very much to go to her and simply sit with her during her last days. This is not possible.

    "Family values" is a regressive myth perpetuated to keep working people blind to the realities of the market mentality.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/14/2009 @ 3:55pm

67. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 3:14pm

    "Here...The Post Office, TSA, and Public School Teachers Unions, and Govt employees unions ARE the efficiency model of choice and admiration.

    You are shouting into a vacumn."

    Even if that's true, even the most kool-aid-marinated leftist would not admit that the most likely result of socialized medicine will result in service similar to what one might expect at the PO or the MVA, with one's health being at issue rather than one's mail or one's driver's license. It is, rather, for them, necessary to believe that the adoption of socialized health care will result in a statist nirvana. Either that, or at least they're getting something for free, paid for by other people (i.e., 'the rich'). Thus, the power of the argument remains.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 3:59pm

68. Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/14/2009 @ 3:55pm

    ""Family values" is a regressive myth perpetuated to keep working people blind to the realities of the market mentality."

    Free markets ARE reality, LeeannG. By creating and believing in your own reality and labeling it 'Progressive', while labeling all non-believers 'Regressive', you and your ilk are simply fooling yourselves.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm

69. I'm all for it!

    I understand that at the new system will not be perfect right off the bat. But when juxtaposed with the current system, the single payer system has the potential to make all Americans healthier. What does it say about our current system when Cubans are healthier than us?

    I am a 26 year old, type 1 diabetic. I was laid off several months ago and lost my health insurance as a result. I am on unemployment therefore, I qualify for free healthcare in my city. If I were to get sick anywhere out of town or need medication, I'd be out of luck. If i find a job, I would immedeatly lose the benefits (which aren't many to begin with). I would then be faced with anywhere from 3 to 6 months without healthcare coverage, and that is IF the job offers coverage to its employees.

    I am more than willing to work, but I also want to stay alive.

    Posted by poetlost at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm

70. Lee,

    "One of my family members, a woman who has run her own business for about 20 years, had to take a second job just to pay for her health insurance. She has a 6 year old and only sees him a couple of evenings a week, half a day on Saturday, and on Sunday. If she takes time off, she loses her insurance because it's tied to the number of hours she works. Before the huge increases in premiums, she was able to pay for her insurance out of her income."

    Can't the man who father the child help out? If he is dead, then I am willing, if he is alive, then HE should be willing... I noticed he is not mentioned...HE has made his family part of the statistics that are cited when leftys claim we need govt health care, when the MAN who help create the family should be made to pay for it..no matter where he is......not the rest of us as long as he is standing on 2 feet.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 4:09pm

71. CCC,

    " How would an immigrant who hasn no social security number gain access to care? .."

    Walk into any emergency room.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 4:12pm

72. Free markets ARE reality

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm

    well,

    the last couple of years they got as "free" as they've ever been.

    i bet you LOVE the results!

    hope you like soup.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:13pm

73. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:13pm

    You mean the free markets in lending created when the government required banks to lower their lending standards through the Community Reinvestment Act? Is that the free market you're talking about?

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:15pm

74. Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/14/2009 @ 3:55pm

    I don't mean to make light of your situation, but it seems to me if you can afford to retire at 62, you can afford to take a six month sabatical to be with your mother and then retire at 62½ or 63.

    This will also increase your level of SS benefits by delaying your retirement.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 4:25pm

75. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 2:32pm

    Get comfortable then, Darin.

    Politically, Global Warming denial is as dead as "Seat belts are a socialistic, un-Constitutional infringement of my and corporate rights!!!!" (Which is probably LVLIB's position to today...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:26pm

76. HEY JOM, those are the stats our current healthcare system has gotten us. If we keep it up we might meet up with the non-industrialized countries in 20 years.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:37am

    Ummm...You realize those "#1" stats were BEFORE government medicine, don't you?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:27pm

77. I have a feeling that socialized medicine in this country is going to boil down to needing to beg someone with the responsiblity and work ethic of a postal or MVA clerk for chemotherapy. No thanks!

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yes yes, i know...

    you and your far right satano-aynrando zombies are the ONLY PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD and anyone who makes less money than you, or works for thuh gubbamint is stupid, lazy, and deserves your scorn and derision...

    heard it before a thousand times and it never gets any less bullshitty...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/14/2009 @ 4:28pm

78. Hey, Hey....ponti's back. Glad to see ya, bud.

    Time for a PONTIFICUS Flash-back-

    "Hey lefties, I don't know about you, but this convention is shaping up to me to be hugely entertaining, and not only that, I'm pleased to say it's following what I have predicted will be the scenario for major landslide material for McCain."----Posted by pontificus at 08/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:29pm

79. Does the NNOC/CAN mention how many jobs will be "down-sized" from private insurers while they talk about the number of jobs created? Is that a net or gross number?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:31pm

80. Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:26pm

    "Politically, Global Warming denial is as dead as "Seat belts are a socialistic, un-Constitutional infringement of my and corporate rights!!!!" (Which is probably LVLIB's position to today...heheh)"

    I admire the strength of your faith, MASK, or at least the strenth of the dose of your kool-aid. Are you one of those guys who says 'yeah, the weather's getting colder, but that just PROVES that we're experiencing global warming!" LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:32pm

81. CRA????????

    hahahahaha.

    ponti, please try again.

    hahahahaha.

    hope you like soup.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:33pm

82. Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:29pm

    The last election certainly proved to me that promising people something for nothing often beats NOT doing so.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:34pm

83. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009

    Hats off for the Bluto Blutarsky quote!!

    Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:40pm

84. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:33pm

    Hey FROSTY, here's an assignment for you. Explain to me the difference between a subprime loan, a predatory loan, and a loan made under the mandatorily loosened lending standards pursuant to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and its various amendments. If you can succeed at this, I'll ask for a discourse on how many angels can dance on the head of pin.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 4:52pm

85. ponti,

    are you a climatologist?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:52pm

86. hope you like soup, mr. "free" market!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:00pm

87. ponti,

    are you a climatologist?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:52pm

    Better question...is ALGORE?

    or even better yet...what is Frosty an expert at ?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 5:01pm

88. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    let's think this through. deny an illegal worker or his kids health care? an insane idea. what if he/she has a communicable disease? untreated, the infection will spread, costing society far more than treating that one person.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:07pm

89. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 4:52pm

    "ponti,

    are you a climatologist?"

    Are you? Is Al Gore? What are Al Gore's scientific credentials? Science class at Gonzaga? Inventing the internet?

    There are many climatologists distributed on both sides of this issue. There are also many political bodies masquerading as scientific ones (e.g., the UN IPCC) pushing this idea of a scientific consensus when none actually exists, all for the purpose of furthering their agenda of expanding government power and regulatory authority. And of course, you lefties lap it up, because statism is of course the whole point of leftyism. But there are many of us who still prefer to use common sense.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:08pm

90. THE REAL SCANDAL HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS By STAN LIEBOWITZ

    February 5, 2008

    PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

    At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.

    Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?

    From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.

    In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

    In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:17pm

91. The system would work much like the current healthcare where they type you social I a database and eligibitly comes up. So again HOW could illegal immgrants abuse that if they don't have a social?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:10pm

    Ummm...just by showing up...unless you think hospitals are going to start turning people away...orrrrr hospitals will hear this phrase A LOT (say it with a spanish accent to enhance the effect)

    "Uh...no...I...uh...left eet een de car."

    Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:17pm

92. I'm supporing this idea, I just want to add a comment. Medicare is insurance. If your doctor takes Medicare then you make an appointment, have the visit, the doctor sends the info to Medicare and they pay the doctor.

    This would be no solution since it means Medicare or some other insurance, just like now. Someone still has to pay. As it is, all of us who work pay for Medicare for the non-working, retired class. Who will pay for us? The answer is more taxes, but instead of an insurance premium. If Medicare is affordable, then this works.

    My solution starts with get away from the all or nothing approach. Have a program where ALL doctors, after residency training work one or two years at clinics proving basic health care to everyone,who pay nothing or a small fee. Everyone pays for catasrophic insurance, which has a smaller premium and this covers their specialists and major problems. Or something like that. The plan needs some works

    Posted by wredner at 01/14/2009 @ 5:18pm

93. Yet a "landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

    That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.

    Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.

    No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."

    Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.

    Sound crazy? You bet. Those "outdated" standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

    Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

    Flexible lending programs expanded even t

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:18pm

94. And here, a list of references to recent studies showing global cooling (the wackos as usual will try an ad hominem on the article author rather than address the science)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    And as usual, Larry is hoping you'll believe his 'sources' rather than actually check out the data or science.

    Take his link, for example...

    http://tinyurl.com/22bqjr

    ...it is to the **Hawaii Reporter** with links to 'news' articles in the UK Telegraph, UK Dialy Express, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, etc.

    News stories?!?! But wait, didn't Larry say his link was to "recent studies"?!?!?

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:19pm

95. One such article, claims it was based on data from NASA GISS. So, off to NASA GISS site and, lo and behold, the science (updated with data from yesterday) looks like this...

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

    Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

96. Another of Larrys 'news' articles notes research from the NOAA. So, off to the NOAA and we find this artcile, dated today NOAA...

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html

    "NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eight Warmest on Record January 14, 2009

    The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880."

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

97. Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

    Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

    Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.

    In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide's chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." He's not bragging now.

    For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.

    This damage was quite predictable: "After the warm and fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes." I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.

    Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

98. Hmmm. NOAA science tracks perfectly with NASA GISS science.

    .

    Then, regarding sea ice, Larry's 'news' source conveniently leaves out what the 'science' source behind the news says here...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080318151743.htm

    Arctic Sea Ice Still At Risk Despite Cold Winter, NASA Says

    ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2008)

    Using the latest satellite observations, NASA researchers and others report that the Arctic is still on "thin ice" when it comes to the condition of sea ice cover in the region. A colder-than-average winter in some regions of the Arctic this year has yielded an increase in the area of new sea ice, while the older sea ice that lasts for several years has continued to decline.

    On March 18 the scientists said they believe that the increased area of sea ice this winter is due to recent weather conditions, while the decline in perennial ice reflects the longer-term warming climate trend and is a result of increased melting during summer and greater movement of the older ice out of the Arctic.

    Perennial sea ice is the long-lived, year-round layer of ice that remains even when the surrounding short-lived seasonal sea ice melts away in summer to its minimum extent. It is this perennial sea ice, left over from the summer melt period, that has been rapidly declining from year to year, and that has gained the attention and research focus of scientists. According to NASA-processed microwave data, whereas perennial ice used to cover 50-60 percent of the Arctic, this year it covers less than 30 percent. Very old ice that remains in the Arctic for at least six years comprised over 20 percent of the Arctic area in the mid to late 1980s, but this winter it decreased to just six percent.

    Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:21pm

99. Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

    Lillian, I believe the study you cited was retracted when it was found that the temperatures for September 2008 in Russia had been duplicated for October.

    Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:22pm

100. Posted by wredner at 01/14/2009 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     we do not have to re invent the wheel.let's do what France does. or germany, or Sweden, or....

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:23pm

101. I am more than willing to work, but I also want to stay alive.

     Posted by poetlost at 01/14/2009 @ 4:03pm

     Since you are only 26 I'm going to give you some advice on managing your perceptions. Guys like me (and maybe ponti, Happy, LVL and John M) are going to be very, very skeptical of a guy who comes in looking for a job and says he's willing to work but then also volunteers that he considers himself a poet.

     I appologize for being an asshole, but that just how the world works.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 5:23pm

102. It's amazing how primitive (in our eyes) peoples in the Andes and in Asia mostly live to be over a 100 without all of this preventative medicine and doctors and checkups. Only amazing if one buys into your belief.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     What's really amazing is you twisting the obvious (not really - that's entirely expected at this point.)

     While 'lifestyle choices' **can** help you maximize what your genes dictate, the reality is that what those who live to advanced age seem to have in common isn't diet and excercise. It's stature.

     People who are short and of slight stature live longer.

     Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:29pm

103. Single-payer health care should be AUGMENTED by individual purchases of other insurances. Health care should be a RIGHT of citizenship and extenuating circumstances. If you have not lived it, you simply do not know.

     Posted by Tam at 01/14/2009 @ 5:34pm

104. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 5:23pm

     I would never hire a poet unless I need a poet...I also would tell the poet that if he is qualified for the job I am hiring he will be paid enough to buy his own heaslth care or buy his own drugs...at 26, he should have some idea of a future for himself that doesn't involve rigging the pay scales sop he can get free health care....

     how ever, it does depend on the needs I have or the skills the potential hiree has...sadly if no skills were developed, then I guess health care is an issue,and not the only issue.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 5:36pm

105. brrrrrr, it's cold!

     must prove them scientists wrong!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:37pm

106. KILL THE POETS!

     WALT WHITMAN WAS GAY!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:39pm

107. it's the poor people who have crunched the credit!

     fuckin' poets!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:41pm

108. most scientists are concerned about global warming. and that Trottel preacher comes here with his shopworn platitudes, quite off topic, he belongs on the ignore list of any thinking person.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 5:45pm

109. I'm supporing this idea, I just want to add a comment. Medicare is insurance. If your doctor takes Medicare then you make an appointment, have the visit, the doctor sends the info to Medicare and they pay the doctor.

     Posted by wredner at 01/14/2009 @ 5:18pm

     It's not insurance.

     Under your definition school is insurance. You show up with a need and the Feds pay.

     Insurance has a premium that is actuarially equivalent to the expected benefits at issue. So 20-year olds pay $90 for 100,000 of life insurance and 60-year olds pay $6100 for $100,000 of life insurance.

     Just having the government give everyone $100,000 when they die isn't insurance.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 5:47pm

110. Quality of life is far more important to me than quantity. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009

     i'd prefer both, thank you very much.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:52pm

111. Health care should be a RIGHT of citizenship and extenuating circumstances. If you have not lived it, you simply do not know.

     Posted by Tam at 01/14/2009 @ 5:34pm

     As a physician, I can assure you that health care is NOT a right and should never be. I could go into a long diatribe (and have done so in the past) but it is sufficient to ask one simple question--what makes you think you have a "right" to my abilities? I don't say that to be cruel, but to make a simple point: you CANNOT claim a "right" to someone else's talents or abilities as it infringes on their rights practice them. Claiming a right to the services of someone else is tantamount to slavery.

     I can't recall if I've stated it here before or elsewhere, but when people claim a "right" to health care, what they are really claiming is a "right" to FUNDING for health care. There is an important difference between those statements as I believe that the latter is a much tougher sell for various reasons.

     Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 5:55pm

112. Fannie, Freddie, Bear & Hard Times: Wall Street's Collapse, Told in Rhymes

     Crisis Inspires New Odes to Financial Ruin; Quoth the Trader, 'Nevermore'

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123068329002444149.html

     "Farewell then

     Carlyle, Drake

     and Go Capital

     (and whoever else gets carried out tomorrow).

     You certainly

     weren't the first

     to rapidly combust:

     fizz

     bang

     WHOOOSH.

     And you won't be the last."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:57pm

113. Posted by Lillian at 01/14/2009 @ 5:20pm

     Lillian, just last week NOAA published a report that stated that 2008 was just .2 degrees above the 1895-present average. Many skeptics also have a problem with NOAA data as well, indicating that many of its data points are taken near urban heat islands and have other issues as well. The University of Alabama data does not mirror even the minor increase indicated by NOAA, for example. If things continue to fall again next year, I'd say the gig is pretty much up.

     http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090108_decemberstats.html

     NOAA: 2008 Temperature for U.S. Near Average, was Coldest Since 1997; Below Average for December

     January 8, 2009

     The 2008 annual temperature for the contiguous United States was near average, while the temperature for December was below the long-term average, based on records dating back to 1895, according to a preliminary analysis by scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. U.S. Temperature Highlights – 2008

     National temperatures.

     High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

     * The Central and Southern regions experienced below-average temperatures, while above-average temperatures were felt in the West, Southwest and Northeast. This resulted in a near average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. and the coolest annual temperature since 1997.

     * For 2008, the average temperature of 53.0 degrees F was 0.2 degree above the 20th Century average.

     * The nation's January-December average temperature has increased at a rate of 0.12 degree F per decade since 1895, and at a faster rate of 0.41 degree F per decade during the last 50 years.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:58pm

114. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 5:47pm

     Medicare is nothing more than one GIANT HMO with all the inherent flaws.

     Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

115. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 5:57pm

     Oooooohhhh...Carlyle? Scary! Halleyburton? Ooooohhhh. Evillllll, evillllll, baddddd companies. Bad!!!

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

116. Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 5:55pm

     as an m.d., mr. bruce,

     would you turn away a person in need because they can't pay?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 6:00pm

117. Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 5:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     not at all. we have a "right" to police protection. we have a right to help in case of a fire. the compensation for the cop or fireman is not affected by the single payer nature of these services.

     a fake from a fake doc. you aren't bright enough to be a physician.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:01pm

118. would you turn away a person in need because they can't pay?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 6:00pm

     In need of what? A few stitches or a lung transplant?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 6:09pm

119. Walk into any emergency room. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/14/2009 @ 4:12pm

     They can do that now. It still wouldn't change. The hospital wouldn't foot the bill they would charge the person and the government would have the power to collect. It's the SAME exact situation as now. Who do you suppose foots the bill when an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room? On top of that illegal immigrants often don't go to the emergency room because that's a good method of getting yourself deported.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:10pm

120. Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

     i didn't write that, you moron.

     it's from the wsj.

     here go to the hedge fund implode-o-meter:

     http://hf-implode.com/

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 6:11pm

121. "Uh...no...I...uh...left eet een de car." Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:17pm

     Your responsible for memorizing your social. Again. You can show up at the ER now. What do they do right now if you don't have insurance? I think they charge you directly. The government would have a much better ability to collect.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:12pm

122. "Uh...no...I...uh...left eet een de car." Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:17pm

     racist swine.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:14pm

123. Just to emphasize my point; I'm not a believer in visiting Doctors unless it is an emergency situation. I've probably had less than a dozen visits (and most were for a surgery and a correction to that surgery, and 3 emergency situations). And my wife insisted when I was 50 that I get a physical (the first I had in nearly 30 years). Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:19pm

     For one they take certain herbs that are known now for certain medicinal uses. They also take care of themselves like you said. On top of that they are also not nearly as exposed to certain things as we are. For instance massive amounts of pollution. If you are so sure that just taking care of yourself saves everyone then explain to me how a person who eats healthy, exercises and takes care of themselves ends up with cancer? It would seem according to you that if you take care of yourself you will ALWAYS be fine.

     There was also the case of the man in New York who ate fat spread on toast and drank whiskey and lived to be 120.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:16pm

124. "Uh...no...I...uh...left eet een de car." Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:17pm

     Plus on top of this with your full name and address and maybe a few other tidbits of information someone who works in a government office can look up your social.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:17pm

125. not at all. we have a "right" to police protection. we have a right to help in case of a fire. the compensation for the cop or fireman is not affected by the single payer nature of these services.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:01pm

     Let me see...

     I see a right to freedom of religion, speech, and to write articles if I choose; The right to bear arms; to refuse to house soldiers in my home; to be secure in my property and papers; to walk out of jail unless charged with a crime; to a trial by jury; to post bail if charged with a crime; to have my state enumerate other rights; the right to not be a slave; to vote if I'm a woman; The right to buy alcohol (that one was in question and can still be outlawed by my state); and the right to vote is I am 18.

     I don't see a right to other people's labor. Now the SCOTUS has created some right such as the right to be informed of my rights against self incrimination (could be construed as labor for police) but the biggy is to have the State provide legal representation if I can't afford it.

     Dailycomfort is right. I don't have a right to any particular lawyer's services; however, I have the right to demand that The State hire a qualified lawyer for me if I can't afford it.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 6:19pm

126. the cancer which will most likely kill you, does not care whether you ever see a doctor.

     a piece of advice for those over 55. GET THAT COLONOSCOPY SOON. it can save your life, (for now).

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:36pm

127. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:24pm

     Few things your missing here. First. You are talking about Medi-Cal. Which is state run. The state decides how they want to handle their medical insurance. You could EASILY set another bar for how it is to be dealt with if it is at a federal level. Again the argument that illegals will abuse the system is grounded nothing so far. For one to make that argument you need some sort of statistic to back it up about the abuse of systems like Medicare/Medicaid which are federal run by illegal immigrants. Another thing you would need is the absolute proof that a government system would not have the checks in place to prevent such use.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:07pm

128. a piece of advice for those over 55. GET THAT COLONOSCOPY SOON. it can save your life, (for now).

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:36pm

     you can do mine for me.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:01pm ************************************************************

     I hope you meant to suggest that JR could take your place in line as in you can have mine. As you wrote it, it sounds like you'd like for JR to perform a colonoscopy on you. I can assure you, when it comes to having objects inserted into your rectum, you don't want to leave that to an amature.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 7:17pm

129. Few things [you're] missing here. First. You are talking about Medi-Cal. Which is state run. The state decides how they want to handle their medical insurance. You could EASILY set another bar for how it is to be dealt with if it is at a federal level.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:07pm

     Call me crazy, but there are those of us who don't believe the federal government has any business providing (or paying for) healthcare as we don't see it in the Constitution.

     I understand that I am in the minority here, but I believe that it should be the States that pay for the healthcare of the working poor.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 7:22pm

130. All this talk about single payer being socialized medicine is just plain bunk. If we implement a model by expanding medicare to cover all, which is the proposal in HR 676, then you must be saying that Medicare is socialized medicine?? Or the gov't paying private, for profit school enterprises is socialized education and paying Black Water for security in Iran is socialized security. This "socialized medicine" label is incorrect and getting in the way of an intelligent discussion about universal health care.

     If you believe that health care is a right of citizenship (by the way the US is the only industrialized nation that does not include this as a right of citizenship), then you have three choices -- (1) expand the current system to cover all (the most expensive solution, so expensive it will bankrupt our nation), (2) go completely to a socialized system (all providers, drug companies, research, etc are employed and run by gov't or (3) a hybrid between the 2, of which single payer is what all other industrialized nations have chosen. Can we please learn from others who have been in this business for decades and worked out the kinks?

     As for the primary losers, insurance companies, in the single payer model, can anyone tell me what value they add in a universal health care model? They cannot select the least risky. They cannot ration out eligibility or coverage. Why should we continue to maintain and administer 5 federal and 1,400 or more private insurance programs? Every private practice has to be prepared do business with 5+ 1,4000. It makes no sense.

     Support HR676!

     Posted by Nicole635 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:36pm

131. I understand that I am in the minority here, but I believe that it should be the States that pay for the healthcare of the working poor. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/14/2009 @ 7:22pm

     Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, but thanks for the contribution.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:25pm

132. The idea of Emile administering a colonoscopy is frightening Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:42pm

     I think the idea of ANYONE that is not a trained professional administering a colonoscopy is frightening.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 8:26pm

133. the time before the last, I had a colonoscopy done, and an endoscopy too. I asked my doctor to do the endoscopy first.

     at that time my doc found seven polyps, which were removed and biopsied.

     this time, three years later, only one polyp.

     now I can wait five years before the next one. if I should live so long.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:33pm

134. lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:42pm

     not a joking matter.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:33pm

135. would you turn away a person in need because they can't pay?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 6:00pm

     It depends on the situation. Specific to my situation, my office accepts nearly all payment types including self-pay with Medicaid the main exception. Regardless of insurance, payment is expected at the time of service. For those patients who do not pay, we turn them over to collections after 90 days. If they still don't pay, they are discharged from the practice.

     Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 9:10pm

136. Darin, PONTI, HAPPY....maybe you just keep thinking, from listening to Rush or Loufa Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or something that you guys in the Global Warming Denial crowd still MATTER...

     but you don't.

     Again, I got $1000 for each and every one of you, if the 2012 GOP nominee for President comes out and says "GW is a hoax, doesn't exist, and/or mankind has nothing whatsoever to do with it". Take one or any combination...same bet.

     And if they don't....then what impact does this belief of yours carry in terms of policy? And if none....

     why do you matter???

     Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:22pm

137. the compensation for the cop or fireman is not affected by the single payer nature of these services.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:01pm

     Do you aside from the fact that it is the single-payer that is DETERMINING their compensation?

     Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 9:32pm

138. Do you aside from the fact that it is the single-payer that is DETERMINING their compensation? Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     can we try this in english? or german.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 9:56pm

139. Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:22pm

     "Again, I got $1000 for each and every one of you, if the 2012 GOP nominee for President comes out and says "GW is a hoax, doesn't exist, and/or mankind has nothing whatsoever to do with it". Take one or any combination...same bet."

     Spare me the straw man arguments, MASK. The question is not whether GW exists, or whether we have anything to do with it. The question is whether man's activities are the primary cause of any significant global warming, and whether the threat of said global warming is worth destroying our economy over it. The planet may or may not be getting significantly warmer, and mankind may or may not be the primary cause. These are both unknown, and very much in dispute, despite the demands by your high priests of liberal white guilt to excommunicate any heretics. And of course you angry white liberals are all over the idea that 21st century America has been so very sinful and must appease the gods for our prodigals ways, perhaps by throwing a few million virgins or SUV's into some green volcano. Please, find another way to expiate your liberal guilt. Maybe do some charity work or something.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 10:24pm

140. Posted by Nicole635 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:36pm

     Nicole, could you tell us where in the Constitution it says that health care is a right? And if health care is a right, then what is NOT a right? Isn't food more basic than health care? Where's the right to food? What about a decent place to live? Shouldn't we all have the 'right' to a decent place to live? Maybe we should all have a right to a lot of things? If you're saying that we should all have the 'right' to basic health care, don't we also have the 'right' to food and shelter? How about a college education, don't we all have the 'right' to that?

     Sorry honey, in a free society, the only thing you have the 'right' to is your life, liberty, and property. If you want to guarantee everything to everbody, then what you have done is make everyone a slave. Throw off your programming and think for yourself honey.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 10:33pm

141. the compensation for the cop or fireman is not affected by the single payer nature of these services.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:01pm

     Do you mean aside from the fact that it is the single-payer that is DETERMINING their compensation?

     Posted by dailycomfort at 01/14/2009 @ 10:33pm

142. Diabetes is the 6th leading cause of death in the US and is entirely preventable, not by single payer, but by making proper choices.

     More than 60% of our population is overweight, the most significant contributor and again, single payer will not affect this statistic.

     Adults with type 2 diabetes are two to four times more likely to have heart disease or suffer a stroke than those without diabetes. Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of death for people with diabetes. They are also at risk for other complications, such as blindness, kidney disease, amputations, nervous system disease, and oral complications, including gum or periodontal disease and tooth loss.

     http://ndep.nih.gov/diabetes/WTMD/diabetes.htm

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 12:52pm

     In Response to lvlibertyl and the rest of you that have only researched part of your facts- Diabetes as in Type 1 is not preventable so your statistics listed here are not correct and certainly not going to lower health care costs by MAKING the choices you think they should! Just as Not doing anything about health care reform is going to keep anyone alive. Sweden, the Netherlands, and many other European countries have very adequate if not better health care because peple do pay for alot of it in taxes and pay some sort of copay. Why is this not a choice that AMericans have? Canada also does pretty well with their universal health care. WHy do you think people go to Canada to get medications for about the third of the price they have to pay here? Do some thinking about this and do more research and you may (if you actually pay attention) find that a single or dual-payer system might actually work for the U.S.

     Posted by demogorgon1 at 01/14/2009 @ 10:48pm

143. Posted by demogorgon1 at 01/14/2009 @ 10:48pm

     "WHy do you think people go to Canada to get medications for about the third of the price they have to pay here?"

     Canada manufactures drugs developed in the US and sells them for little or no profit because their parasitic socialized system had little or nothing to do with bearing the costs of developing them. Most new drugs are developed here in the US, which offers profits to the companies and investors therein as an incentive for clearing the major hurdles of the FDA regulation, uncertainties of scientific development, and battalions of ambulance-chasing tort lawyers. In short, Canada can sell the drugs cheap because they contributed nothing to the cost of developing them. And if the entire world adopts socialized medicine, you can say good-bye to new drug development and for that matter, medical advances of ANY kind. Or perhaps you think Michael Moore will do it as charity work.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:00pm

144. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 10:45pm

     Don't forget to ban Google!!!

     http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/n

     ews/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece

     Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2009 @ 11:13pm

145. Tell you what, you have 17 choices above to take a counterbet from me, also for $1,000, if by 2012, any of the above becomes true.

     Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/14/2009 @ 10:45pm

     of course they're not going to happen.

     oh well, who cares about our kids!

     <i>i'm melting!!!!!!</i>

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:15pm

146. And if the entire world adopts socialized medicine, you can say good-bye to new drug development and for that matter, medical advances of ANY kind.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:00pm

     as usual you are so wrong:

     RESEARCHERS DEVELOP BREAKTHROUGH

     Sarnia Observer - 16 hours ago

     Researchers at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute have developed a breakthrough discovery that helps grow new blood vessels and holds hope for repairing heart damage.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:19pm

147. Research network to study long-term safety of drugs taken by Canadians

     The Canadian Press - 6 hours ago

     TORONTO - The federal government is committing tens of millions of dollars for a network to research the long-term safety of prescription drugs taken by Canadians, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced Wednesday.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20pm

148. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:15pm

     "oh well, who cares about our kids!"

     Obviously, not a whole hell of a lot of the people responsible for voting in the government that is currently running up multi-trillion dollar deficits, or who designed the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Ponzi schemes that are scheduled to implode about the time the last baby boomer kicks the bucket. Tough luck kids! Shit happens!

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20pm

149. Avanza Cuba en pruebas de vacuna contra cáncer de prostata

     AVANZA CUBA EN PRUEBAS DE VACUNA CONTRA CáNCER DE PRóSTATA

     La Habana, (NTX).- Cuba anunció hoy que una vacuna terapéutica contra el cáncer de próstata, segunda causa de muerte de hombres en la isla, cumplió con "resultados satisfactorios" su primera fase de prueba.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:23pm

150. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:20pm

     FROSTY, I think you should take it as a point of national pride to refuse to take any drug that was not developed in Canada. That'll show us!

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:23pm

151. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:23pm

     Ah, Cuba again, one of your favorite countries. Give us another round of 'they hain't slaves, Massa, they don't WANT to leave!!!...see, they gots FREE HEALTH CARE!!! well, except for those greedy ones on the rafts, but they don't count!!! They're probably all Republicans!!!" LOL

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:26pm

152. Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:23pm

     i don't get sick.

     can i borrow your head, ponti?

     i need to knock on wood.

     nonetheless, what you said about socialized medicine not leading to research is obviously dumb.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:26pm

     compare to haiti.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:34pm

153. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 11:34pm

     "nonetheless, what you said about socialized medicine not leading to research is obviously dumb."

     Oh, is it? Why don't you provide me a list of all the medical breakthroughs created under socialized medical systems then? Go ahead. I'll wait here.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:57pm

154. Think about how much Govt. money is already pumped into the healthcare system in the US. Would the system survive if all Govt. health programs were eliminated?

     Would the HMOs and insurance companies be able to sustain it at the present costs?

     Posted by koroviev at 01/15/2009 @ 12:01am

155. "European Union countries are close to agreeing upon minimum energy performance standards for televisions, according to reports this week in the British press. It's likely the largest plasma models will be outlawed under the new requirements because of the extraordinary amount of electricity these units consume."

     http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.

     com/2009/01/14/on-the-heels-

     of-a-bulb-ban-europe-mulls-pulling-the-plug-on-large-plasma-tvs/?em

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 12:59am

156. Oh, is it? Why don't you provide me a list of all the medical breakthroughs created under socialized medical systems then? Go ahead. I'll wait here.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/14/2009 @ 11:57pm

     sorry, there's a 1800 character limit.

     way back i spammed about 10 posts worth.

     you know how to use google.

     anyhoo:

     CIHR funds a spectrum of strategic research initiatives in ACAHO member institutions that cover a broad range of disciplines and 2005 Scientists show that early surgical removal of the spleen combined with antiangiogenic therapy, which arrests the growth of tumour-feeding blood vessels, may stop the progression of leukemia. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Using neuropsychological testing, researchers accurately predict which study participants will develop Alzheimer's disease within five and 10 years. Previous studies were able to predict Alzheimer's only for shorter periods of time; other studies showed predictions for 10 and even 15 years, but these did not indicate the predictive accuracy of the tests. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Identified novel mutations in the gene that causes Rett Syndrome. The discovery is now licenced as a test for the disorder and is available to the public. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Initiation of first human clinical gene therapy trials for lipoprotein lipase deficiency. (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Children's Hospital – Vancouver, British Columbia) 2006 Discovery of the precise molecular chain of events that initiates the wide-scale immune destruction of "super bug" infections such as flesh-eating disease, toxic shock syndrome and severe food poisoning. (Robarts Research Institute -- Lo

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:14am

157. 39 005 In the first trial of its kind in the world, researchers begin treating prostate cancer using a 3-D image-guided radiation therapy device that was developed in Canada. This non-surgical technique allows oncologists to visualize the exact position of the target and deliver precise external beam radiation therapy. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Key discovery in Type-1 Diabetes proves the repair process is present within the pancreas during disease development. Understanding the repair process could be the key to successful treatment. (Ottawa Health Research Institute -- Ottawa, Ontario) 2005 Study determines that a specific enzyme, known as pro-protein convertase 4 (PC4) may be responsible for fetal growth restriction, the second leading cause of infant mortality in the developed world. Knowledge may lead to screening for the defective enzyme early in the pregnancy and provide the ability to monitor the pregnancy more closely. (Ottawa Health Research Institute -- Ottawa, Ontario)

     MOVING AT THE SPEED OF DISCOVERY: 2005 Scientists show that early surgical removal of the spleen combined with antiangiogenic therapy, which arrests the growth of tumour-feeding blood vessels, may stop the progression of leukemia. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Using neuropsychological testing, researchers accurately predict which study participants will develop Alzheimer's disease within five and 10 years. Previous studies were able to predict Alzheimer's only for shorter periods of time; other studies showed predictions for 10 and even 15 years, but these did not indicate the predictive accuracy of the tests. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2005 Identified novel mut

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:14am

158. 004 Discovery of the apelin receptor and design of an analogue that can interfere with and block the actions of apelin, in order to decipher its role in the brain. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health -- Toronto, Ontario) 2004 Discovery of over 70 novel human receptor genes; many of which, together with their chemical activators, mediate unique functions in the brain and are being targeted for drug design. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health -- Toronto, Ontario) 2004 In the first large, multi-centre clinical trial of its kind, researchers provided evidence to suggest that artery grafts from the forearm should be used in place of vein grafts from the leg in heart bypass surgery because radial arteries have significantly higher graft patency over one year. Graft patency, a measure of whether the bypass remains open enough to permit efficient blood flow, is critical to success after surgery. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2004 A research team finds magnetic resonance imaging detects more breast cancer tumors, earlier, compared with mammography, ultrasound or clinical examination in women with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This finding offers hope to genetically at-risk women, and gives them an alternative to removing both breasts. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2004 World's first use of beads of palladium, a low-dose radioactive material, to treat women with breast cancer on an outpatient basis. This therapy holds the promise of eliminating anguishing side effects and considerably enhancing the women's quality of life. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2004 Demonstration of an association between pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) and the Epstein-Barr virus, indicati

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:15am

159. 38 2003 Identification of a cancer stem cell responsible for brain tumors. This discovery may change how this deadly condition is studied and treated in the future. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Linkage of maternal folic acid intake to a decrease in neuroblastoma, a deadly childhood cancer. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Performed the world's first hospital-to-hospital telerobotic assisted surgery on a patient more than 400 kilometres away. During the procedure, they completed a Nissen Fundoplication on a 66-year old patient located at North Bay General Hospital from St. Joseph's telerobotics suite in Hamilton, Ontario. (St. Joseph's Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario).

     2003 Developed a genetically modified vaccine that can completely prevent the recurrence of metastatic breast cancer through genetically altered cells that only destroy cancer cells. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario) 2003 Developed first draft DNA sequence for coronavirus implicated as cause of SARS (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Cancer Agency, Genome Sciences Centre – Vancouver, British Columbia) 2003 Found that the vast majority of heart attacks can be predicted by nine easily measurable factors that are the same in virtually every region and ethnic group worldwide. (Hamilton Health Sciences/ McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario) 2004 Performed the world's first simulated underwater surgery during the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operation (NEEMO 7). During the 10-day NEEMO 7 Mission, they successfully telementored the NEEMO7 crew through various surgical simulations from their base in the underwater Aquarius habitat located 19 metres below the surface off the coast of Key largo, Flo

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:15am

160. 38 003 Major international clinical trial provides first alternative treatment to taxol for preventing breast cancer recurrence in survivors five years post diagnosis. (University Health Network -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Compilation of the complete DNA sequence of chromosome 7. Researchers decode nearly all of the genes on this medically important portion of the human genome. Chromosome 7 contains 1,455 genes, some of which, when altered, cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis, leukemia and autism. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Study makes it easier to identify patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), providing faster diagnosis and significant savings to the health care system. (Ottawa Health Research Institute -- Ottawa, Ontario) 2003 Performed the world's first deep brain stimulation for depression, causing depression that was previously treatment-resistant to go into remission. (University Health Network -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Identification of a cancer stem cell responsible for brain tumors. This discovery may change how this deadly condition is studied and treated in the future. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Linkage of maternal folic acid intake to a decrease in neuroblastoma, a deadly childhood cancer. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 2003 Performed the world's first hospital-to-hospital telerobotic assisted surgery on a patient more than 400 kilometres away. During the procedure, they completed a Nissen Fundoplication on a 66-year old patient located at North Bay General Hospital from St. Joseph's telerobotics suite in Hamilton, Ontario. (St. Joseph's Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario).

     2003 Developed a genetically modified vaccine that can completely prevent the recurrence of

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:17am

161. Tissue factor is a cell surface membrane protein involved in the initiation of blood clotting. Overexpression or increased activation of tissue factor can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. The research group demonstrated that overexpression of GRP78 (a protein), can block the coagulant activity of tissue factor in human cells. These studies are important because they have identified a relevant cellular factor that can mediate tissue factor activity. (Hamilton Health Sciences Centre -- Hamilton, Ontario) 2001 Identified the emerging role that albuminuria as an important risk factor for both kidney and heart disease. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario) 2002 Introduction of revolutionary medication doses for depression and schizophrenia through positron emission tomography (PET) technology. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health -- Toronto, Ontario) 2002 Creation of a simple system to generate T-cells in a Petri dish. T-cells are a vital component of the immune system that orchestrate, regulate and coordinate the overall immune response. This discovery provided a method to create model systems to study the genetics and molecular biology of T-cell development and points to future clinical therapies for people whose immune systems have been destroyed, for example, by HIV or toxic cancer therapies. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute -- Toronto, Ontario) 2002 Discovery that a type of self-destructing "suicide cell" activity, previously believed to only be detrimental, is in fact necessary for the proper formation of muscle tissue. (Ottawa Health Research Institute -- Ottawa, Ontario) 2002 Pioneered the use of Botulinum Toxin A to reduce upper limb spasticity in children with cerebral palsy. (Bloorview Kids Re

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:17am

162. 37 1999 First islet transplant under the Edmonton protocol for Type I diabetes. Islet transplantation had been performed under other protocols; however, the Edmonton protocol produced unprecedented levels of success in the field of islet transplantation. (Capital Health/University of Alberta -- Edmonton, Alberta) 1999 World's first closed chest robotic-assisted beating heart coronary artery bypass graft conducted. (Lawson Health Research Institute -- London, Ontario) 1999 Identification of ABCA-1 gene – key regulator of HDL concentrations in humans. (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Children's Hospital – Vancouver, British Columbia) 2000 Discovery of the mechanism of formation of amyloid, the basis of Alzheimer's and other diseases, and the subsequent development of drugs to treat this. (Kingston General Hospital -- Kingston, Ontario) 2001 Discovery of a clinical rule that may reduce use of unnecessary x-rays for low-risk neck injuries and could aid in reducing use of imaging tests in alert and stable patients. (Ottawa Health Research Institute -- Ottawa, Ontario)

     2001 Development of the first animal model for Hepatitis C in mice, using transplanted human cells, providing a convenient way to test new treatments for Hepatitis C. (Capital Health/University of Alberta -- Edmonton, Alberta) MOVING AT THE SPEED OF DISCOVERY:

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:17am

163. 1993 Discovery of a novel gene associated with Lou-Gehrig's disease. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute -- Montreal, Quebec) 1994 World's first three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound-guided cryosurgery. (Lawson Health Research Institute – London, Ontario) 1994 Solved the 30-year old puzzle of why so many people suffer an allergic reaction when they receive a blood transfusion. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario) 1995 First physical map of the human genome created. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute -- Montreal, Quebec) 1995 Discovery of the gene associated with localized muscular dystrophy. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute -- Montreal, Quebec) 1996 Identification of a human blood cell that regenerates the entire blood system. This discovery enabled the development of new treatments for blood diseases such as leukemia, thalassemia and sickle cell anemia. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 1996 Identification of a gene that causes colon cancer. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among Canadians. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario) 1998 Developed the first trophoblast stem cells – the precursors of cells that form the placenta. Since the placenta is critical for a successful pregnancy, this discovery will have a major impact on research to understand and ultimately prevent pregnancy complications resulting from a failure in normal placental function. (Mount Sinai Hospital -- Toronto, Ontario) 1998 Discovery of the first gene that causes Lafora disease, one of the most severe forms of teenage- onset epilepsy. (Hospital for Sick Children -- Toronto, Ontario)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:18am

164. http://www.acaho.org/docs/pdf_2007_nov_matsd_progresser_en.pdf

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:18am

165. hey, ponti kneejerk. you may need this one day:

     1965 First artificial knee joint in the world created. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute -- Montreal, Quebec)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:19am

166. 1987 First aortic valve replacement in the world using the Toronto Heart Valve, which is now used worldwide. (University Health Network -- Toronto, Ontario)

     1987 World's first pacemaker cardioverter defibrillator is implanted. (Lawson Health Research Institute -- London, Ontario)

     dick cheney, are you listening?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:21am

167. The "mandates" to buy private for profit insurance, are simply gifts to the insurance companies. That is NOT universal healthcare by any stretch. Single payer, not for profit healthcare is the way to go, see HR 676 a bill by Conyers and Kucinich. It can be googled. The present system, uses 17% of the GDP of this country. (Mike Levitt HHS Sec.) For that, we are getting 85% coverage, and a large part of those "covered" have very poor policies. The rest of the modern world countries use an average of 10% of GDP, and cover 100% of their people. They live an average of three years longer than Americans. There are no bankruptcies for healthcare bills in any of those countries, while half of all bankruptcy claims in the US are health cost related. Much information is available at the physicians for a national health plan site, pnhp.org. The private for profit "system" we have now, is selling you a Cadillac, but what you are really getting is a Yugo with fins.

     Posted by willhort at 01/15/2009 @ 03:11am

168. lvliberty1 at 01/14/2009 @ 7:42pm

     not a joking matter.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 8:33pm *************************************************************

     The jokes were my fault.

     I was going to write, "I can tell you from experience that when it comes to having strange men put their "tools" in your rectum, you don't want to leave that sort of thing to an amature."

     No, I don't have any experience with that sort of thing, but while it's pretty funny, I thought it too over the top to be worth the laugh.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 06:46am

169. WHy do you think people go to Canada to get medications for about the third of the price they have to pay here?

     Posted by demogorgon1 at 01/14/2009 @ 10:48pm

     Because Canada's economy is too small to matter.

     Canada's population is approximately 30 million: the US is approximately 300 million. Canada has a law that limits the price of prescription drugs so that there can be no cross-subsidy. If a drug company devolops a successful drug, it can recoup development costs. If it plows $100 million into a drug the FDA doesn't approve, Canada won't allow the company to recoupe that cost on the successful drugs.

     Consequently, there is effectively no drug development occurring in Canada.

     The reason some Americans go to Canada to illegally smuggle price-fixed drugs back into the US is because they judge that the risk of being caught breaking the law is worth the money they save. It's kind of like the people who smuggle ciggarettes or booze.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:00am

170. way back i spammed about 10 posts worth.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:14am

     Yada, yada, yada whatever. I didn't see any thing in that list that gives old men boners!

     America, Fuck Yeah!

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:07am

171. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:07am

     On a serious note, US drug companies did consider cutting off Canada from US Drugs. The bootlegging was cutting in to profits and it would have been better, economically, to cut Canada off completely than to cut their US margin through the smuggling. The Canadian government had to agree to anti-traficing safeguards in order to secure medication for their population.

     The other bad thing is that under socialized medicine it is politicians who decide what get's researched. That's good if you're a woman because about 10 times as much money goes to breast cancer research as prostate cancer research.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:19am

172. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 01:21am

     I'll give you the aortic replacement and the artificial knee. It's worth noting, however, that the knee was over 40 years ago and the aorta was 21 years ago. Got anything recent?

     Plus, we were talking about drugs, remember? How many drugs has Canada developed under its idiotic, socialistic 'people not profit' regime? None, I wager. The fact is, you lefties whine all day about the profit motive but it's the very fact that it exists that sustains you. All your models for a profitless society wither away and die ignominiously and yet you still pine for them, or a world than never can and never will exist.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 07:42am

173. Got anything recent?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 07:42am

     you obviously need some medication for braindeadedness:

     Posted by me at 01/15/2009 @ 01:14am - 01:17am

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 09:23am

174. That's good if you're a woman because about 10 times as much money goes to breast cancer research as prostate cancer research.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:19am

     i guess not in cuba:

     AVANZA CUBA EN PRUEBAS DE VACUNA CONTRA CáNCER DE PRóSTATA

     La Habana, (NTX).- Cuba anunció hoy que una vacuna terapéutica contra el cáncer de próstata, segunda causa de muerte de hombres en la isla, cumplió con "resultados satisfactorios" su primera fase de prueba.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 09:25am

175. i guess there haven't been any new weapons systems developed in the u.s. since it has A PUBLICLY FUNDED WAR MACHINE.

     do you think drug companies are going to quit because someone else is paying them?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 09:27am

176. Because Canada's economy is too small to matter.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 07:00am

     who is america's largest trading partner, a country with which the u.s. runs a trade deficit?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 09:29am

177. JOMAMMA is, as he has confessed to being, a guy with massive manboobs. But he also fancies himself as a tuff anti-Statist libertarian, although he has no fucking idea what any of his own words mean since he is just immitating what someone else has said. So, here a few doozies from JOMAMMA that I have re-worded for him:

     JO: "You bet...all these fine workers now work for the govt!!!!"

     Think: USMC. Or Army. Navy. How about Air National Guard that spent a cool million training 20-something drunkard George W Loser to "protect" Texas from the menace of Ho's non-existent air force.

     "I only hope they will be unionised AND GI-BILLED and use the model of efficiency demonstrated in the Post Office and" in military procurement with its $500 hammers and $1000 rolls of tiolet paper.

     "Will they get spiffy uniforms?...Or even better, right before elections..the threat of a strike" against the asshole dictator-du-jour whom Rush's listeners had never heard of a day before--but aginst whom they now anger loudly & on cue.

     Following JOMAMMA's rigid anti-guv stance, he really means: "Will each new govt worker IN THE ARMED FORCES get a sign or pin...that they can turn around that says, 'ON BREAK'?"

     When you say US military, according to JO, "Think Post Office..(or) the blue haired old lady as the hand pops up and says STOP at the CHECKPOINT, the GUN comes out of the new uniformed pocket, and scribbles placed on the WATER-boarding pass and a hand wave to come through as the ever eagle eye suspiciously checks out grandma as she passes OUT UNDER TORTURE...meanwhile, the bomb materials the NEO-CON sends through on spot checks goes bye un noticed or recognized...can hardly wait..but..it will be free"

     Right on, JO. Guvt workers suck ass. The guvt can't do anything rite!

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/15/2009 @ 10:35am

178. "Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

     ...

     Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

     HEY JOM, those are the stats our current healthcare system has gotten us. If we keep it up we might meet up with the non-industrialized countries in 20 years."

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 09:37am

     If inefficient and redundant private-sector bureacracy that has reached the bloated size of JOMAMMA's manboobs worked as well as he insists it does while he is reading from 25 year old Reagan talking points, it would be total child's play to dmonstrate its superiority over other western industrial states.

     Yet, we never hear a peep about why the private system is better in performance terms from the man boob boy or any of his fellow travellers, just the occasional anecdotes about people who travelled to say Michigan for an esssential nosejob. If the private system worked better, USA would be No.1 in health perfromance across the board, case closed, and the likes of JOMAMMA could just wheel out an forbiding array of facts.

     Instead, it is facts that they desperately and pathetically seek to avoid, with the ferocity of John "I am not a member of a party" McCain avoiding George W Loser during the '08 campaign.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/15/2009 @ 10:45am

179. good work frosty. it shows that answering even that braindead creep like Ponti, can have informative results.

     moi, I just ignore the bastard.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 11:43am

180. 137 years ago. gov't health insurance. Prussia.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 11:45am

181. we are often told we as a country cannot afford to insure everyone.

     well all those other countries seem to able to afford it.

     as long as the US strides the globe with its imperialistic policy and its imperialistic soldiers, that excuse is probably true.

     since it is becoming obvious that this imperialism is not affordable anyway, perhaps something can be done for our people.

     I don't give a rat's ass who governs Iraq or Afghanistan, or most of the world for that matter.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 12:08pm

182. <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 09:27am </i>

     This is slightly inaccurate. The war machine as a whole is not completely publicly funded. Corporations are actually responsible for making weapons systems, and they may be eligible for contracts with the government.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2009 @ 12:14pm

183. Two interesting headlines this morning:

     "Coldest winter in 95 years for Flint, Michigan"

     "Chicago Most Consecutive Days of Snowfall Since Recordkeeping Began in 1895"

     "40 below zero in the Midwest"

     and a bulletin from La-La Land:

     "Waxman Promises Swift Action On Global Warming"

     LOL

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:29pm

184. Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 12:08pm

     "we are often told we as a country cannot afford to insure everyone."

     You wackos just can't resist the straw man arguments, can you? Of course you can't. If you weren't tilting at windmills, the world would make no sense to you.

     The fact is, most people are already insured. Most of those who are uninusred are illegal aliens.

     "well all those other countries seem to able to afford it."

     They also don't pay anything for their own national defense, e.g., Canada.

     "as long as the US strides the globe with its imperialistic policy and its imperialistic soldiers, that excuse is probably true."

     Well, it will be so long as you cling to your America-hating delusions, which is probably forever.

     "I don't give a rat's ass who governs Iraq or Afghanistan, or most of the world for that matter."

     Niiiiiiiiiice.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:33pm

185. we are often told we as a country cannot afford to insure everyone.

     well all those other countries seem to able to afford it.

     as long as the US strides the globe with its imperialistic policy and its imperialistic soldiers, that excuse is probably true.

     since it is becoming obvious that this imperialism is not affordable anyway, perhaps something can be done for our people.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 12:08pm

     Ummm...have you actually checked the deficits that the health care systems are running up in France and Britain? 11.6 billion euros in 2006 in France (10.5billion in 2005) and 500million pounds for Britain in 2005...even Sweden and Germany have been runnning deficits for "decades" according to articles easily found on the web...

     Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 1:09pm

186. Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:29pm

     Okay, PONTI...who's going to oppose Waxman?

     The 2008 GOP nominee for President said (as recently as a few months ago) that Global Warming is real and caused by man.

     So, who's going to step up and stop Waxman and his tree-huggers? James Inhofe and a few ditto-heads and Glenn Beck fans?

     See, I don't know where you get "straw man" from my argument...since it was a BET, not an argument.

     Bet me $1000 that the 2012 GOP nominee for President is going to deny Global Warming (aka what you call "the truth") if you think you and those like you still have any influence in this country on climate change.

     Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 1:12pm

187. and they may be eligible for contracts with the government.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2009 @ 12:14pm

     exactly, with public money.

     the semi-private corporations have no qualms about taking public money.

     do drug companies not sell to medicare?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 1:45pm

188. Most of those who are uninusred are illegal aliens.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:33pm

     prove it.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 1:47pm

189. "Coldest winter in 95 years for Flint, Michigan" "Chicago Most Consecutive Days of Snowfall Since Recordkeeping Began in 1895" "40 below zero in the Midwest" and a bulletin from La-La Land: "Waxman Promises Swift Action On Global Warming" LOL

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:29pm

     all that cold humid air from the arctic has to go somewhere......

     besides, it's not global warming, it called "global climate f#$k up".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 1:48pm

190. we are often told we as a country cannot afford to insure everyone. well all those other countries seem to able to afford it. as long as the US strides the globe with its imperialistic policy and its imperialistic soldiers, that excuse is probably true. since it is becoming obvious that this imperialism is not affordable anyway, perhaps something can be done for our people. Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 12:08pm Ummm...have you actually checked the deficits that the health care systems are running up in France and Britain? 11.6 billion euros in 2006 in France (10.5billion in 2005) and 500million pounds for Britain in 2005...even Sweden and Germany have been runnning deficits for "decades" according to articles easily found on the web...

     Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 1:09pm

     sure thing, mr. kettle.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 1:49pm

191. The 2008 GOP nominee for President said (as recently as a few months ago) that Global Warming is real and caused by man.

     Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 1:12pm

     And a few years before that, the actual President said Saddam had WMD. That didn't make it true, did it? The Conservatives "won the war" about whether there were WMD in Iraq. The Lefties didn't even try to argue Saddam didn't have WMD. But despite winning a propagand war, that didn't mean they were right. Winning the argument over WMD in Iraq didn't create WMD in Iraq.

     Just because McCain is a fool doesn't mean we're all gonna die from Global Warming.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 1:59pm

192. Just because McCain is a fool doesn't mean we're all gonna die from Global Warming.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 1:59pm

     nope.

     we're just gonna get hungry and fight more stupid wars.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 2:15pm

193. LL - get yourself over to the gay bishop thread and answer my question about the biblical text you copied-and-pasted, the question i've asked you 5 times and that you've conveniently ignored--the one where you think jesus is telling you it's ok for you as a preacher to prevent people from attending church.

     I want your in-your-own-words account of what the two passages say, not just a copy-and-paste job that you think is self-explanatory (because it's not).

     Or are you a coward and taking the path of least resistance now preacher boy?

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 3:09pm

194. "How long have you hated the Sun and the seasons, not too mention the natural changes in our climate?"

     well - couldn't have hated them for longer than 6000 years right preacher boy?

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 3:11pm

195. I'm for all you old people who need drugs paying for them yourselves. I've been to the doctor three times in my life, and one of those includes the time I was born.

     Why should I pay for your health care? Here's an idea - maybe you're living too long!

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/15/2009 @ 3:21pm

196. Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 1:09pm

     deficits? hahahahaha. germany for one has had a balanced budget for some time. the current meltdown excepted.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 3:37pm

197. pssst, here's the secret. those countries can afford health care for their people, BECAUSE they are not attacking and occupying other countries. how much have those wars cost so far? how much more will they cost?

     let's compare shall we. 16 billion vs one trillion. no comparison, really.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 3:48pm

198. Since we cannot control these things, you would rather criticize mankind.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 2:57pm

     sure thing. humans are really smart and really, really dumb.

     didn't your boy call us a bunch of sinners?

     we can't control the climate but we can sure affect it.

     see cfc/ozone.......

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 4:02pm

199. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/15/2009 @ 1:59pm

     $1000...yours for the taking, Darin.

     IF your view on Global Warming ever gets the support of any major Republican...ever....again.

     And if not....then you don't matter, because your GW views and the policies that they support...are more impotent than people who want to bring back sodomy laws.

     Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 4:22pm

200. Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 1:09pm

     deficits? hahahahaha. germany for one has had a balanced budget for some time. the current meltdown excepted.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 3:37pm

     Healthcare Insurance Reforms in Germany

     Germany is heading towards a major healthcare financing reform to trim its healthcare cost. The German healthcare system was facing a deficit for the last couple of years and it amounted to $1.50 billion in the first quarter of 2006 and would have reached $8.75 billion by the end of the year. Thus, healthcare reforms had become inevitable.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 4:49pm

201. they are going to follow the US plan, right?

     hahahahaha, you are a joke.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 4:56pm

202. how many people are insured in germany? all of them.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 5:04pm

203. IF some one would answer this question, the answer to what is wrong with our healthcare system, would be so oblivious, some of the jokers participating in this discussion, might understand it. "What is insurance?" Look it up. it might enlighten you. If this is too much for you, please step aside.

     Posted by RobertB at 01/15/2009 @ 7:05pm

204. they are going to follow the US plan, right?

     hahahahaha, you are a joke.

     Posted by emile duBois at 01/15/2009 @ 4:56pm

     I don't care what their plan is...it's none of my business...I'm jujst exposing your lies...again

     those countries can't afford their health care like you said they could...I proved you wrong using their mounting deficits as evidence...

     If I'm a joke, then you're the whole fucking clown.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 7:06pm

205. Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire book]

     Yes, we need single-payer universal health care, but I'm concerned Congress won't stand up to Big Pharma and other huge corporate interests.

     Truly progressive reform must meet the following two principles:

     1. America needs universal health care--not health insurance companies.

     2. American employers (General Motors, etc.) must be removed from the health care business, which will make them more competitive globally.

     Unfortunately, it has been the kiss of death for political leaders to push progressive reform because Big Pharma and political forces on the right kill the messenger and sidetrack any serious policy debate on the merits.

     This is why so-called reform coming out of Congress keeps insurance companies in the business of screwing America.

     My views appear in: "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP's War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).

     You can download the entire book for FREE at www.bushleagueofnations.com.

     I ask for nothing in return, except that you perhaps use my book to help restore and build America.

     Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA "The Bush League of Nations" www.bushleagueofnations.com

     Posted by jswanson at 01/15/2009 @ 8:05pm

206. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/15/america/15venez.php

     For all you Chavez apologists/ass-kissers out there...

     Posted by usc1 at 01/15/2009 @ 8:40pm

207. I maintain, and the data backs me up that by addressing the epidemic growth of type 2 diabetes in this country, we would dramatically reduce health care costs.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     That post begs 2 VERY obvious questions Larry...

     What is the definition of the 'action' you call **addressing**?

     'Who', exactly, is going to be doing this **addressing**?

     (Hint - you can't define the 'action' of **addressing** as people making **free choices** for themselves... and you can't define the 'who' as **everybody** - as in **everybody** making **free choices** about their health and what they eat - because you've already said that that particular 'who' and 'action' is what caused the problem in the first place.)

     Posted by Lillian at 01/15/2009 @ 8:57pm

208. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @

     "prove it."

     1:47pm

     "Most of those who are uninusred are illegal aliens."

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 12:33pm

     August 28, 2007 Almost half of uninsured in America are illegal aliens - UPDATED II

     Poverty is down and median income is up, according to just released census figures 2006, Current Population Survey. (pdf) Reporting: Molly Henneberg, Fox News Channel.

     2006: number of uninsured in America 47 million people, or 15.8% of the population.

     2005: number of uninsured in America 44.8 million people, or 15.3% of the population.

     Joseph Antos, American Enterprise Institute, looks inside the numbers, because they are very misleading.

     uninsured who are NOT U.S. CITIZENS IS 45% of the 47 million.

     Broken down by age, 18 - 24 years old - 29.3% of the 47 million.

     25 - 35 years old - 26.9% of the 47 million.

     Broken down by salary, $75,000 or more per year - 8.5% of the 47 million.

     Did you get that? Almost half of the uninsured in America are not U.S. citizens

     Posted by pontificus at 01/15/2009 @ 9:12pm

209. non-citizen doesn't necessarily mean "illegal".

     An estimated 12.1 million legal permanent residents (LPRs) were living in the United States on January 1, 2006 (see Table 1)

     http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications /LPR_PE_2006.pdf

     students:

     More Than 565,000 International Students Enrolled In U.S. Institutions of Higher Education

     http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=69736

     guest workers:

     H-1B. The H-1B program admits up to 195,000 foreign professionals a year to fill jobs after US employers attest that they tried and failed to find US workers while offering prevailing wages. Employers file Labor Condition Applications, often by fax- DOL anticipates 63,000 US employers filing LCAs for 637,000 H-1B workers.

     http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=2275_0_2_0

     <<<<>>>>

     Based on the national census in 2000, the US Census Bureau puts the estimate of illegal immigrants at 8.7 million. As of 2003, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services put the number at 7 million.

     The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today.

     PONTI, DO RESEARCH BEFORE YOU QUOTE FAUXGNUS......

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 10:29pm

210. Our effect on the climate is so minimal as to be virtually non existent.

     •• HUMANS TURNED AUSTRALIA INTO A DESERT.

     The best scientific estimates I have seen that are even close to supportable put our impact at about 1% as a worst case scenario.

     •• YOU'VE SEEN? HARDEE HAR HAR.

     There are so many factors that have such a greater impact given the complexities of our climate, that it is in fact impossible to form any certainties that there is any impact of man to affect the global climate.

     •• SEE CFCS/OZONE.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/15/2009 @ 4:35pm

     ignorance is not bliss, larry.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2009 @ 10:32pm

211. A comprehensive system that covers absolutely everyone will not cost the general taxpayers a red cent. It gains a huge advantage from the enormous savings in overhead, and from the requirement that those with very large medical costs and high incomes must pay SOMETHING towards their care. Please email for details jerepst@att.net, and I will be happy to provide the plan. It has been costed out fairly thoroughly. J. Epstein

     Posted by jerepst at 01/15/2009 @ 11:20pm

212. A comprehensive system that covers absolutely everyone will not cost the general taxpayers a red cent.

     Posted by jerepst at 01/15/2009 @ 11:20pm

     That's just retarded.

     Do you honestly believe that if there was a perfect solution that was completely free, "those irrational, government hating Conservatives" would still oppose it?

     If you want to be takien seriously, don't pretend that you've come up with some secret, cost-free, easy solution to a problem that has confound milions of the world's smartest people for a century.

     I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is you've inherited $500,000,000 from your Nigerian uncle and if I send you my life savings to pay the tax you'll give me half of it. Only fools believe you can get something for nothing.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:17am

213. Here are our problems:

     1) America's extreme wealth has caused her to get fat and lazy. The number one health problem of America's poor is obesity.

     2) Medical costs have grown by double digit inflation because our system of employer provided health insurance has obscured the true price of care and has insulated too many American's from the economic consequences of their choices (both for care and livestyle).

     3) Medicare and Medicaid cover the healthcare costs of America's poorest citizens. It is the next tier of the socio-economic strata that find themselves without coverage. Escalating medical costs have priced them out of recieving coverage in the labor market.

     4) America's "decision" to tie healthcare insurance to employment was made during WWII as a loophole for giving raises when price controls forbid it. The 70-year old decision has created a competitive disadvantage to American goods in the world's markets.

     5) Any "solution" that does not recognize the obvious fact that different people are exposed to different risks is doomed to failure. There are limits to the amount of forced subsidy a market will tolerate before market participants make the economically rational choice to self-insure rather than pay the subsidy.

     6) Material subsidies must be enforced through The State's power to tax.

     7) Effective programs to get people to adopt helthier lifestyles will need to "entice" people to do so. They must be incented to choose healthier lifestyles. You're not going to get someone to lose weight by holding a gun to their head.

     8) Anybody who tells you that you can wave a magic wand and turn accountants into doctors and thus pay for healthcare through the saving in overhead is badly misinformed.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:36am

214. Regarding 5) and 6)...

     In theory, there is another option and that is to change the culture.

     I still pay the subsidy of UAW labor contracts because my dad taught me to "buy American". (Sorta. I pay for my wife's car and she's convinced that you have to buy foreign to get quality.)

     If you can create a sense of intense nationalism or a pride in a cultural identity that is "generous" or "caring" then you can get people to pay a susbidy willingly.

     I am of the opinion that our 300 million member culture is just too large and diverse to create the culture that you seek.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:43am

215. 4) America's "decision" to tie healthcare insurance to employment was made during WWII as a loophole for giving raises when price controls forbid it. The 70-year old decision has created a competitive disadvantage to American goods in the world's markets.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:36am

     I'm curious about this one.

     So are you saying there should be no employer-offered health care to restore our advantage in the world's markets?

     Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 09:10am

216. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

     So, let's review...

     1) You think Americans are fat - odd coming from someone who chooses to be called Fat Darin and who sings in chorus with a guy who admits to having 'man boobs' (John Maasch AKA Yomama)

     2)You also think Americans are too stupid to have noticed that health care costs have gone up becuase they are "masked". (Personally, I think most Americans have noticed Darin.)

     3) So you have no problem with socialized medicine for poor people - and admit that a large portion of the next economic group have been priced out of health care coverage. (Step one - admit you have a problem.)

     4) Mask has this one covered. (Personally, I think if Republicans tried to eliminate employer-paid health coverage, they wouldn't just be out of power - they'd be extinct!)

     5) This is what Larry calls 'lifestyle choices'. Congrats on joining the rest of us in wanting to discourage bad ones - like when we tax cigarette smoking. ( BTW - it's always those nasty 'neocons' who object to us doing stuff like that.)

     6) 'State's' as in the 50 different ones that make up our country? (which would result in 50 different levels of health care, obviously.) Or 'State's' as in the generic 'state' which the US government represents. (Either way, the wingnuts call using tax dollars for healthcare "socialized medicine" and would directly oppose you.)

     7) Setting aside the ridiculous rhetoric of "hold a gun to their head", what constitutes being "incented"? A pat on the head? Brownie points? Tax breaks - oh wait, that would be in direct conflict with your #6 above.

     8) OK, so #1 - #7 above were just so much 'magic wand waving and you are badly misinformed. Check.

     Posted by Lillian at 01/16/2009 @ 10:16am

217. Only fools believe you can get something for nothing.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:17am

     egad!

     fools are running the fed!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 10:18am

218. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 10:18am

     "Only fools believe you can get something for nothing. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 07:17am egad! fools are running the fed!"

     I think Mr. Epstein is quite representative of the type of people who vote Democratic. They really do believe that providing comprehensive health coverage to every American (and every illegal alien) 'will not cost one red cent'. Apparently, all we Americans have to do is close our collective eyes and tap our ruby slippers together three times, and of course, vote for whatever Democratic politican happens to be running, and voila! everything our little hearts desire is free! And they've got the plan to prove it! I wouldn't be surprised, frankly, if 'Epstein' was a pseudonym for one of our esteemed US Senators.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/16/2009 @ 10:54am

219. so, how many non-citizens are illegal again?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 11:08am

220. i think most people are ready to PAY for a good health care system.

     i think most people are tired of paying for death.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 11:09am

221. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 11:08am

     "so, how many non-citizens are illegal again?"

     Typical vacuous answer from you, FROSTY. How many people are here illegally? That's your question? How many crimes wen't unpunished last year? Estimates range from 10 to 30 million, but one thing that seems to go unchallenged is the 45 million uninsured Americans. So depending on who is doing the estimating, 25 to 75 percent of our uninsured problem consists of illegal aliens.

     I have to admit, your thinking seems to be filled with this question-begging, I don't know why it should be any different with health care issues.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/16/2009 @ 11:21am

222. So, PONTI, who pays NOW for the health care of the uninsured, when they get sick or hurt?

     Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 11:58am

223. So, PONTI, who pays NOW for the health care of the uninsured, when they get sick or hurt?

     Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 11:59am

224. So are you saying there should be no employer-offered health care to restore our advantage in the world's markets?

     Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 09:10am

     That's what I'm saying. There is no reason for health insurance to be tied to one's employer. I think individuals should have to purchase their own insurance.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/16/2009 @ 1:28pm

225. Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 11:59am

     "So, PONTI, who pays NOW for the health care of the uninsured, when they get sick or hurt?"

     Because of liberal policies, it is illegal for hospitals to turn away illegal immigrants. Many hospitals are closing emergency rooms simply because they have become unaffordable, and the average paying American cannot get treatment within a reasonable period in an emergency room. So, because your policies have become unworkable, that means we need must have more of them? Sounds like the CRA/subprime mess all over again.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/16/2009 @ 2:06pm

226. How much time do you conservatives spend posting on the Nation's website??? Its freakin' pathetic. Get a hobby, folks!

     Posted by soperja at 01/16/2009 @ 2:40pm

227. The govt is left with either a) recognize that in a free society people have a constitutional right to abuse their own bodies through poor health choices, or b) say they have no choices about their own body and the state owns their bodies and will force them into treatment if they do not take care of themselves.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/16/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     This is just BS - in the parlance of logic, it is called a 'false dichotomy'.

     See, there are more options than you a or b...and of course, you know it.

     Like with seat belts and the laws that go with them. We DIDN'T just have your simplistic and phoney a or b choice, did we Larry. We passed laws that said cars had to have seat belts and more laws that said those seat belts had to meet standards and more laws that said divers had to wear them...and the number of people surviving car crashes went up.

     http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage

     Same with smoking - we discovered smoking tobacco kills people, we passed taxes on them, used the money for education, passed laws against advertising cigarettes on TV, etc. and smoking declined...and continues to steadily decline.

     http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm

     Posted by Lillian at 01/16/2009 @ 4:02pm

228. (Hint - you can't define the 'action' of **addressing** as people making **free choices** for themselves... and you can't define the 'who' as **everybody** - as in **everybody** making **free choices** about their health and what they eat - because you've already said that that particular 'who' and 'action' is what caused the problem in the first place.)

     Posted by Lillian at 01/15/2009 @ 8:57pm

     Of course I can.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/16/2009 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     .

     And of course, you didn't!

     There is virtually NOTHING in what you posted that can be defined as **addressing** the problem of type 2 diabetes. Nothing. YOu claim it's a problem caused by people freely making bad choices, then stand firmly behind the notion of the 'rightness' of allowing people to freely make bad choices, even constructing a pathetic dichotomy with government making ALL choices for everyone.

     The closest you came to an action to **address** the problem was JFK's President's Council on Physical Fitness, which you then admitted "nobiody pays much attention to anymore".

     (BTW, I learned about in grammer school PE class - the same classes that are now being CUT nation wide because the educational funding cuts and unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind - that folks like you have pushed for the past decade - have left schools nationwide in such a bind.)

     (And you did notice that was an idea developed and put forward by a liberal President who then used the power and funding of the US government to make it happen - didn't you?)

     Posted by Lillian at 01/16/2009 @ 4:21pm

229. J.Epstein wrote: "A comprehensive system that covers absolutely everyone will not cost the general taxpayers a red cent."

     Absolute drivel.

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/16/2009 @ 5:22pm

230. Mask wrote: "So are you saying there should be no employer-offered health care to restore our advantage in the world's markets?" Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll wrote: "That's what I'm saying. There is no reason for health insurance to be tied to one's employer. I think individuals should have to purchase their own insurance." lvliberty1 wrote: "I second that motion."

     Darin and LL - you're against employers having the ability to offer their employers whatever sort of compensation they want to?

     Aren't you two free marketers? Employers offer health insurance because other employers offer it - it's competition. You know - good old capitalism at work.

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/16/2009 @ 5:36pm

231. if the market is free,

     how can you improve it?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 9:48pm

232. low- or non-fat foods.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/16/2009 @ 12:58pm

     no, no, no.

     your body needs fat. eat lots. (obviously good ones).

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 9:53pm

233. lillian's right.

     tax the hell out of junk food.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 9:55pm

234. As usual LL, you enjoy saying other people "miss your point" with an arrogant tone in order to preserve your ego. I didn't miss any point. I saw your point, and blew a hole through it. You say you want to "improve" the free market. Improve it how, through what process? If the free market wants to change it, it will change it.

     Unless you're advocating government mandated change?

     No conservative would do that to the free market, would he LL?

     haha, I love destroying your paper thin arguments (the very same ones you think are rock solid).

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/17/2009 @ 3:08pm

235. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/17/2009 @ 3:08pm </i>

     This is a silly response. It's not as though the free market is just this separate organism that improves and falters all on its own. What we call improvements in the free market arise when individuals see flaws in the way they're doing things and adapt. Beneficial adaptations will be more successful than harmful or neutral ones; that's what we call the free market. Therefore, saying "we should do X" is in no world exclusive with the free market unless you think that the free market depends on ideas not existing.

     Improving the free market thus means suggesting ways that people can do things more efficiently and better. That's what the free market is.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

236. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/17/2009 @ 3:08pm </i>

     This is a silly response. It's not as though the free market is just this separate organism that improves and falters all on its own. What we call improvements in the free market arise when individuals see flaws in the way they're doing things and adapt. Beneficial adaptations will be more successful than harmful or neutral ones; that's what we call the free market. Therefore, saying "we should do X" is in no world exclusive with the free market unless you think that the free market depends on ideas not existing.

     Improving the free market thus means suggesting ways that people can do things more efficiently and better. That's what the free market is.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

237. Improving the free market thus means suggesting ways that people can do things more efficiently and better. That's what the free market is.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

     but then you are intervening in the market's freedom.

     there is no such thing as a "free" market.

     or are you suggesting that laws be suggestions?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 5:43pm

238. so you agree that libertarianism is nonsense.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 7:57pm

239. <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 5:43pm </i>

     This response is no less silly than urmygyro's, unless you believe that an adjective must be absolute in order to mean anything. If I could be tall and still walk through an average-sized door, or be intelligent without being able to mathematically outclass Einstein, the market can be free without being utterly devoid of regulation.

     The point of a free market is not to have absolutely no regulation, it's to allow (to a large extent) individuals to engage in transactions with one another as they see fit. A free market doesn't mean there's no regulation, it means that there is substantially LESS regulation and a generally strong presumption towards free exchange.

     In this particular case, no one was talking about a coercive measure. What Liberty was defending was in fact the exact way that the market works: an individual spotting a flaw, advocating that other individual actors voluntarily do things differently so as to correct the flaw, and allowing the process of free exchange to vindicate or falsify his claim.

     <i>Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 7:57pm </i>

     Well, it is, but not for the reasons you've provided.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2009 @ 9:23pm

240. so let's not call it "free".

     how about "unhindered"?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 10:44pm

241. "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist,"

     thomas friedman (jerk -- he's calls the gaza squishing "a lesson" -- still, the above quote is funny in a sad way)

     <<<<>>>>

     http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0737/tmw-big.jpg

     the hidden hand speaks!

     <<<<>>>>

     http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0717/tmw-big.jpg

     ban the suggestions!

     <<<<>>>>

     http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/07/09/tomo/story.jpg

     the enchanted land of the free market!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 11:00pm

242. run for your life!

     http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/12/09/tomo/story.jpg

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 11:03pm

243. Thrawn and LL - you two don't pay much attention to the theme of the thread, do you?

     It's about government mandated change to how health insurance works. You two say you want private employers to stop offering health insurance.

     Hello! They can do that any time they want, any time.

     You shouldn't be on The Nation trying to convince people who believe government can help the people - you're not going to convince anyone here that you're right. Where you two should be is websites for big corporations and local chambers of commerce, etc. arguing to businesses to stop offering health insurance.

     Good luck (oh, that's right - you two don't want to take up an actual cause, you'd rather bitch and moan on a liberal website about progressive politics -- you two are individuals, and apparently you "see flaws in the way they're doing things and adapt" as thrawn puts it.

     So what's the adaptation? Who are you getting to change? Is your master plan to post anonymously on a progressive blog?

     Both your arguments wouldn't be so easy to flick away like a gnat if there was any credibility to your words--they are hollow.

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 12:49pm

244. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 12:49pm </i>

     Let me be very clear. I'm not at all sure I agree with Liberty that employers shouldn't offer health insurance. I understand why I might have conveyed that impression, since I came into back up part of Liberty's argument, but I don't really defend that myself.

     What also puzzles me, though, is that your position literally seems to be "don't make an argument to a forum that disagrees with you." Sooo...discourse? How does that happen, exactly? Not when you just preach to the choir.

     As far as an actual solution goes...you're right. Posting here, even if it makes people rethink things, probably wouldn't change how businesses do business. Though that may be a fair criticism to us as individuals (though, again, Liberty and I probably disagree here), it's NOT a criticism of the POSITION. What WOULD alter the status quo, as you yourself point out, is advocating to those businesses themselves. The interesting part is...by making that point, you've conceded the very premise of the argument that you were attacking. Why? Because you recognize that things can change based on people's free choice to change them, instead of government coercing them to. That's what the free (or "unhindered," if you prefer, which is actually a synonym anyway if not an even more extreme connotation than free) market means!

     The point is this: clearly, the notion of an absolutely free market, without any governmental infrastructure, is madness. That isn't what either of us defends. What we would just ask people to recognize though, is that the remedy for a problem is not automatically asking the government to solve it. That's it.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 1:17pm

245. I'm not arguing the relative definitions of the term "free" - you guys decided to go down that road yourself.

     I simply pointed out that employers are already "free" to stop offering health insurance if they want to. Who's stopping them? The government isn't, only the "free" market is, i.e. - competition.

     It's "silly" to go on a progressive website and anonymously argue that employers should stop offering health insurance to employees. Who's it going to convince? Or is one here simply to piss against the wind?

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 2:24pm

246. Thrawn wrote: 'the remedy for a problem is not automatically asking the government to solve it."

     As LL is so fond of accusing others - "straw man!"

     No, I don't think it's really a straw man argument, but I do think you're assuming all people who think universal health care is good are simply not thinking about the possible solutions. Just as many people who think single payer insurance is the best option have thought about the possibilities and landed on it as people who think private insurance only is the best option have thought about the possibilities and landed on it.

     Besides, saying that you think people are "automatically asking the government to solve it" is a loaded way to phrase it. It's not even the government solving it--it's a decision that health insurance is as important as defense, as interstate infrastructure, as medicare/medicaid, etc. - and that all people should have to add to to the pot, via taxes, for the common good.

     But you'd rather say anyone who takes the position that universal health care is good is simply asking to be bailed out. Not so.

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 2:31pm

247. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 2:31pm </i>

     I hate to get into this, but...technically Frosty started it by challenging whether what we were defending (in different ways) was really a "free market." Though you also got in the bit about "improvement" meaning something only if government acted. As I think we've shown, that's clearly false.

     My response is not to all individuals advocating universal health care. It's to those (including you, as the above-referenced post suggests) who think that the only way to "improve" upon the status quo market is to impose changes from otuside.

     Finally, universal health care IS about the government in some way solving the problem. It's not enough to say "this is as improtant as defense, infrascture, etc.," because importance is NEVER a sufficient criterion for government intervention. It's equally crucial that government action (in whatever form it takes) would be both justified and more efficacious than a lack thereof.

     I recognize that universal health care is a hotly debated issue (and I've waffled on where I stand here; Europe's numbers, though partially explicable through other factors, hardly strike me as meaningless). All I'm saying is that when the market works, it works by improvements encouraged by free individuals within it. There are many avenues of life for which that system works (though obviously SOME rules still have to exist), and I'm simply saying that this should be taken into consideration. If there's anywhere this basic theory argument should be made, it's a website where a large number of people disagree with it.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 7:32pm

248. Thrawn - you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never said gov't run universal health care is the only way--it is the way I like.

     Where does it say importance is never a sufficient criterion for government intervention?

     Oh, that's right - it's YOUR made-up rules!

     By your own rules (of debate) I'm an individual voicing my opinion.

     boo-ya!

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 7:59pm

249. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 7:59pm </i>

     On the universal health care thing...I'm neither defending or attacking universal health care per se; I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it. What I'm answering is your bizarre interpretation of what the free market means. The point of the framework argument is to show that, contrary to your EXPLICIT claim, the status quo of a free market can be improved using the market itself. You explicitly challenged that by saying that if Liberty was defending "improving" the status quo that the free market has helped produce, that improvement had to come from the government in some way in order to mean anything.

     As for the "importance" argument: wait, what? Importance is CLEARLY not a sufficient criterion for government intervention. How do we know this? Because whenever we're trying to decide whether the government should intervene into something, we first ask whether the government is actually capable of doing so better than the free market would. Any policy analyst who ignored that criteria and said "just ask whether it's important" would and should be fired on the spot and never work for any position in the House with a position higher than garbage collector. So, no, "health care is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT" is not sufficient to justify ANY form of government intervention into the health-care system.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 9:45pm

250. Thrawn - you've read a whole bunch of b.s. into what I wrote.

     I simply stated if companies want to stop offering health insurance to employees they can stop - no one is stopping them. They are FREE to stop offering health insurance.

     All the other stuff you've focused on has no direct bearing on that point.

     Thrawn wrote: "we first ask whether the government is actually capable of doing so better than the free market would."

     What's this "free market" you speak of now (after saying there is none)?

     Thanks champ!

     Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 10:45pm

251. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 01/18/2009 @ 10:45pm </i>

     All right...so I'm becoming uncertain precisely where this discussion is even going. Since you haven't tried to re-defend your "where is this 'importance isn't a sufficient criterion' written? Oh yeah, your rules!" argument, I'll just skip to the free market stuff.

     Basically, I just keep getting the feel that you're trying to argue against normative argument. Saying "the free market should do X" doesn't reduce down to either coercion or meaninglessness unless you similarly believe that innovation doesn't exist or can never be introduced into the system.

     As for denying that there's a free market...really? No. You're either making the "free=absolutely free" argument, which is silly, or else I have no clue what in the world you're saying here.

     Let me try for some clarity by asking you two questions:

     1) Do you think that importance of an objective is sufficient reason for government to intervene in that objective?

     2) What do you think the phrase "free market" means, if anything? What meaning do you think I'm defending?

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2009 @ 03:44am