A Real Win for Single-Payer Advocates

Canada did not establish its national health care program with a bold, immediate political move by the federal government.

The initial progress came at the provincial level, led by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation's Tommy Douglas when he served from 1941 to 1960 premier of Saskatchewan. The universal, publicly-funded "single-payer" health care system that Douglas and his socialist allies developed in Saskatchewan proved to be so successful and so popular that it was eventually adopted by other provinces and, ultimately, by Canada's federal government.

For his efforts, Douglas would be hailed in a national survey as "The Greatest Canadian" of all time. But Douglas' regional initiative also offers a lesson for Americans.

Those of us who know that the only real cure for what ails the U.S. health care system is a universal public plan that provides health care for all Americans while controlling costs recognize the frustrating reality that there are many economic and political barriers to the federal action that would create a single-payer system. This makes clearing the way experimentation at the state level all the more important.

And, remarkably, the forces of real reform have won a congressional victory on that front, a victory that ought not be underestimated.

By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House's health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.

"There are many models of health care reform from which to choose around the world – the vast majority of which perform far better than ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is single-payer," explained Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who proposed the amendment. "Under a single-payer system everyone in the U.S. would get a card that would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance payments would be in the public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the U.S."

Votes for the amendment came from progressive Democrats who favor single-payer -- such as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey, of California, and Raul Grijalva, of Arizona -- as well as conservative Republicans who have no taste for single-payer but want states to be able to set their own agendas.

Opposition to the amendment came mainly from Democrats such as committee chair George Miller, of California, who have resisted moves to create more flexible, innovation-friendly legislation.

The Education and Labor Committee -- one of three in the House with jurisdiction over health care -- then apporved the amended America's Affordable Health Choices Act, H.R. 3200, by a vote of 26-22.

The campaign for to add the amendment was advanced by a number of groups, in particular Progressive Democratic of America, which mounted a last-minute campaign to sway Democratic members of the House committee. PDA Tim Carpenter is right when he says: "This is a victory for single-payer advocates. Our job in the ensuing weeks will be to ensure that this amendment does not get stripped from the final legislation."

And they will have powerful allies who will fight to preserve the amendment.

After the committee vote, Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, said, "This is a historic moment for patients, for American families, and for the tens of thousands of nurses and other single-payer activists from coast to coast who can now work in state capitols to pass single-payer bills, the strongest, most effective solution of all to our healthcare crisis."

De Moro gets it.

Allowing states to do what is necessary to provide high-quality yet affordable health care for all -- even as a federal plan falls short of that goal -- opens up vital new avenues for promoting, and actually implementing, single-payer systems.

Comments (358)

1. "Canada did not establish its national health care program with one bold political move. "

   They didn't?!??!?!?

   Gee, I was under the impression that folks up in Canada were used to bold, swift, non-namby pamby, immediate and radical change in their politics...

   and expected the same from others as well????

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 12:42pm

2. Thank you Peter Singer for the best discussion of the health care issue I've seen in ages.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html

   Posted by srjenkins at 07/17/2009 @ 12:59pm

3. Since The Nation site is mangling the url, try this one:

   Why We Must Ration Health Care by Peter Singer

   http://tinyurl.com/kslxy3

   Posted by srjenkins at 07/17/2009 @ 1:01pm

4. BTW...

   "For his efforts, Douglas would be hailed in a national survey as "The Greatest Canadian" of all time."

   No, Lester Pearson was the greatest Canadian of all time.

   He prevented World War-III in 1956.

   Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 1:15pm

5. By a 50 to 35 percent margin, Americans believe it's a bad idea to create a government health-insurance company to compete with private insurers.

   A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday also shows that voters aren't buying promises that middle-class Americans won't eventually see tax hikes as a consequence of covering an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans.

   Fifty-six percent of those surveyed consider a tax increase for the middle class to be "very likely," and another 22 percent say it is "somewhat likely."

   Only 4 percent consider a tax hike on the middle class "not at all likely." President Obama has repeatedly insisted that no one earning less than $250,000 would get hit with an additional tax

   The Rasmussen poll, based on interviews with 1,000 likely voters, is one in a series of recent surveys suggesting Americans are profoundly skeptical about the health-care plans that are currently making their way through Congress.

   A recent Zogby poll, for example, showed that voters oppose the House version of health-care reform introduced on Tuesday by a 52 to 40 percent margin.

   That bill would require all Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 1:21pm

6. American taxpayers are NOT buying Obamanation and the Demoncrats "Pigs in a Poke" style of politics!

   House Democrats and the Obama administration have been selling the idea of taxing the rich to pay for healthcare.

   Cato Institute Senior Fellow Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell doesn't buy it, saying it will be the middle class who will take the "collateral damage" and will end up paying for healthcare and all of President Barack Obama's new spending.

   In an interview with Moneynews.com's Dan Mangru, Mitchell said that there aren't enough rich people in America to finance big government and that small business owners will bear the brunt of Obama's new tax hikes.

   Mitchell states that taxing the rich will "hurt our economy and make America less competitive."

   He goes on to state that taxing the rich is code for going after investors and entrepreneurs, which will make America less productive and shift jobs to China and India.

   Mitchell said that if Obama wants to expand government control over every sector of our economy, including bailouts and creating government run healthcare, "he has to tax the middle class to make government bigger."

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 1:25pm

7. Anybody see that racist elitist San Francisco liberal get her sorry little ass handed to her yesterday? It made my week!!!!!!!!! Careful elitist libs, america's finally getting a clear glimse of who you really are! LOL

   Posted by barry25 at 07/17/2009 @ 1:26pm

8. Facts are sooooooo inconvenient to Republicans and conservatives they hafta sign on to progressive sites and slur, oh, actual news.

   You're behind history, folks, on healthcare, fiscal responsibility, environmentalism, education, reproduction rights, immigration, gay rights, and so on and so forth, a laundry list of what Americans actually want that you ignored while waging wars for Halliburton and against science and common sense.

   And you're getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror as Democrats and Progressives dig us out of the mess you idiots created for America.

   Your ilk destroyed the middle class and they voted you out of office so that we could rebuild America.

   So continue to spew your lies and slurs, it serves the cause of justice as the majority of America is horrified by your willful stupidity and ignorance, cherry picked "facts," and your bigotry.

   Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

9. Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 1:25pm |

   So one Senior Fellow at the Cato (damn you OJ!) does an interview at moneynews.com and you extrapolate that to "American taxpayers"?!?

   Your contention is that the 1%, who make 12% of the income, and pay an oft-quoted 40% of all income taxes in the US (or a 20% rate, for those actually counting), aren't sufficient to pay for healthcare?

   The Cato folks need smarter economists.

   Your laughable claim that investors will move whatever chunk of the US economy isn't already being made in China overseas is also amusing.

   I'm sure the small biz owners that are currently struggling to compete with MSFT and INTC to provide parity with respect to healthcare plans (as a self-employed contractor, I'm tempted to join the borg, believe me) are quaking in their boots at the relief offered by a public option.

   Take your ignorant fear-mongering back to big-fast-stupid-wasteful-monopoly-money-machine.com where it belongs.

   Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 2:20pm

10. <By a 25-19 vote, the House Committee on Education and Labor on Friday approved an amendment to the House's health-care reform bill allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose.>

    another example where Nichols and the Nation applaud the Democrats for trying to shred the constitution. The Federal govt has no constitutional authority to dictate on this issue to the individual states

    <Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.>

    "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."

    Thomas Jefferson

    "I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."

    Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 2:22pm

11. For a glimpse into what a single payor system will look like - look no farther than the current VA system and see if you like what you see.

    Remove the incentive (yes, the dirty word "profit") from the system and the best and brightest minds in medicine and medical research will find other, more profitable work to go into. Where do you think the advances in medical/pharma have come from? Companies who invest millions in R/D won't do so if they can't make a return on investment and those who are smart enough to become doctors will become trial lawyers or finance whiz kids.

    Gone will be the days of going to your local doctor for a scheduled appointment. Imagine the system devolving into state-run clinics where you take a number (the DMV is another good example of government efficiency)

    Cry all you want about it progressives, its not going to happen in any shape or form as you envision. It would be far cheaper for the nation to simply expand on the existing county health clinic system to give highly subsidized care to the uninsured rather than take away the upsides for everyone else

    Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/17/2009 @ 2:24pm

12. This is great! I am so pleased that a single-payer option is part of this healthcare reform bill.

    Dennis Kucinich is my favorite politician. He exemplifies the very best leadership in Congress!

    Republicans are states rights advocates like Mario Andretti woud be caught driving a Chevy. Not likely. So I'm very surprised that some supported this amendment. They must see the writing on the wall.

    I hope Republicans and so-called "blue dog" Democrats stop fighting this healthcare reform bill, because they are up against Americans (including health care professionals) who are fed up with the abuses, high costs, and lack of coverage rampant in the current private system.

    Posted by aidawedo at 07/17/2009 @ 2:26pm

13. Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Nice unsupported hate rant! Why be so sterotypical leftist marxist when it makes you 1 of 10,000.?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 2:33pm

14. hey antisocialist, you miss the point. a pr0vince's success with a single-payer system impressed other provinces, that followed suit; and eventually the fed. gov't followed too.

    i see this states-as-laboratories so the fed. gov't doesn't have to be in line with the founders' view.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/17/2009 @ 2:47pm

15. Thank you, John Nichols, for yet another accurate, dispassionate, report of how Canadian universal health care actually evolved. You are one of incredibly FEW writers/ reporters employed by U.S. press outlets who appears to be interested in actual facts, untainted by personal bias or political hysteria.

    I also read Peter Singer's article. His point is well-made, though those of us who enjoy universal health care availability don't generally think of ourselves as "rationed".

    Finally, @Mask: It appears that you are either an under-educated Canadian (a public embarrassment for which I apologize) or a sh*t-instigating American with little command of either facts or history (a condition I have come to expect after living in the U.S. for many years)

    Posted by jmattei at 07/17/2009 @ 2:51pm

16. Yeah, over 70% of the American people who want the public option health care are "marxist", over 50% of the American people who believe gays should have the same civil rights as the rest of us are "Marxist," over 60% of Americans who believe in reproductive rights are "Marxist."

    (And the majority of Americans who want more environmental protections, and true immigration reform, also Marxists!)

    Karl Marx is breakdancing in his grave, he's so happy that the majority of Americans have finally seen the light!

    Yeah, and that 1 out 10,000 of us Marxists in the American population voted the Republicans out of office in two elections running.

    Like I said, please keep up the no-nothingisms, it will serve to keep conservative and Republicans in the minority they so rightly have earned.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 2:55pm

17. careful elitist libs, america's finally getting a clear glimse of who you really are! LOL Posted by barry25 at 07/17/2009 @ 1:26pm

    News Flash! Pot calls kettle black! In depth analysis at 6pm!

    As far as the racist comment, isn't it more appropriate to include Audra Shay and her comments about 'coons' in the Obama administration? Don't leave that out, Beer-ee.

    Your priorities are clear: Even though conservatives have long owned the biggest share of the 'elitist pie', the only way you can deal with it is to pull the "I'm rubber and you're glue" nonsense.

    BugPustule: If someone is stereotypical 'leftist Marxist', and you say they are 1 in 10,000, doesn't that make them a fringe minority? In that case, there should be nothing for you to worry about. Power! It's what's for dinner!

    Posted by ficheye at 07/17/2009 @ 2:55pm

18. Yeah, over 70% of the American people who want the public option health care are "marxist", over 50% of the American people who believe gays should have the same civil rights as the rest of us are "Marxist," over 60% of Americans who believe in reproductive rights are "Marxist."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So....just more totally unsupported rhetoric, no wonder Obama was your man! You just pull 20% out of the air tack it on to everything and expect anyone to believe it!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

19. Let's hear it for states' rights (which for once, crazy conservos inexplicably want to abandon, although they'd now have the ability to IMPROVE health care):

    "Recent reports from both the Department of Health and Human Services and the prestigious medical journal Health Affairs have documented that compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care, fewer problems with medical bills, and greater satisfaction with their health plans and the quality of care they receive.

    The reason for improved access, quality, and lower costs under Medicare, said DeMoro, "is that under Medicare, insurance companies, whose central focus is profits for their shareholders not delivery of care, don't have the ability to deny care, limit coverage, or continually raise prices that endanger the health and financial security of patients."

    "The successes and standards of Medicare should be the model for reform for all Americans," said DeMoro. "If the final national bill will not meet that test by establishing Medicare for all, then let's give Americans the tools to pass it in individual states."

    Currently, if states were to pass single payer laws, as California, for one, has twice, only to have the bill vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it could be subject to immediate legal challenge due to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which applies to all employer-paid health plans. The Kucinich amendment would provide an ERISA waiver."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:15pm

20. Yeah, over 70% of the American people who want the public option health care are "marxist", over 50% of the American people who believe gays should have the same civil rights as the rest of us are "Marxist," over 60% of Americans who believe in reproductive rights are "Marxist." --Posted by judybrowni as snark, of course.

    "So....just more totally unsupported rhetoric, no wonder Obama was your man! You just pull 20% out of the air tack it on to everything and expect anyone to believe it!!!"

    Umm, nope, again. All of the above are based on numerous recent polls (not just one cherry-picked, like the nutball conservos find to quote, or make up.)

    Can't publish links on this site, but you could look it up, although I doubt you will.

    But it doesn't matter if I convince one supposed "conservative" (who in recent years have conserved nothing) because that's what the majority of Americans believe.

    But again, feel free to spout the lies and slurs that have rightly sent your party into the minority. They help us tremendously!

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

21. Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 1:51pm

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Indeed.

    Perhaps the biggest problem for the Repubs (I do not call them "conservatives" because they generally are not; many are neocons, however)is the fact that the raw demographics just aren't going in their direction.

    It is difficult finding enough white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males with 4th grade educations that you can scare the shit out of enough, in order to convince them to vote for some fringey, flaky Sarah Palin type.

    It's a recipe for disaster, and has less to do with the Dems, or "libs", or whatever, than they think.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/17/2009 @ 3:33pm

22. "Recent reports from both the Department of Health and Human Services and the prestigious medical journal Health Affairs have documented that compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care, fewer problems with medical bills, and greater satisfaction with their health plans and the quality of care they receive.

    The reason for improved access, quality, and lower costs under Medicare, said DeMoro, "is that under Medicare, insurance companies, whose central focus is profits for their shareholders not delivery of care, don't have the ability to deny care, limit coverage, or continually raise prices that endanger the health and financial security of patients."

    "The successes and standards of Medicare should be the model for reform for all Americans," said DeMoro. "If the final national bill will not meet that test by establishing Medicare for all, then let's give Americans the tools to pass it in individual states."

    Currently, if states were to pass single payer laws, as California, for one, has twice, only to have the bill vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it could be subject to immediate legal challenge due to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) which applies to all employer-paid health plans. The Kucinich amendment would provide an ERISA waiver."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:15pm

    Lets try some facts on Medicare.

    It is currently 40 trillion in the RED.

    It is projected by 2050 to consume a minimum of 75% of all Federal Tax revenue.

    Heard a doctor yesterday state that Medicare only pays him $1700 for a hip replacement surgery (a 5 hour surgery). And that includes all followup visits. And his medical practice pays $200,000 per year for malpractice insurance.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 3:35pm

23. Umm, nope, again. All of the above are based on numerous recent polls

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So why are you afraid to reference them? Is it your totally leftist biased polls not supported or recognized by anyone else?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 3:46pm

24. Again, idiot, because long links don't work in these comments.

    Although again, you could look it up -- but that's heresy from your bunch.

    But please keep up the no-nothing stuff, that soooo impresses the masses who continue to vote Republicans out of office.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:53pm

25. How about all the unsourced "facts" from "anti-socialist"?

    Guess that's okay, IOKIYAR.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:57pm

26. Just to nitpick, Tommy Douglas was Saskatchewan premier from 1944 to 1961.

    Posted by FrlessFreep at 07/17/2009 @ 4:01pm

27. judybrowniemaker never heard of Gallop, Rassmussen, Zoby etc. , you know the main prominent credible polls not conducted by wacko extremist with a proven agenda, and to think she would rather just call OTHERs an idiot!

    That myopia has taken your mind hostage!!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 4:04pm

28. "The most important thing to understand about the Democrats' domestic agenda is that they care more about establishing government control over our lives than they do about the stated policy goals of their proposals.

    It's true of their fraudulently named stimulus packages, their cap-and-tax scheme and especially their universal healthcare plans.

    With all of these programs and more, their driving aim is not only to acquire power for the sake of acquiring it but also to use government to impose their values on us and, effectively, destroy our personal liberties. The subject of liberty -- the very impetus for the founding of this nation -- is rarely mentioned in the public debate.

    That is why we'll never convince them with evidence, from the growing scientific skepticism about global warming to the proven failed track record of Keynesian economics to the universal failure rate of socialized medicine throughout the world.

    But it is also why they'll never persuade the public to go along with their mischief if the facts get out, which explains their unilateral declaration of a consensus on global warming and their refusal to debate the issue, their historical revisionism on the failures of New Deal stimuli, and their perpetual urgency in rushing their entire agenda through simultaneously -- before the public can even digest their proposals, much less organize to oppose them.

    Healthcare is this week's crisis. Here, it's imperative we recognize that they're more interested in imposing their values on abortion, end-stage medical care, and economic equality than in the quality of healthcare. "

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 4:06pm

29. "Congressional Democrats want abortion to be included as a health benefit in both government and private insurance plans -- using taxpayer money to fund abortion on demand. This exposes the lie that they want to reduce the number of abortions. Please.

    The plan would also inevitably result in government rationing of care, and the liberals driving the plan, such as Tom Daschle (in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis"), have made clear their opinion that the elderly are the most expendable. The plan would result in government bureaucrats, rather than your doctor, having the final say over your care options.

    Then there's the wealth-redistribution mentality forever driving President Barack Obama -- his obsession with leveling the economic playing field that underlies all of his major policy initiatives.

    This obsession explains why he supports capital gains tax increases even though they would hurt everyone, his endless appetite for soaking the rich with increasingly confiscatory taxes, and his single-minded determination to bankrupt this nation through no-growth deficit spending. It explains why he is willing to destroy our healthcare system in the name of requiring everyone -- whether they want it or not -- to have health insurance. "

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 4:08pm

30. This point was brought home to me when I was listening to an audio clip of Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician, wherein he states that if America had established a government-run healthcare system like Canada's or Britain's 10 years ago, we'd have 1 million fewer Americans alive today. Coburn bases this on our increased life expectancy. "Our survival rates on cancer, malignancies, and coronary artery disease," he says, "are so far better because we have available technology and acute intervention, as well as prevention, that those countries don't have."

    When will Americans open their eyes? Everything about Obama's plan is a lie. He says he wants to increase competition and choice, improve the quality of healthcare, reduce costs, and achieve universal coverage. But his plan would reduce competition, with mandatory government controls and mandates that would require uniformity of coverage. It would dramatically increase overall costs by artificially increasing demand. It would destroy the quality of healthcare, and it would crowd out and force out private insurers, through stacking the deck in favor of the euphemistically labeled "public option."

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 4:10pm

31. How about all the unsourced "facts" from "anti-socialist"?

    Guess that's okay, IOKIYAR.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:

    <Medicare Will Consume Almost All Income Taxes by 2075

    Trustee for Social Security, Medicare testifies before Senate Budget Committee Feb. 18, 2005 – While America is focused on the debate over how to keep Social Security solvent, a public Trustee of Social Security and Medicare is telling the Senate Budget Committee that Medicare will consume nearly all of the government's revenue from income taxes after 2075.

    The transfers required to pay current law benefits given current law taxes and premiums will grow from their current level to almost 19 percent of Federal income taxes in 2015, to over 32 percent in 2025, and will require over 90 percent of projected federal income tax revenues by 2075!

    http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/5-02-18AllTaxes.htm>

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 4:14pm

32. all hail the american private insurance industry!

    seldom has such a self propagating parasitical octopus clung to its blood sucking existence so tenaciously and ruthlessly!

    of all the antinomian, regressive forces for entropy and misery in our modern world, the american private insurance industry surely ranks up there high on the scale of the rank who hold us all back from a slightly better future.

    so here's to the american way!

    Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:16pm

33. How about all the unsourced "facts" from "anti-socialist"?

    Guess that's okay, IOKIYAR.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:57pm

    More facts

    <The United States has gone from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation--and not due to the war on terrorism, Walker noted. "Of that $760 billion deficit last year, only $100 billion had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or incremental Homeland Security costs," Walker said>

    http://tinyurl.com/qeucfn

    This was 2005 data

    <Thus, the total Medicare debt is a staggering $61.6 trillion. Let me put this number in perspective for you.

    Assuming that federal income tax revenues remain at the 50 year average ... the Medicare debt of $61.6 trillion is 62 percent of all future federal income tax receipts.

    Thus, if Congress passed legislation today, binding on all future Congresses, setting aside 62 percent of all federal income tax revenues from now to eternity, you could just pay for promised Medicare benefits.>

    http://tinyurl.com/mtm72n

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 4:23pm

34. <How about all the unsourced "facts" from "anti-socialist"?

    Guess that's okay, IOKIYAR.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 3:57pm>

    And if that doesn't suffice, here is the 60 Minutes interview with US Comptroller David Walker on the bankruptcy of the US through Medicare and SS.

    http://tinyurl.com/25ru52

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 4:27pm

35. So antisocialist, ya mean the David Walker who was the comptroller under the Bush administration?

    During the administration that borrowed trillions so Halliburton could get it's hands on Iraq's oil?

    The administration that got Republicans kicked out of office because they wanted to destroy the social safety net of Social Security by forcing Americans to rely on the stockmarket instead?

    The stockmarket that imploded under the Bush Administration?

    That the Bush administration then bailed out?

    Ya mean David Walker, the comptroller during the Bush administration that cratered the U.S. economy?

    THAT David Walker?

    Great source!

    Keep up the good work, the more often you remind the American public of the craven incompetence of Republicans, the longer they'll be out of office.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 4:37pm

36. <THAT David Walker?

    Great source!

    Keep up the good work, the more often you remind the American public of the craven incompetence of Republicans, the longer they'll be out of office.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 4:37pm>

    Wow, you really are an ignorant leftist addition to these blogs. Walker was appointed by CLINTON.

    <As Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008, spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations, Dave served as the federal government's chief auditor. Appointed by President Bill Clinton and confirmed unanimously by the US Senate, he was an outspoken, nonpartisan advocate for addressing the major fiscal and other sustainability challenges facing the country. He also enacted transformational reforms at the agency and within the accountability profession>

    http://www.pgpf.org/about/leadership/dmw/

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 5:18pm

37. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Walker was comptroller under a Republican Congress, and kept in place by a Republican President, and a major financial blowup (major, is putting it mildly) happened under his watch.

    Just a coincidence.

    And he's still pushing to eradicate the same social safety nets with the same fear mongering used by the Bush administration.

    Just a coincidence.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 5:37pm

38. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Walker was comptroller under a Republican Congress, and kept in place by a Republican President, and a major financial blowup (major, is putting it mildly) happened under his watch.

    Just a coincidence.

    And he's still pushing to eradicate the same social safety nets with the same fear mongering used by the Bush administration.

    Just a coincidence.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 5:37pm

    No one will ever accuse you of letting your arguments be framed by the facts. He was a Democrat, appointed by a Democratic president and confirmed by all of the Democratic Senators.

    You are becoming boring in your ignorance. And it is unfair of me to continue debating with someone lacking the intelligence of adults.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 5:41pm

39. I don't care if David Walker calls himself a penguin, actions speak louder than words.

    For Walker to have been acceptable to a Republican run Congress, working with years upon years of Bush voodoo economics, IN CHARGE during the biggest economic meltdown since the depression, and an advocate for scare tactics to eradicate the social safety nets that have kept the country from sliding into another complete depression, means he's not someone worth quoting.

    Unfortunately, we're still dealing with the DINOs leftover from the Clinton administration and those "Democrats" turned into zombies by nearly three decades of Republican rule, usually -- but not exclusively -- from the South.

    Three decades of Republican rule (I almost spelled it "ruin," tellingly) have lead us to this economic and social quagmire.

    The middle class destroyed, greatest divide in income disperity for the last 100 years.

    The social safety nets created by Democrats helped make a vibrant middle class in America, (and are wildly popular with the American public) Republican rule has done it's best to destroy that middle class.

    Now go away while we clean up your mess.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 6:24pm

40. Mask:

    In polling done for a show for CBC voted on by the public, Tommy Douglas was voted "greatest Canadian". Because up here, the biggest puzzle to us about Americans, is how the freest most powerful country in the world not have the best health care in the world. How you guys wouldn't just opt for a bit more money taken from your pay in exchange for never EVER having to file for bankruptcy or using credit to pay for a standard operation to heal yourself. Why not? doesn't make sense. It'll be clutch if a couple of the largest states elect to do the single-payer route. Drug companies will have to negotiate, and will compromise in pricing because of the shear size of that "consumer" base. As a fellow human being, and whose father was an american, i'm routing for yuh. Perhaps education reform next?

    Posted by I-Prinze at 07/17/2009 @ 6:42pm

41. Hey judybrownie, you go girl, its about time someone put antisocial and big pasture and the rest of their gang in their place. Keep up the good work, I and I'm sure a lot of other people are cheering you on like I am,thanks.

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:59pm

42. The Canadians pity us for our healthcare, they have a saying there, "America is a great place -- unless you get sick."

    As someone who saw her healthcare premiums rise 100% in the last decade, with coverage shrinking every year but rationing and waits increasing, I'd have to agree with them.

    I envy the Canadians, and my friends and family over 65, for their ready access to healthcare, at reasonable prices -- funny coincidence, both groups have access to public healthcare options.

    You'd have to fight them tooth and nail to take public healthcare away from them, and switch back to an exclusively private system.

    Duh.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 7:07pm

43. Hey judybrownie, you go girl, its about time someone put antisocial and big pasture and the rest of their gang in their place. Keep up the good work, I and I'm sure a lot of other people are cheering you on like I am,thanks.

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:59pm

    right (LOL). If only she had a cohesive and cogent argument, you might have a point. But like most leftists, you rely upon inuendo, ad hominems, and strawmen arguments rather than debate the facts.

    perhaps either one of you could quote a single Democrat who criticized Walkers work? And again I remind you, Walker is a lifelong Democrat who voted for Al Gore.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 7:26pm

44. I also personally know a couple Canadians who had careers and lives in America, on their way to becoming citizens here -- until they got seriously ill.

    Then they were forced to return home to Canada and it's health care (and relieved to be able to do so.)

    America lost these good citizens to superior public healthcare. What else have we lost: for one, the major auto factories that have relocated to Canada, simply because of public healthcare.

    My ancestors in America on my father's side go back to New York State (before English rule!), and over three hundred years later only healthcare has made me sometimes wish I could hop over the border to Canada, immigrate to England, or one of the other English-speaking industrialized countries with true healthcare for it's citizens.

    (Especially after my uncle was murdered by his HMO delaying and denying treatment for prostate cancer, and my stepbrother lost his job after heart surgery, only to be told privately, that the insurance company pressured his company to fire "the heart patient" or lose coverage for the entire firm.

    And no, neither of the above is an exaggeration -- my sister is a doctor, and confirmed that my uncle wasn't being treated, but even she couldn't sway the insurance company to act ethically, and I've since read a number of health insurance horror stories from other patients with all too similar experiences.)

    To ask the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay their fair share and return to the tax rates they enjoyed under Reagan seems little enough to help America offer the same healthcare as the other industrialized nations in this world.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 7:36pm

45. To ask the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay their fair share and return to the tax rates they enjoyed under Reagan seems little enough to help America offer the same healthcare as the other industrialized nations in this world.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 7:36pm

    Keep it up, every topic you attempt shows you do not know the facts.

    The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

    Table 6 provides the share of income taxes paid by percentage bracket

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html

    in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

    The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

    http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif

    So you want the top 1% to pay less share than they did after the Reagan and Bush taxcuts. that's real smart (LOL)

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 7:44pm

46. Thank you Mr. Nichols for once again giving platform to the California Nurses Association. Many of us nurses envision a One Payer healthcare system where people would go to clinics run by Nurse Practitioners for their primary care, and go to specialists for more complex needs. This will result in affordable healthcare as well as preventive medicine for the masses.

    Posted by nursevic at 07/17/2009 @ 7:47pm

47. judybrowni,

    I guess you envy Canadians about health care......

    So you envy the long and inordinate wait times for second level testing?

    And you envy the woman in Western Canada who had to go to a different province to have a baby?

    And you envy the guy in Windsor, Ontario who has to go to Buffalo for cancer treatment because not only is that treatment not available in Windsor but the Canadian government says he can not go to Detroit, 15 minutes away, where the treatment IS available, but he has to go to Buffalo more than 4 hours away instead?

    Phew!

    I hope you don't envy the Swedes also.....because then you would be envying the Swede who could not get the medicine that would help him because it was not in the government "formulary" AND because the government would not let him purchase it and pay for it out of his own pocket because the government deemed that not to be fair.

    It seems you would have better things to do with your time than envy people who have substandard health care!

    P.S. There is nothing wrong with going to Buffalo....people SHOULD go to Buffalo for all the good things there and the good quality of life there....but not because they are told they have to go there rather than Detroit by their government health care bureaucrats.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:49pm

48. I don't care if David Walker calls himself a penguin, (or claims to have voted for Al Gore) all the previous arguments stand.

    It's not a mystery why some DINOs fight against our interests (lobbyists and great honking handfuls of cash, for just two reasons they sell out.)

    But why hoodwinked Republican voters would fight against their own self-interest is a mystery to me.

    (The hoodwinking contribues, obviously. But as became apparent in the last two elections, the hoodwinked Republican voter is becoming something of an endangered species.)

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 7:52pm

49. I'm sick and tired of the fear mongers in this blog.

    Posted by nursevic at 07/17/2009 @ 7:52pm

50. P.S. There is nothing wrong with Detroit, either.

    Mayor Dave Bing will turn that city around. You can guarantee it.

    Detroit is on the way back.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:58pm

51. Can anyone point me in the direction of a website (house.gov?) where I can see how my Representative (Dina Titus) voted on this, and future, issues? Thanks

    Posted by bmansfie at 07/17/2009 @ 8:06pm

52. Where do you think the advances in medical/pharma have come from? Companies who invest millions in R/D won't do so if they can't make a return on investment...

    Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/17/2009 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    +++

    Yo, Mr Libertarian: It's too bad your heroes at the pharma companies aren't so libertarian as you profess to be. Sure, these guys develop medicines, but they also do so with millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. You think Pfizer pays for all that R&D? You don't think they take advantage of government money to do that? Check out the federal budget some time to see how much taxpayer money goes into funding research at the drug and biotech companies. Also, whom do you think subsidizes Big Pharma's big sales overseas? The US taxpayer. So much for the free market.

    Libertarians: Republicans who do drugs.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 07/17/2009 @ 8:10pm

53. To add to JudiBrowni's examples of people who move to other countries for healthcare, one of my fellow nurses had to move to Ireland because her son had a rare disease that would have bankrupted her family if she remained in the U.S. Her private insurance was going to drop her son from insurance coverage!

    Posted by nursevic at 07/17/2009 @ 8:26pm

54. I've experienced public healthcare in England on two different long-term trips and in two separate decades.

    My wait time for non-emergency care -- even as an American citizen -- a couple days.

    The outcome: hey, as good or better than any I received from American care.

    The fees, total? Around $20. (For services that would have amounted to thousands of dollars in the U.S.)

    The scare stories you're hearing about "socialized medicine" in other industrialized countries are just that: fairy tales, for the most part.

    However, I have personally experienced weeks and months of waiting for health care, and the insurance companies rationing my health care, here in America.

    In addition, there are several health care horror stories you'll never hear about in the countries with public healthcare, but are repeated over and over hin the U.S..

    According to CBS news, "a new study published in The American Journal of Medicine says the biggest reason for going into bankruptcy is medical debt.

    Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports the study says getting sick is a factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies -- an increase from just eight percent in 1981.

    And among those who filed for bankruptcy, 75 percent reported having some type of medical insurance."

    It's also estimated that 17,000 Americans a year die from lack of healthcare, because they couldn't access private health insurance.

    However, if you like the system where the private insurance companies, not your doctor, decide your treatment -- under these new healthcare packages, you can keep that.

    The rest of us simply want the option to choose and have rational public care.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 8:30pm

55. No one watches Keith Olbermann any longer....

    How sad...

    Posted by bleedingheart at 07/17/2009 @ 8:33pm

56. It seems only fair to contribute to the health of this country by asking the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay their fair share and return to the tax rates they enjoyed under Reagan (BEFORE the tax cuts Reagan -- and then Bush -- handed out like candy to the uber wealthy, of course.)

    Would have thought that was obvious, even to an idiot.

    The Republicans have bankrupted this country, and one of the contributing factors was their giving the rich and corporations a free pass on taxes, while overburdening what was left of the middle class.

    Yet more reasons Republicans are in the minority, and this fight against healthcare is also because they're afraid it will work and the Democrats will get credit for another social safety network the public loves.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 8:45pm

57. In other words -- and you can't explain things too slowly for Republicans -- the uber-wealthy (the top 1% of Americans) would subsidize the public healthcare option if their tax rates were simply returned to what they were at the beginning of the Reagan years.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 9:06pm

58. judibrowni,

    You said above that the rich has a free pass on taxes.

    Free pass?

    What are you talking about?

    Go to www.irs.gov.

    Pull down information on historical tax revenue by income distribution.

    The rich pay most of the tax in the country.

    Thats' www.irs.gov.

    That is the IRS website....that is not a political website....

    Obama is President now so no liberal can say that the IRS website is a fake website running through a server in Karl Rove's office!

    It is what it is...and it is at www.irs.gov

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:08pm

59. Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:08pm

    Ms Judi doesn't believe in facts. She prefers Daily Kos and MoveOn talking points.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 9:14pm

60. What a surprise! The rich (who have the most money) pay the most taxes.

    Duh.

    The. Rich. and. Corporations. Paid. More. Taxes. in. the. Past. Before. Republicans. Cut. Their. Rates. (Relatively). To. the. Bone.

    And -- what a surprise -- in the meantime, the middle class shrank, as their tax burden (relatively) increased.

    (And the difference -- all that money the rich used to contribute -- isn't there anymore, so Republican politicians borrow billions and trillions to wage unnecessary wars until the economy blows up.)

    A healthy middle-class is something America used to have, under Democrats.

    But recession and depression (major or otherwise) are what America -- historically -- gets after a certain number of Republican administrations. And then the Democrats have to come in and mop up the mess, until the economy gets good again, a certain percentage of the American public forgets why they voted Republicans out of office, and we start all over again.

    That's been our political history for the past 100 years or so, but why should I expectRepublicans to be aware of -- or admit -- that?

    But YOU must be in that top 1% bracket, otherwise why would you be arguing against your own self interest?

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 9:31pm

61. Nobody is watching Keith Olbermann anymore -- except the 1,841,000 viewers yesterday.

    And, yessssssssssssssssss, we all know there are more viewers for FOX news, but where else can the willfully ignorant go for delusions and grim fairy tales in the place of news?

    The reality-based viewer contigent has a number of options, the willfully ignorant, only FOX.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 9:37pm

62. He judybrownie and nursevic , thankyou, and thank you mask and all the other people on the left who speak for us. I know its not a lot, but baby steps.Anti and big P and a whole lot of other trolls try to talk their BS but the common people get it. Hey Anti you should be ashamed of yourself, where is your compassion? You claim to be this good person, but I see you protecting no one but yourself, good christian and all, thats not what I was taught in Sunday school, get a clue, that is why your only 20 what percent of the country. I may not be as smart as you but I GET IT.

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 9:40pm

63. If you have any problem with single payers, why not become educated, so that you will stop listening to the health insurance industry talking points:

    Watch the Wendell Potter interview by Bill Moyers (video available at the PBS.org website.

    Watch the movie Sicko by Michael Moore, which was validated by Potter, and is a wonderful documentary highlighting the logical choices in public health care.

    Most of all, read the massive, well-documented article in Wikipedia comparing the Canadian and US systems. It is very persuasive!!

    Most of all, think that we presently spend $8300 per year for every one of our 300 million residents, and still don't cover 50 million of them!!

    And, don't look at VA presently, because it is being revamped, rather look at Medicare (2% admin costs)

    Posted by bwaterbury at 07/17/2009 @ 9:40pm

64. Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 9:40pm

    No, just be honest and admit you embrace socialism because you are too lazy or lack the character strength that personal accountability and responsibility require.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 9:42pm

65. "No, just be honest and admit you embrace socialism because you are too lazy or lack the character strength that personal accountability and responsibility require."

    Yeah, like the "personal accountability" that forces Americans into bankruptcy, when the insurance companies forgo their responsibility for paying for your healthcare, although you've responsibly paid the premiums.

    And their CEO takes the personal responisbility for a 100 million golden parachute, based on the number of patients he's let die, rather than treat.

    Anti-socialist is an idiot who believes he'll never grow old, get sick or be bamboozled by a health insurance company.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:23pm

66. Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 9:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Gone for a while. After catching up reading I can't believe you generously replied to the myopic leftist ignorance that is flowing out all over this blog!

    This is like talking to undocumented illegals about the basic tennants of citizenship in the U.S.A.! You know, total foriegn concepts

    judybrownie maker can't even cite ONE national poll like Gallop, Rassmussen, Zoby etc. , you know the main prominent credible polls not conducted by wacko extremist with a proven agenda.

    Lacking credibility, and a total lack of any verocity seem to be the "hallmarks" of her views spilling out like so much vomit.

    Might get intresting if she could back anything up with factual information instead of the "empty-suited" stylized perfidy of her beloved leader!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 10:27pm

67. For the reality-based, a description of Canadian healthcare, by a Canadian:

    "By way of comparison here are the facts about the coverage that all Canadians have:

    1. prescription drugs - varies by province a bit, but in B.C. where I am most employers have extended medical that covers 80-100% of drug costs and if you earn less than $15,000 per year or are unemployed, the government pays 100% of your costs with no maximum

    2.No lifetime limit for major medical - you are covered for everything for the rest of your life. Period.

    3. Deductibles for treatment like an appendectomy - Zero, zip, zilch, nada, rien.

    4. MRI - yes. Radiation and chemo - yes (and B.C. has the best cancer survival rates in North America). My mom's cataracts and eye cancer and my dad's two titanium hips and his pacemaker - all done fast, well, no fighting with an insurer and free.

    In most provinces there is no premium at all. In some there is a token premium of about $50 a month, except if you are poor, then it's free. And if you work, the employer pays it and provides extended health coverage to cover prescriptions, dental, eyeglasses, counseling, etc.

    And our per capita health care costs are a fraction of yours.

    A single payer public insurer system is in the best interests of the patient. -- Canuck55

    You'll find it on a thread on Americablog, under the title:

    "The reality is if you get real sick, no matter if you're insured or not, you're probably financially f**ked."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:30pm

68. Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 4:23pm |

    "Of that $760 billion deficit last year, only $100 billion had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or incremental Homeland Security costs,"

    $82B on May 11, 2005 (approx. as much as Desert Storm 's total cost adjusted for inflation from '91).

    $25B extra DoD budget for "war costs".

    $9.7B for "emergency money" for 20k troops in Af-ghastly-stan.

    Hmm...we haven't even counted the Homeland line items yet, but that's already more than 100B isn't it?

    $2B a week...that better be some democracy over there by now.

    What?!...they're still blowing people up on a daily basis?! The nerve.

    "Assuming that federal income tax revenues remain at the 50 year average ... "

    Assume something that won't be true...and that costs will remain the same...and that pigs can fly under their own power.

    Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:32pm

69. YouAnti, have absolutely no clue what I have done with my life, or what I have contributed. I live just like you do. I pay my taxes, and I work very hard. I give because it is the right thing to do. I have never gotten anything like welfare. But I am one of the people who has lost everything even though I did everything right. You don't know me and don't pretend that you do. Now is the time to take care of OUR people, it has been too long. You should be out there helping instead of standing in the way. It will happen, simply because it is time. And it is the right thing to do. I lost everything because of illness, it has to change, yesterday, because I may not be able to change it for myself but I can change it for my children, and their children, because it is the right thing to do.

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:34pm

70. It's always a fool's game to supply facts to wingnuts because no matter what you give 'em, it's never enough: they'll claim it's the wrong polling agency, or the wrong messenger, or the wrong something, because it didn't come from wingnut central, or Fox news (same difference).

    But here goes:

    "Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

    The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed."

    ...they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government's ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.

    Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year." Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most conte

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:40pm

71. U.S. Voters Back Public Insurance 2-1,

    "69 percent of voters nationwide say Americans should have the option of government- run health insurance...

    Among voters with Medicare or Medicaid 54 percent are very satisfied, compared to 45 percent of voters with private insurance. Voters say 52 - 34 percent that most Americans do not get good value in the cost and quality of health care...

    From June 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 3,063 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 1.8 percentage points."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:45pm

72. From the Drudge Report:

    Poll: 76% Want Public Option for Health Care

    "New NBC/Wall Street Journal poll numbers show that the American public overwhelmingly favors a choice between getting insurance coverage either through the private market or a government run option.

    Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either "extremely" or "quite" important to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:47pm

73. Wednesday, April 29, 2009

    Consumer Reports Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Support a Public Health Care Plan

    Washington DC--A new poll released today by Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, shows that 66 percent of Americans support having the option of a public health insurance plan as part of health care reform...

    • The new data shows that 71 percent of Americans support or strongly support health care reform to ensure that everybody has access to affordable, quality healthcare. • Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) expressed major or moderate concern about the ability to afford doctor visits in the future. • Sixty percent of Americans said they had a major or moderate concern about the possibility of bankruptcy because of a medical concern.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:50pm

74. GOP Poll: Yes, People Want a Public Option

    "The GOP-leaning polling outfit Resurgent Republic is out with a new survey that tests conservative messaging on health care ...But the internals aren't that rosy for the Republican position...

    Thirty-one percent of people said the government should provide "coverage for all" and 35 percent said "coverage for those who can't afford it." Only 29 percent said health care coverage should be entirely left to individuals."

    6/22/09 The Washington Independent

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:55pm

75. By the way Anti do you have a mother? Just asking. Does she get medicare? How do you feel about that? Again, just asking.

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:56pm

76. February 12, 2009

    Six In 10 Americans Support Opening Medicare as a "Public Option" to the Private Insurance Market; Public Willing To Pay Through Payroll Deductions

    Washington, D.C. -- Deep public dissatisfaction with the current health insurance system is evident in a new poll showing that 64% of Americans support expanding Medicare as a choice for anyone who wants an option to the private insurance market. The poll numbers illustrate unease with rising premiums, diminishing benefits and loss of health coverage when a job disappears.

    The poll also found that 60% of respondents want a Medicare-for-anyone option even after hearing that they would have to pay--sharing the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums.

    "Americans overwhelmingly believe that they should not have to wait until they are 65 years old or become disabled to have access to Medicare," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. "This poll shows that Americans in the midst of financial crisis are willing to pay for access to Medicare because of their insecurity about losing their health coverage and the high price of private health insurance."

    The poll, part of an independent national consumer product marketing survey by CARAVAN, is based on 863 interviews with registered voters in the United States conducted January 23 through January 26, 2009. The poll questions were drafted by Grove Insight for Consumer Watchdog.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 10:59pm

77. All of a sudden, no one from the right is around. Can't answer? For that matter how many of you guys on the right have Mothers who receive medicare and would you take it away? Why would you not approve this for other Americans who would benefit from the same care?

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:05pm

78. Like I said earlier today, numerous polls show around 70% of the American public want some form of government healthcare...

    Now, let's see some backup for the unsourced crap from the wingnuts.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 11:15pm

79. Yep, the Demoncrat congress is really concerned with the "will of the people"!

    "The year's biggest survey on healthcare reveals most Americans oppose the very reforms that President Obama is trying to push through Congress.

    By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters say they are against the healthcare bill introduced July 14 to the House of Representatives, a new Zogby International poll reports.

    Co-sponsored by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, the survey is based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adults nationwide – the largest such survey conducted this year.

    The poll's findings: Americans oppose raising tax rates to pay for a new healthcare system. Instead, they favor innovative approaches that would save money, which in turn could be used to fund health benefits for the poor.

    Among those currently insured, Zogby reports, 84 percent are satisfied with their current health care. Also, four out of every five people surveyed agreed that rising healthcare costs are hurting American businesses.

    Pollster John Zogby says the results indicate that Americans want costs reduced and wish for everyone to be insured. But they are deeply divided on how to accomplish those goals.

    "The likelihood of achieving consensus is low," Zogby says. "

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:22pm

80. Criminals have a GOOD friend in Obamanation and the Demoncrats when they already steal over 20% of the taxpayer money from medicare without even trying!

    "Every year, criminals and cheats pilfer over $100 billion -- that's $40 billion more than Bernie Madoff scammed off his investors -- in federal benefits to which they are not legally entitled. Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, refundable tax credits, and many other programs are targets for looting.

    Government fraud has been in the news lately because analysts are expecting major abuses of the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus plan. One Deloitte expert argued that "swindlers, con men, and thieves could siphon off as much as $50 billion" of stimulus funds, which are vulnerable because policymakers are under pressure to shovel it out the door quickly.

    Even more troubling is the potential for fraud and abuse created by President Obama's other big spending proposals -- particularly his giant health-care plan. Obama wants to inject hundreds of billions more tax dollars into federal health care instead of fundamentally reforming Medicare and Medicaid -- broken programs that are already subject to Madoff-sized larceny. That is incredibly unfair to those of us paying the bills."

    Now thier good friends in D.C. want to give them even greater opportunity to steal with little or no threat of getting caught!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:23pm

81. "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has insisted the Senate will deal with immigration and health reform separately. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) told the Dallas Morning News in May, "We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers. That's too politically explosive."

    But it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap. Approximately 15–22 percent of the 46 million residents of the United States without health coverage are illegal aliens. That's about 9 or 10 million people. More generally, a third of the foreign-born are uninsured, Census data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies show. That means something like 12.6 million people, or more than a fourth of the total uninsured, are immigrants, both legal and illegal. Since 1989, immigration is responsible for 71 percent of the rise in those without health insurance. The fact is, the problem of the uninsured would be a more manageable one if the U.S. were not admitting millions of uninsured immigrants."

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:25pm

82. Yea Big P but is your mother on medicare and would you like if she was cut off???

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:26pm

83. Honestly, all you trolls answer the question that if your most precious Mother has medicare, how would you feel if she was cut off?

    Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 11:29pm

84. judybrowniemaker just can't control her perfidy!

    .By a 50 to 35 percent margin, Americans believe it's a bad idea to create a government health-insurance company to compete with private insurers.

    A Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday also shows that voters aren't buying promises that middle-class Americans won't eventually see tax hikes as a consequence of covering an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans.

    Fifty-six percent of those surveyed consider a tax increase for the middle class to be "very likely," and another 22 percent say it is "somewhat likely."

    Only 4 percent consider a tax hike on the middle class "not at all likely." President Obama has repeatedly insisted that no one earning less than $250,000 would get hit with an additional tax

    The Rasmussen poll, based on interviews with 1,000 likely voters, is one in a series of recent surveys suggesting Americans are profoundly skeptical about the health-care plans that are currently making their way through Congress.

    A recent Zogby poll, for example, showed that voters oppose the House version of health-care reform introduced on Tuesday by a 52 to 40 percent margin.

    That bill would require all Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:30pm

85. To the six polls which support the numbers I used, including a Republican funded poll (70% of Americans support public healthcare option) -- and the right idiots counter with ONE poll (the unreliable Zogby -- which predicted Kerry as the winner of the 2004 election, by the by.)

    That's called an "outlier," idiot folk.

    And then an unsupported, unsourced crazy screed/rant on some other made-up topic entirely with all the "facts" pulled out of his ass.

    Ladies and Gentlemen: may I present the Representatives of the Republican (of course) minority.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 11:35pm

86. You are dumb, I've been registared Independent longer than you've been around as a "paid plant" to blog at the nation and longer than you've been alive!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 11:39pm

87. I'm a "paid" plant?

    Really, really!? How exciting -- when do I get my check?

    That's the wingnut fantasy that amuses me the most, I read something about the failed Republican efforts to pay bloggers (Pajama Media, was it?), and a conservative website just demanded 3 million to spread propagands for Fed Ex (who turned them down.) But if payment for blog progressive commenters exists anywhere outside fantasy land, please send me the url, I'd love to sign up.

    Ha, ha!

    I can't believe I wasted my time trying to discuss anything with someone so deep in delusion.

    Apologies then, you're not a Republican you're a delusional wingnut!

    Surely there's medication for that.

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 11:47pm

88. I looked up the Rasmussen poll, and is that screwed up.

    They asked if voters supported the creation of a government health insurance COMPANY.

    Hell, even I'd respond negatively to a question posed in that screwed up biased nutball terminology!

    I'm surprised even "35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance COMPANY to compete with private health insurers."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 11:52pm

89. Keep spewing with pathological verbosity, maybe some it will stick to a wall somewhere instead of sliding off!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/18/2009 @ 12:01am

90. See the point is: 70% of the American people want a government healthcare option to compete with health insurance companies -- not a government health insurance company.

    Nobody with any sense wants yet another health insurance company, after the health insurance companies have so screwed up our health care.

    People want the healthcare they're not getting from health insurance companies, so to skew a question by falsely posing it that way, the pollsters were picking up on the negativity felt toward health insurance companies.

    Wow, I can't believe Rasmussen posed that question, so the real question is: who paid Rasmussen to skew and screw up the questions?

    (By the by, that's something that is paid for in the real world, professional polls -- but not progressive blog commentors ha, ha!.)

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 12:02am

91. Its been fun, but the biochemist edu. medical technologist widowed daughter who runs the lab at Integris Hospital is coming home to relieve me from baby sitting her 3 under 8yrs since 12:30 p.m. is home and its time to sleep!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/18/2009 @ 12:14am

92. Gee, I was under the impression that folks up in Canada were used to bold, swift, non-namby pamby, immediate and radical change in their politics... and expected the same from others as well???? Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 12:42pm

    haha.....

    and we kicked your ass in 1812.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:14am

93. The nation blog is such entertainment otherwise who would support it?

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/18/2009 @ 12:15am

94. "he has to tax the middle class to make government bigger."

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 1:25pm

    rio, the middle class is long gone...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:17am

95. For a glimpse into what a single payor system will look like - look no farther than the current VA system and see if you like what you see.

    Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/17/2009 @ 2:24pm

    hi, john.

    hey, are you saying americans are dumb and can't run anything?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:20am

96. The Canadians pity us for our healthcare, they have a saying there, "America is a great place -- unless you get sick."

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/17/2009 @ 7:07pm

    actually,

    we say, "america is a great place -- just don't eat the 'food'."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:25am

97. You are becoming boring in your ignorance. And it is unfair of me to continue debating with someone lacking the intelligence of adults.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 5:41pm

    If only she had a cohesive and cogent argument, you might have a point. But like most leftists, you rely upon inuendo, ad hominems, and strawmen arguments rather than debate the facts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 7:26pm

    IMAXMAN!

    (i.e. the largest projector)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:27am

98. No, just be honest and admit you embrace socialism because you are too lazy or lack the character strength that personal accountability and responsibility require.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 9:42pm

    that's soooooo cliché.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:30am

99. Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:49pm

    shouldn't you be watching reruns of the love boat?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:31am

100. and that pigs can fly under their own power.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:32pm

     i love pink floyd.

     i say "meddle" was their best album.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:33am

101. Detroit is on the way back.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:58pm

     listen you warmongrel -- why the fork do you insist on occupying every corner of this globe while your own country rots?

     pathetic.

     ¡viva detroit!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:35am

102. By the way Anti do you have a mother?

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:56pm

     no, larry no tiene madre.....

     heheheheh

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:37am

103. thanks, tommy douglas.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 12:38am

104. So folks, bigpasture leaves after posting delusion after delusion.

     Should he return keep in mind: he believes progressive bloggers are paid to comment.

     If only!

     So you can credit all his other postings with the same cloud cukoo land verity.

     Until now I had no idea that wacko wingnuts roved so far off the reservation into fact-based land, but there you are.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 12:52am

105. judybrowni,

     You commented up above (about me during the argument about taxes) : "....But YOU must be in that top 1% bracket, otherwise why would you be arguing against your own self interest?...."

     1. You have no idea what you are talking about, as far as me. I am at the opposite end of what you say. I have very little, but a healthy economy is in my self-interest. Your assumptions about me are wrong.

     2. You have no idea what you are talking about, on the subject of taxation. The rich still pay most of the tax. When tax rates were cut, many wealthy people wound up paying MORE in actual tax amount. Revenue to the Treasury increased, not decreased. This is basic economics. (You probably should read Thomas Sowell's book by that title). When tax rates are cut, there is more money for investment into businesses, which grow, thus more money is made as the economy grows and MORE actual tax is paid. This is what happens when tax rates are cut.

     The reason for the deficits in the last Presidency is because the government spending continued to grow and because of the need to finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were necessary to stop present and future threats. I won't try to guess what you think about that, but I do know many bloggers here do not think the wars were necessary.

     But if we hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam would have been back making WMD, it would have gotten into the hands of terrorists, and they would have used it to kill millions of us. It seems to me it was necessary to stop that.....and we did stop it.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 04:15am

106. These wars were necessary to stop present and future threats. I won't try to guess what you think about that, but I do know many bloggers here do not think the wars were necessary.

     But if we hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam would have been back making WMD, it would have gotten into the hands of terrorists, and they would have used it to kill millions of us. It seems to me it was necessary to stop that.....and we did stop it.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009

     The war in Iraq was a set-up job and the Downing Street Memo proves it.

     Posted by koroviev at 07/18/2009 @ 05:34am

107. frosty zoom,

     I made a positive comment about Mayor Dave Bing up above. Dave Bing has been a success at anything he has ever done........ he will be a success as Mayor of Detroit.

     But you posted back "........listen you warmongrel -- why the fork do you insist on occupying every corner of this globe while your own country rots? pathetic. ¡viva detroit!......"

     No question, you were ticked! About what? What exactly was wrong about my comment on Mayor Bing?

     What country is Detroit in? I thought it was in the United States, the same country I live in. But your comment implies that Detroit is not in the same country I live in.

     A positive comment supporting Mayor Bing by me is declared by you to be pathetic.

     Did you read what I said or did you just see my name and fire back a canned response?

     Explanation, please.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 07:01am

108. koroview,

     The Downing Street Memo proves nothing.

     Much has been made about the use of the word "fixed" in the memo. This has included commentary that there are differences in the British use of the term versus the American.

     Thus all the Downing Street Memo said is that the Bush administration was building it's case why it may be necessary to go to war in Iraq.

     The memo did not indicate that there was no need to go to war, nor did it indicate that the reasons for going to war were being falsified or fabricated.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 08:07am

109. Explanation, please. Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 07:01am

     thought you were being sarcastic. excuse the misunderstanding.

     can't remember anyone 'cept bkool et moi ever saying anything positive about detroit here on this blog.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 08:16am

110. can't remember anyone 'cept bkool et moi ever saying anything positive about detroit here on this blog. Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 08:16am |

     Not so...it's my hometown, after all...but it does sound vaguely Frenchy, now that you mention it.

     I've heard good things about their plans to plow under some of the blighty bits and make more greenspace and if they cleaned up THAT river, then they can fix the city too.

     If I thought I could tear my wife away from the SF Bay Area, I'd jump on the cheap RE and start a company there.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/18/2009 @ 08:36am

111. But if we hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam would have been back making WMD, it would have gotten into the hands of terrorists, and they would have used it to kill millions of us. It seems to me it was necessary to stop that.....and we did stop it. Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 04:15am |

     So says the Permenent Minority Report

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKSV_NtyKsk

     REDBALL!

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/18/2009 @ 08:42am

112. 1. "take a look at the VA and see if you like it" - as a currently practicing doctor, let me tell you what I like about the V.A.: a)low overhead (3% last time I checked versus 30% for most private hospitals - 97 cents of every VA dollar going directly to patient care) b)exceptionally good patient record system that gives me instant access to doctor's notes from any VA in the country c)committed, responsible careerist staff d)strong commitment to best practices and to teaching trainees

     ... should the rest of the system be more like the VA?

     HELL yes.

     you probably are making the mistake of judging the system by the Walter Reed fiasco, which is kind of like judging all of America by the stupid decisions made by our last president.

     2. enough with the stupid fairy tales about socialized medicine. my Dad is Australian. every time I go, I have the opportunity to visit doctors there because I have family coverage. I have a wait time of several days, pay NOTHING, and have access to all the specialists I could want.

     all these fairy tales about how terrible england, sweden, canada, and australia are, are just fairy tales.

     other countries take MUCH better care of their citizens than the U.S. does.

     Posted by canaro71 at 07/18/2009 @ 09:08am

113. can't remember anyone 'cept bkool et moi ever saying anything positive about detroit here on this blog.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 08:16am

     If I had never said it before.....my bad...but, there are indeed, many fine qualities about Detroit: is it's far from the Gulf Coast, the Henry Ford Museum was well worth the visit we made in `02, its downtown (on a sunny summer day) looks really pretty from the Canadian side, and it feels absolutely great that one can visit and leave it all behind.....a truly great one-night stand!

     Posted by Happy at 07/18/2009 @ 10:07am

114. Tommy Douglas and his efforts for Canadian health reform prompted the creation of the 1964 Royal Commission on Health Services, chaired by another great man, Justice Emmett Hall. Later Prime Minister Trudeau brought the retired Supreme Court of Canada judge back during the 1980s to help fend off efforts to weaken the system by right-wing provincial politicians. Hall was also a key force behind the Canada Health Act and its five key principles:universality, portability, accessibility, comprehensiveness and public administration and accountability.

     Posted by Moosehead at 07/18/2009 @ 10:37am

115. One more note, if I could on Canadian health reformer, Tommy Douglas. Eleanor Roosevelt was an admirer. She once pulled Tommy's daughter Shirley Douglas (mother of actor Kiefer Sutherland) aside to tell her she had a remarkable man for a father. Today, Shirley, an actress and activist in the north, is active in the pro-medicare lobby group, the Canadian Health Coalition which tries to promote and protect her father's legacy.

     Posted by Moosehead at 07/18/2009 @ 11:53am

116. By a 50 to 35 percent margin, Americans believe it's a bad idea to create a government health-insurance company to compete with private insurers. Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 1:21pm

     I don't know where you get these pseudofacts that you post. But after researching the polls a general comcensus can be found in a New York Times/CBS poll taken in June that stated that 85 percent of respondents said that the healthcare system had to be fundamentally changed or rebuilt.

     When asked which party would be most likely to improve healthcare only 18 percent said the Republicans, while 57 percent said the Democrats.

     So it appears that there is wide support for a government run healthcare system.

     72% of those polled supported a government administered insurance plan. 20% said they were opposed.

     Why don't you stop printing pseudofacts out of your ass and try relating what is really going on?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 11:55am

117. And also in that national poll it said that half of those who called themselves Republicans supported a public plan.

     It seems that even among the repugs there is bipartisan support for a public plan.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 12:12pm

118. Put that in yer pipe and and somke it! Ya freaky fascist.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 12:14pm

119. In the same poll (which you'll find further up the thread) you'll also find that one and four Republicans also believe the Democrats will do a better job on healthcare.

     As for a healthy economy, well, we have private insurance now, and a shitty economy.

     Although private health insurance isn't completely to blame, it's a contributing factor.

     Small businesses are being broken right now by private health insurance, which raises their rates every year.

     As for firing employees, social workers are now forced to warn those with insurance who get cancer -- or any other disease or accident that will be expensive to the insurance company -- that they will more than likely be fired, after the insurance company informs that business that next year there will be a million dollar addition to the employers bill as long as the "expensive" patient is on staff.

     Or, if the patient is covered by a spouse's (parent's) insurance the same will happen to that company.

     And the company then finds a reason to fire the employee, as will the next business "warned" and the next, until the patient has been bankrupted by health care, and can be enrolled in public healthcare.

     As I said, this has become so standard,it has happened to two people in my life: a close friend and my stepbrother.

     Wendy had ovarian cancer, in order to finish her chemo she hadrun through her life savings and borrowed another $10,000 from her mother.

     Wendy made the mistake of not going on Medicare because she was in the midst of her Phd with a job at the local university waiting for her (in her state, she couldn't enroll on disability while in college.)

     Or so she thought: the job had vanished by the time Wendy was done with chemo (continued in next post)

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 12:16pm

120. Wendy made the mistake of not going on Medicare because she was in the midst of her Phd with a job at the local university waiting for her (in her state, she couldn't enroll on disability while in college.)

     Or so she thought: the job had vanished by the time Wendy was done with chemo and finished her Phd. Now Wendy is without a career, and has no health insurance because no health insurance company will take her on -- and Ovarian cancer typically returns in three years.

     My stepbrother had heart surgery, and then was fired from his job.

     The Personnel exec later told him privately that the only reason he'd been fired was because the insurance company had been threatened: fire the "heart patient" -- or else.

     Everyone thinks they have "good" insurance, until a major illness or accident shoves them up against an insurance company more concerned with profit than their lives.

     Private health insurance is a shell game: they collect your premiums, but God forbid you need "expensive" care, then they dissappear, and take your career with them.

     I don't wish that on the propagandist above, but under the Obama plan he can keep his shell game.

     The rest of us only ask for the option for true health care, the public option.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 12:17pm

121. My typing is horrendous today. I try and hurl an insult and mispell smoke.. I'm such a doofus. But I will get better.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 12:23pm

122. The rest of us only ask for the option for true health care, the public option.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 12:17pm

     Good post. It is important to hear these horror stories. I'm sorry to hear about your friend Wendy and your stepbrother. This sort of thing is happening all over the country. Good people are being bankrupted by a failed system.

     And the Ceo's and stockholders of these for profit corporations are laughing all the way to the bank. They make enormous profits off of the misery of others. It is criminal and immoral. And many of our politcians are their enablers. They take money from the lobbyists for these corporations and do their bidding. Where is justice?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 12:39pm

123. Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/18/2009 @ 12:19pm

     I greatly respect Tecumseh. And am fascinated by his life story. Frankly I'm surprised that no one (that I know of) has made a movie of his life. But he was not a Canadian, he was born in Ohio.

     Although he was instrumental in repelling and invasion of Canada by the United States in the War of 1812 he was by no means a Canadian. Except maybe by adoption as a hero to the Canadian people.

     And what does he have to do with healthcare?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 1:00pm

124. For bmansfie who wanted to know how her representative Dina Titus voted on this issue:

     Democratic Betrayers on Education and Labor:

     Mr. Obama took no questions Friday afternoon after giving what amounted to a dressing-down to some legislators in both parties just hours after the House Committee on Education and Labor approved legislation remake the nation's health care system by a 26-to-22 vote. Three Democrats crossed party lines to vote against the bill -- Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Jared Polis of Colorado and Dina Titus of Nevada.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:14pm

125. koroview, The Downing Street Memo proves nothing.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009 @ 08:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Actually, the memo repeatedly mentioned "spikes of activity" which were the roughy 20,000 sorties flown in the build-up to the war in an attempt to elicit a response from Hussein that could be used as a justification for going to war. Needless to say, the Iraqis didn't rise to the bait

     Posted by nkurland at 07/18/2009 @ 1:31pm

126. Here's how to find your congress people's vote on any (and every) issue:

     http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:34pm

127. Here are some Senators and blue dog(dems) who are on the wrong side of Health Care reform. Give them a call and demand, "MEDICARE/SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NOW!" Here are the toll-free numbers for the Capitol Hill Switchboard: (House and Senate) 1-800-828-0498 1-866-338-1015 1-866-220-0044.

     (blue dogs) Ross D-AR, Boucher D-VA, Kind D-WI, Pomeroy D-ND, Tanner D-TN Polis (CO), Titus (NV) and Altmire (PA)

     These are the problem Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee: John Barrow (GA-12), Bruce Braley (IA-01), Bart Gordon (TN-04), Baron Hill (IN-09), Jay Inslee (WA-01), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon LA-03, Zack Space (OH-18) and Bart Stupak (MI-01).

     Joe Lieberman I-CT, Chuck Grassley R-IA, Lindsey Graham R-SC, Susan Collins R-ME, Olympia Snowe R-ME, David Vitter R-LA, Saxby Chambliss R-GA, Tom Coburn R-OK, Jon Kyl R-AZ, John Thune R-SD, Richard Lugar R-IN, Jim DeMint R-SC Jeff Sessions R-AL, Richard Shelby R-AL, Mel Martinez R-FL, John McCain R-AZ, Mitch McConnell R-KY, Jim Inhofe R-OK, Lamar Alexander R-TN, Dick Burr R-NC, John Cornyn R-TX

     Mark Pryor D-AR, Thomas Carper D-DE, Mary Landrieu D-LA, Max Baucus D-MT, Kent Conrad D-ND, Ben Nelson D-NE, Maria Cantwell D-WA, Kay Hagan D-NC, Blanche Lincoln D-AR, Ron Wyden D-OR, Evan Bayh D-IN, Diane Feinstein D-CA, Arlen Specter D-PA

     Here are the toll-free numbers for the Capitol Hill Switchboard: (House and Senate) 1-800-828-0498 1-866-338-1015 1-866-220-0044.

     Also give the President a call or write an e-mail:

     White House Comments Line:

     1-202-456-1111 M-F 9:00-5:00 est. (NOT A TOLL-FREE #)

     President Obama's e-mail: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

     Nothing rattles the Congress and White House more than informed CITIZEN/VOTERS ringing the phones off the ho

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

128. Committee on Education and Labor approved legislation remake the nation's health care system by a 26-to-22 vote.Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:14pm

     26 to 22? Close vote. I didn't read up on that yet. Thanks for the post. And thanks for listing the traitors from the Demo side that voted against it.

     These votes on healthcare reform will reveal the wolves in sheeps clothing that the country must be rid of.

     I will be shortly calling those sellouts to let them know that they will be purged from the party in the next election cycle.

     It suprises me that they would commit political suicide. The payoff must be worth it, or else they are complete morons.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 1:45pm

129. I just called all the offices of Jason Altmire, Jared Polis and Dina Titus. There are no real human beings answering the phones and most of their voicemails are full. So I assume they are being swamped with calls from enraged voters.

     I literally had to go through dozens of voice mails to find one that I could leave a message on.

     These idiots just commited poltical suicide.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 2:27pm

130. Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     judybrowniemaker is due an apology!

     She is NOT just a paid blogger. She is either on staff at the nation, the staff shill of a Demoncrat congressman, or on the Obamanations White House internet staff at first base!

     She is not and independent individual citizen working diligently to pay the already burdensome taxes and raise a family just trying to keep everything all together and keep her job.

     Don't be fool by this kind of chicanery pushing the perfidy of the leftist marxist!

     The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats will do anything and destroy anybody who stands in their way in their quest to deny freedom and liberty in their mad thirst for power over the lives of all Americans!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/18/2009 @ 2:35pm

131. It must be tough to be on the payroll of vampiric healthcare and pharma corporations. Having to carry political water for a bunch of inhuman zombies. The republicans sold their soul to the devil 30 years ago. But now even some Dems are meeting these creatures at the crossroads.

     It is time that we, as a people stand up and wield our wooden spikes and hammers and drive a stake through the heart of this intolerable political morass of corruption.

     Evil is afoot in the hamlets of our nation.

     The enemy is within.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 2:39pm

132. Paperwork is driving up health care costs by as much as $9 billion annually in California, according to a public interest group that suggests physicians and insurers spend way too much time on processing insurance claims.

     In California, physicians typically spend about 45 minutes a day on insurance paperwork, according to a report released Thursday by the California Public Interest Research Group.

     "If we can do it more cheaply, it's a win-win for everybody," said Michael Russo, a health care advocate and staff attorney with CalPIRG. "When costs are skyrocketing, it's best to go for the low-hanging fruit. This is an area where we spend a lot of money."

     In all, CalPIRG estimates that $9 billion is spent by insurers and medical practices in California to process insurance claims.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 2:40pm

133. Posted by BigPasture at 07/18/2009 @ 2:35pm

     That was amusing Rio. I thought I was a bit over the top with my last post. But you beat my rhetoric hands down. The only difference is that mine speaks the truth and yours speaks of a paranoid sociopathic ideolgy that is in decline.

     Attacking judibrowni for a very informative series of posts is exactly the sort of squirming of the worm I like to see.

     Thanks Rio. You made my day.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 2:48pm

134. Paperwork is driving up health care costs by as much as $9 billion annually in California. Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 2:40pm

     $9 Billion just in california? Wow. Imagine what it must be nationwide. I guess Dennis Kucinich is on the right track.

     Private for profit healthcare has an enormous overhead when it comes to claims. Administration, Convoluted Paperwork, Lobbying and unreal compensation for Ceo's drives up the cost of healthcare like a skyrocket.

     Medicare has a 2% administration cost. Private for profit Healtcare Insurance has a 20% or higher cost of administration. This amounts to billions of dollars of additional cost for these for profit programs. Not to mention all the hassel of filling out forms.

     With an expansion of Medicare to include all citizens there would be no paperwork, no bills, no bankrupt families who were devastated by private for profit healthcare.

     You would just present your card and receive your services. Simple and elegant. And humane.

     Costs for pharmaceuticals would be greatly reduced because we would be buying them as an enormous group. And by limiting patents on drugs to like 3 years instead of 17 would further reduce costs to the consumer.

     Lot's of work to be done here.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 3:13pm

135. "The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats will do anything and destroy anybody who stands in their way in their quest to deny freedom and liberty in their mad thirst for power over the lives of all Americans!"

     Poor BigPasture -- paranoid schizophrena is so sad, especially when untreated.

     Sigh, I know it's a waste of time to try to break down the delusions of the paranoid, but just as there are no demons in the Democratic Party, I'm neither a "paid" progressive commenter, nor is there any such thing.

     I've asked again and again of BigPasture where I can sign on for such a job, but reality intrudes.

     If there were such a thing, I'd be the first to know. After retiring from journalism after 30 years (where I covered, mostly, comedy entertainment!) I can only wish that someone would give me a check for the cause I've taken up as an (unpaid) citizen journalist: using my research skills to refute the delusions, misinformation and lies of the wingnuts.

     You can take my word for it (or not) but the reality is progressive media and the Democratic party have neither the funds nor the will to pay commenters.

     But as Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

     You can contrast my fact-based posts with BigPasture's demon-laced screeds, or not -- I don't care, personally.

     It doesn't mater to me, except that as a former journalist I know the damage that lies and misinformation can cause: up to and including the Iraq War.

     We haven't finished paying in blood and treasure for those wingnut lies.

     Believe wingnut disinformation and delusion about healthcare at your own peril.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 3:17pm

136. Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 1:40pm

     Thanks for postin the phone numbers. It was a relief to be able to call and express my opinion.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 3:28pm

137. Busting the myth of Medicare's Low Overhead Costs

     <This statistic about Medicare's low administrative costs has become one of the linchpins in the argument for a "public option" on health care. The only problem, not surprisingly, is that it's hogwash.

     The explanation is really quite simple, and it's provided here by Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation. The statistic cited by Alter and Krugman uses administrative costs calculated as a percentage of total health care costs (For Medicare it's roughly 3 percent and for private insurers it's roughly 12 percent).

     But here's the catch: because Medicare is devoted to serving a population that is elderly, and therefore in need of greater levels of medical care, it generates significantly higher expenditures than private insurance plans, thus making administrative costs smaller as a percentage of total costs. This creates the appearance that Medicare is a model of administrative efficiency. What Jon Alter sees as a "miracle" is really just a statistical sleight of hand.

     Furthermore, Book notes that private insurers have a number of additional expenditures which fall into the category of "administrative costs" (like state health insurance premium taxes of 2-4%, marketing costs, etc) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost.

     But, as you might expect, when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans.>

     http://tinyurl.com/odfnya

     As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers.

     http://tinyurl.com/kjs4pp

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:04pm

138. 1.By the way Anti do you have a mother? Just asking. Does she get medicare? How do you feel about that? Again, just asking.

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:56pm

     I have a mother. She is 80 years old (81 in Dec). She does not have Medicare. We are a libertarian family. She lives on 10 acres that is paid for. She has her own well for water; wind generator with diesel back up for electricity, and a propane tank for cooking. My sister lives with her. They have chickens, ducks, and geese, a vegetable garden, and a herb garden.

     She also does not receive Social Security.

     And in case you ask. We were a lower middle class family. I went to work full time at age 15 because my father was an alcoholic. I helped support my mother and siblings while in high school.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:06pm

139. "Anti-socialist is an idiot who believes he'll never grow old, get sick or be bamboozled by a health insurance company."

     he also believes he died for 8 hours. not kidding.

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 4:25pm

140. "Anti-socialist is an idiot who believes he'll never grow old, get sick or be bamboozled by a health insurance company."

     he also believes he died for 8 hours. not kidding.

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 4:25pm

     I never believe I would live to be 30 (nor did my family for that matter), but it had nothing to do with religious faith. I entered the military with no expectation of surviving.

     I've never cared about living to old age. I have no need of healthcare and I have a living will that mandates that no extraordinary steps be taken to extend my life in case I am unable to communicate that myself.

     I have no obsession with living one minute more than I'm supposed to in this world. It's leftists like yourself who have that problem and caused explosing of costs in healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:33pm

141. leftists like myself? i'm 30 years old and have been to the doctor once as an adult, to get stitches for a cut on my foot.

     don't deny that you claim you were dead for 8 hours.

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 4:35pm

142. "I have no obsession with living one minute more than I'm supposed to in this world. It's leftists like yourself who have that problem and caused explosing of costs in healthcare."

     so only "leftists" get medical help that but for that help they'd die?

     and all the doctors administering medical care that but for that care their patients would die are "leftists?"

     and all the researchers/companies that create tools that doctors use that but for that care their patients would die are "leftists"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 4:40pm

143. Gee, it might seem that Medicare's administrative costs should be more -- after all, the insurance companies dump their sickest patients onto the government, and Medicare serves the over 65 crowd which also tends to moving toward death faster than the under 65 -- however, the facts are:

     "But the administration of Medicare is a miracle of low overhead and a model, despite all the fraud and abuse, of what government can do right. Three percent of Medicare's premiums go for administrative costs. By contrast, 10 to 20 percent of private-insurance premiums go for administrative costs. Roll that figure around on your tongue. When you swallow and digest it, you'll understand that any hope of significantly reducing health-care costs depends on a public option."

     As per usual, anti-social pulled his "facts" from the ass of a wingnut site: RCP.

     That's right, from the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, wholey subsidized by the health insurance companies.

     Which is why you'll only find anti-social's "facts" on wingnut sites.

     As per usual, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

     Anti-Social's mother may or may not use Medicare (she'd be a fool not to, but it's her life -- and death), but the majority of retired Americans are thankful for it, which was evidenced by their fierce refusal to allow the Bush administration to eradicate it (and the that more on Medicare are polled happy with that system than those on private insurance. I believe you'll find those statistics in a poll above in the thread as happy with Medicare 54% vs.happy with private insurance 45%)

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 4:45pm

144. Here are more statistics from the reality-based world: before the enactment of Social Security (and later, Medicare) 50% of retired Americans lived below the poverty line.

     Since Social Security (and Medicare) only 10% of elderly Americans live below the poverty line (a still disgraceful number, but a vast improvement.)

     If Social Security and Medicare could lift that number of Americans out of poverty, we can only hope for and pray for the positive effect on the economy of Medicare for-all.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 4:51pm

145. You'll find a more specific source on those Social Security figures:

     http://www.cbpp.org/files/8-11-05socsec.pdf

     Currently, 48% of elderly Americans would live below the poverty line without Social Security, and only 8% with it.

     Without Medicare, those both of those figures would be undoubtedly higher.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:01pm

146. don't deny that you claim you were dead for 8 hours.

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 4:35pm

     of course I don't deny it. I've met witnesses to my accident.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:01pm

147. There's the reality-based world, which includes science and medicine, and then there's anti-social.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:04pm

148. All of this talk about an unconstitutional sgl payer plan ignores the real problems with this marxist approach to health services.

     One is that Medicare suffers the same issues as that of private services.

     <A 2006 follow-up to the 1999 Institute of Medicine study found that medication errors are among the most common medical mistakes, harming at least 1.5 million people every year. According to the study, 400,000 preventable drug-related injuries occur each year in hospitals, 800,000 in long-term care settings, and roughly 530,000 among Medicare recipients in outpatient clinics. The report stated that these are likely to be conservative estimates. In 2000 alone, the extra medical costs incurred by preventable drug related injuries approximated $887 million – and the study looked only at injuries sustained by Medicare recipients, a subset of clinic visitors. None of these figures take into account lost wages and productivity or other costs.>

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:16pm

149. There's the reality-based world, which includes science and medicine, and then there's anti-social.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:04pm

     I've seen your posts so far and Ms Judy, I don't see you as a serious candidate for real fact based debate.

     I've been battling leftists like you for 50 years. You may yet surprise me, but I haven't seen anything substantive yet.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:18pm

150. How Obama's version of preventative healthcare will cost us more not less

     http://tinyurl.com/l5xxq5

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:25pm

151. Yeah, Medicare suffers (some) of the same issues as private insurance, however at a tenth of the cost, while more effectively addressing patient care.

     For one, nobody gets dumped from Medicare if they get an expensive illness. Insurance companies have admitted under oath to Congress that they fraudulently dump patients for the simple reason that their illnesses might become expensive -- and the insurance company executives also admitted under oath, that they would continue to illegally and fraudulently dump seriously ill patients.

     Patients who then have no choice to but be bankrupted by their medical bills before they can join a goverment plan.

     Why not cut out the middle-men: the blood-sucking, souless health insurance companies, wasting our dollars on their golden parachutes and lobbying to keep it that way.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:26pm

152. Hey good news for those who still believe Saddam had nuclear weapons (and that was the reason our oil-executive President and Vice President took us to war):

     I've found the weapons of mass destruction!

     They're locked in a tiny, ice-cold vault with the conscience of a health insurance CEO.

     (By the by, isn't it a coincidence that the both times America went to war in the Middle East the President just happened to have been an oil executive?)

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:35pm

153. Why not cut out the middle-men: the blood-sucking, souless health insurance companies, wasting our dollars on their golden parachutes and lobbying to keep it that way.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:26pm

     Why not eliminate health insurance?

     1. Because it's unconstitutional

     2. Because there is no constitutional right to healthcare

     3. Because it requires us to surrender liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and replaces it with totalitarian Federal control.

     For instance, the Obama/Dem Congress proposals would MANDATE that everyone purchase either the public option or private insurance. That means that millions like myself will be compelled under threat of law to pay for and participate in the healthcare system.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:45pm

154. Ah and now anti-social quotes from the Wall Street Journal, another wholely-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party and the health insurance industry.

     Don't you get it? CNBC and the WSJ are written for that top 1% of million billionaires who fear they might have to go back to the tax rates they enjoyed pre-Reagan giveaways to the wealthy.

     Why is it wingnuts always, always act other than in their own self-interest?

     And as for the "blame the immigrants" screed earlier in the thread -- bigotry invariably comes out when the wingnuts do.

     As I wrote earlier, my father's family goes back over 300 years in this country, if I'm not a bigot, why should those of you whose families were more recent immigrants be bigots?

     (My mother's father immigrated to America in 1905 from Germany and suffered under some of the anti-German prejudice practiced in the early 20th century.

     It's 100 years later and a disgrace that wingnuts are still falling for and disseminating fradulent blame-the-immigrant propaganda.

     Really, you people should be ashamed of yourselves, pushing propaganda against rational health care and other Americans. )

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:54pm

155. Anti-social that great student of history is here to tell us that health insurance companies are written into the Constitution, but we can't have public health care because it isn't.

     Ya know what else isn't in the Constitution (along with much other government good)? Government support for research and development of pharmaceuticals -- and yet, Anti-social isn't calling for the end of that.

     Nor is he calling for the end of our socialized fire departments, socialized police departments, public schools, public-subsidized SOCIALIZED roads and highways, street lights, sewer systems and ten thousand other for-the-public-good (socialized) things that government supports, not specifically named in the Constitution, either.

     Under the Obama plan, Anti-Social is allowed to continue to shovel his money to the health insurance companies, but those of us who are dumped by those health insurance companies will have the option for public healthcare before we bankrupt ourselves or reach 65.

     But Anti-Social and his ilk are all about limiting YOUR choice and options.

     And the next thing you know he will be all about eliminating public subsidies for roads he doesn't personally drive down.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 6:08pm

156. and the health insurance industry.

     Don't you get it? CNBC and the WSJ are written for that top 1% of million billionaires who fear they might have to go back to the tax rates they enjoyed pre-Reagan giveaways to the wealthy.

     And as for the "blame the immigrants" screed earlier in the thread -- bigotry invariably comes out when the wingnuts do.

     As I wrote earlier, my father's family goes back over 300 years in this country, if I'm not a bigot, why should those of you whose families were more recent immigrants be bigots?

     (My mother's father immigrated to America in 1905 from Germany and suffered under some of the anti-German prejudice practiced in the early 20th century.

     It's 100 years later and a disgrace that wingnuts are still falling for and disseminating fradulent blame-the-immigrant propaganda.

     Really, you people should be ashamed of yourselves, pushing propaganda against rational health care and other Americans. )

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Spoken like a true hardcore leftist. rather than debate the facts, you persist with attacks on the sources.

     And you are against the middle class evidently if you want to go back to the pre Reagan rates when the top 1% paid less than 1/2 of what they pay now of the tax burden according to the IRS.

     (17.8% in 1980, 39.7% in 2007). You are so manipulated by your leftist resources that you can't even imagine that the facts are just the opposite of what they tell you.

     And don't even attempt the bigotry against immigrants charge or race. I have a wife from El Salvador and 3 black sons. I pastored two Hispanic congregations and worked for years in South Central LA with mostly black and hispanic poor.

     And so what of your pedigree. Mine goes back further. So what?

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 6:11pm

157. It's leftists like yourself who have that problem and caused explosing of costs in healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:33pm

     This dupe is a complete and utter asshole. Wasting time responding to his posts is a useless endeavour. And I suppose i'm doing just that. Oh well.

     He will jump in and try like hell to muddy the water. Especially if the conversation starts making any progress.

     Anti is evil incarnate. Responding to his nonsense and lies just empowers him.

     I have never in my life seen the likes of this.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 6:32pm

158. THE REAL REASON THEY'RE TRYING TO DERAIL YOUR HEALTHCARE:

     "Taking the Party of No to new heights, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), yesterday, during a conference call on health care reform:

     'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him. '

     This perfectly encapsulates Republican thinking on health care reform; forget that it's an issue of vital importance to the overwhelming majority of Americans, forget that there are millions going without medical care, forget that people are dying because they can't afford to see a doctor ... to Jim DeMint and his ilk, derailing health care reform will hurt the President politically."

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 6:33pm

159. Nice unsupported hate rant! Why be so sterotypical leftist marxist when it makes you 1 of 10,000.?

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Sorry Pasture.....2 of 10,000, and many, many more....it's just a matter of time.

     Posted by jarshadow at 07/18/2009 @ 6:37pm

160. The anti-immigrant screed was BigPasture's -- the other resident wingnut, so that particular bigotry is his.

     Apparently, Anti-Social has a wife born in another country, but wingnuts may drop one of their typical lines, if they have personal experience with it.

     However, Anti-Social continues to pull "facts" out of the collective ass of wingnuttia.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 6:41pm

161. Detroit: and it feels absolutely great that one can visit and leave it all behind.....a truly great one-night stand!

     Posted by Happy at 07/18/2009 @ 10:07am

     no wonder your country is falling apart.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 6:48pm

162. Canadians - beside myself, of course.

     Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/18/2009 @ 11:37am

     eek!

     the shame...

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 6:50pm

163. the greatest Canadian was Tecumseh.

     Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/18/2009 @ 12:19pm

     no way.

     it's you, ill yeah.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 6:55pm

164. This is strictly sloppy seconds that will never survive a House-Senate conference committee, much less the House itself.

     It's just another opportunity for left corporate liberals like Nichols and Kucinich to pat themselves on the back with another token, dead-end, symbolic gesture in the period between election cycles; come the next campaign, however, they will dutifully attempt to herd the electorate back into the swamp of the Democratic Party, after which they will beat their breasts over yet another cynical sinking of the progressive agenda: "Golly, we're SHOCKED that people like Waxman and Rangel, who gave lip service to single payer while the Dems were out of power, have desperately tried to bury it now that they're in the majority!"

     It's the old story--noble words, feeble deeds, and everybody in the cesspool of endlessly futile lesser-evilism.

     People should be concentrating on battling unceasingly and uncompromisingly for a national single-payer Medicare for all plan. The rest, including the enfeebled, hamstrung "public option" proposed by the House and this doomed state-authorization amendement, are just diversionary charades, excuses for misplaced complacency, for those who don't have the stomach to fight it out for the real thing.

     Posted by vanmungo at 07/18/2009 @ 7:08pm

165. Posted by vanmungo at 07/18/2009 @ 7:08pm |

     I respect your passion and agree. When do we march on Washington. I'm ready my bags are packed.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/18/2009 @ 7:14pm

166. where in the constitution is health insurance forbidden antisocialist?

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 7:37pm

167. where in the constitution is health insurance forbidden antisocialist?

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 7:37pm

     galatians 4:20

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 8:31pm

168. Upthread a wingnut was insisting on gallup polls (none but Gallup would satisfy him), so here's a Gallup poll for the wingnuts (and the rest of us):

     "last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in "health care or medical systems" in their country.

     In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent."

     Ah, but if only we Americans could have the same satisfaction (and confidence) in our own medical system as those "socialized" countries.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 8:41pm

169. where in the constitution is health insurance forbidden antisocialist?

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 7:37pm

     We have a constitution of enumerated powers and Congress is limited to those authorities delineated in Article 1, Section 8

     Few Liberals and especially those in Congress acknowledge that Congress lacks this authority. One who does is Cong Jesse Jackson Jr. who has proposed a Constitutional amendment for UHC.

     <All of the presidential candidates and all of my colleagues in the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, are doing what I call "putting the cart before the horse." They are proposing health care plans without first establishing a health care premise. Each makes a health care legislative promise without first establishing a health care constitutional right.

     As a result, some of my colleagues are proposing medical research as a way of meeting and improving America's health care needs, while others are proposing plans that would cover 97% of the American people. Only a few are proposing a single-payer plan that covers all Americans, but such a plan has no constitutional basis and, therefore, legally could be declared unconstitutional by conservative federal courts!>

     http://tinyurl.com/dhfffk

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:07pm

170. The Downing Street Memo proves nothing.

     Much has been made about the use of the word "fixed" in the memo. This has included commentary that there are differences in the British use of the term versus the American.

     Thus all the Downing Street Memo said is that the Bush administration was building it's case why it may be necessary to go to war in Iraq.

     The memo did not indicate that there was no need to go to war, nor did it indicate that the reasons for going to war were being falsified or fabricated.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/18/2009

     The term "fixed" means the same thing when applied to falsification, fraud, lies, something that is crooked etc... This usage is not uniquely American.

     Match the facts of what happened with what the memo says and the usage becomes apparent.

     Also, take into context the sentence in which "fixed" appears..."But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". It doesn't make any sense to say "but" unless the usage intended was of a negative sort.

     Posted by koroviev at 07/18/2009 @ 11:00pm

171. "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus...The estimates also cover important reinvestments in Medicare and Medicaid, including phasing in the closing of the "donut" hole in the Medicare drug benefit. The bill's long-term reform of Medicare's physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory 'pay go' legislation that is pending in the House."

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/19/2009 @ 03:05am

172. Really? The wingnuts are still arguing against the Downing Street memo, and the for "unconstitutionality" of healthcare? Really? Really? Really?

     Oh jeez louise, assholes, and I'll only bother to say this once and you can go back to your sandbox and play where the cats pooped: everybody on the fucking planet -- but you -- knows there were no "weapons of mass destruction" found, and (b) you're nuts.

     Crackerjack, coo coo bananas.

     To even argue those points, once, evah. To continue with those wingnut talking points now -- you may not realize this -- but we're laughing at you, and you've chosen a website devoted to rational media making for an even bigger audience chuckling at your wacko brainless antics behind their hands.

     We only stop to pity you, you poor deluded creatures.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/19/2009 @ 03:16am

173. "This is an issue that affects the health and financial well-being of every single American and the stability of our entire economy.

     It's about every family unable to keep up with soaring out of pocket costs and premiums rising three times faster than wages. Every worker afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their job, or change jobs. Everyone who's worried that they may not be able to get insurance or change insurance if someone in their family has a pre-existing condition.

     It's about a woman in Colorado who told us that when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her insurance company – the one she'd paid over $700 a month to – refused to pay for her treatment. She had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.

     It's about a man from Maryland who sent us his story – a middle class college graduate whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs. During that time, he needed emergency surgery, and woke up $10,000 in debt – debt that has left him unable to save, buy a home, or make a career change.

     It's about every business forced to shut their doors, or shed jobs, or ship them overseas. It's about state governments overwhelmed by Medicaid, federal budgets consumed by Medicare, and deficits piling higher year after year.

     This is the status quo. This is the system we have today. This is what the debate in Congress is all about: Whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under, and more Americans lose their coverage. Or whether we'll seize this opportunity – one we might not have again for generations – and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009."

     Guess who?

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/19/2009 @ 03:46am

174. Good commentary on the above:

     "The insurance companies, the politicians who serve them and the wealthy ideologues who want to ensure that the rubes never realize that they have the power to challenge the ruling class, are working overtime to redirect the free floating anxiety people feel over jobs and health care and a whole host of very real problems to a fear of abstractions like future deficits. I think people have to be reminded that the status quo equals the very real and immediate threat of losing everything they have if they get sick. "

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/19/2009 @ 03:48am

175. judybrowni,

     While you are having a high time laughing remember:

     1. Your theories on taxation were shown to be wrong. We heard no further comment from you after that.

     2. We all know there were no WMD found when we went into Iraq. However, we do know Saddam had WMD in the past. We don't know when he disposed of it and probably never will, but we do know Saddam was jerking the world around.....his own generals thought he had WMD.....

     We know he was biding his time, and once he had been "found" by Hans Blix to be free of WMD, then the world pressure would have been off and it would have been back to making WMD again.....Saddam's own people say so.....

     You laugh and chortle as you let everyone know by implication how hyper-intelligent you believe yourself to be, and by direct statement how stupid you believe those who argue your idiotic talking points are.

     But you would not have been laughing quite so much had Saddam remade WMD, and it got into the hands of terrorists, and they killed millions of us with it.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 06:33am

176. Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:07pm |

     To lay and collect taxes...provide for the common defence and GENERAL WELFARE... - 1st enum'd

     <Now it appears to [YOUR CONSTRUCTIONIST HERE] that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society

     This principle, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as an axiom; and it will be incumbent upon those who may incline to deny it, to prove a distinction, and to show that a rule which, in the general system of things, is essential to the preservation of the social order, is inapplicable to the United States.> - Hamilton

     <We admit, ...that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended, but we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional> - Marshall

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 08:04am

177. Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 06:33am |

     Maybe he's not really dead and is outside your house with Sarin right now!

     Run, Cherm, run!

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 08:55am

178. And you are against the middle class evidently if you want to go back to the pre Reagan rates when the top 1% paid less than 1/2 of what they pay now of the tax burden according to the IRS. Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 6:11pm |

     You mean back when the top 1% only took home 1 out of every 10 dollars instead of 1 out of every 4?

     (or are you so dumb as to fail to see that this is where their real contribution to 'the tax burden' comes from?)

     You mean when that "33% bubble" was applied to all middle-class earners, while the top earners paid 28% on the income they got which others didn't?

     (an Orwellian conception of 'fair', if ever there was one)

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:33am

179. For all those who are against a single payer or national health care system and think this will just create rationing for health care. I have a question for you larger ten life thinkers.

     Do you not have a corporate bureaucrat who is in between you and your doctor?

     Do you not have an insurance company rationing your care now, and at any moment can deny you care?

     The issues are clear to me; the model we have is failing and is doing so fast. The premiums keep going up at 2 to 3 times the rate of inflation every year just because these corporate rubes know they can get away with it. Enough is enough as far as I'm concerned.

     Posted by jeffe at 07/19/2009 @ 12:29pm

180. "Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will introduce, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an amendment to the Tri-Committee health care bill. The amendment would replace the private health insurance industry with a single-payer national health insurance program.

     In effect, the Weiner amendment would substitute Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) single-payer bill, HR-676, for the Tri-Committee legislation.

     The vote will take place the same day it is offered; last I heard on Monday.

     My take:

     1.It is a good thing, even though it will not pass. 2.It will make more clear what reform we are getting and what we are not getting, that whatever the details of whatever eventually passes in 2009 is NOT single payer, is not Canada/French/Taiwan style single payer like. That it is not DOD/VAMC/UK/Spainish style socialized medicine. 3.It gives us single payer advocates a little bit of satisfaction. 4.It gives the Democratic leadership, including Obama, the added ability to point out that they are NOT supporting single payer. Hurrah for them.

     If your representative is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, please call your congressperson today and ask that he or she support Rep. Weiner's single-payer amendment.

     The Congressional Switchboard can be reached toll-free at 800-473-6711.

     If your representative is not a member of the Committee, please call Committee Chair Henry Waxman at 202-225-3976 and ask him to support Weiner's single-payer amendment." --by DrSteveB

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/19/2009 @ 12:42pm

181. Continue to keep the pressure on Congress to not destroy the constitution and implement their marxist totalitarian takeover of the nation.

     this proven unconstitutional coup against our limited Federal govt is the culmination of 100 years of marxist influence finally coming to a head.

     If these marxists succeed, our liberties are over.

     As I said before, these marxists have in their legislation a requirement to force individuals to purchase either the private or govt healthcare coverage against our will.

     And yet these marxist dupes like judybrowni, Chaozen and others laud this kind of usurption of our constitutional liberties.

     I shudder to think what kind of socialist, totalitarian govt they are imposing on my children and grandchildren. Thank goodness SCOTUS upheld the right of individuals to keep and bear arms against tyranny. We may all be forced into violence if this trend keeps up.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/19/2009 @ 1:16pm

182. snowball777,

     Excellent comments by you, they play well here in liberal land. They in no way match reality, however.

     It is the left that lives in fear.....Algore has you scared the planet will fry in 10 years, while you "know" Saddam was no threat.

     I just read an excellent comment on this by Julia Gorin. A Muslim Imam was recently promoting the same theme the left (most of the left) promotes on global warming. (this person is Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, the director of outreach at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia and the head of government relations for the Muslim Alliance of North America)

     Ms. Gorin hit the nail on the head with her comment about this, pasted below. (my link may contain extra spaces)

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

     http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2009/ 07/14/terrorists-confirm-julias-theory/

     You wonder why people fear white supremacists more than Islamofascists, La Raza, etc. Liberals tend to be cowards who are always afraid of the wrong things. They are afraid of our president, the Patriot Act, hearing the name of God or Jesus, and global warming. They are afraid of their food, their appliances and their medications. They want to reassure themselves that the big, bad man in the room is some Christian white guy, like John Ashcroft, because deep down they know he poses no real threat. Freud called it displacement.

     Leftists are too scared to be scared of the right things. And so they create less scary things to be scared of. And what they were too scared to fear at that comment session at EPA headquarters -- but the one thing truly worth fearing -- was the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the Muslim leader. The Muslim leader directing them to focus their attention on the environment so the caliphate can proceed unhindered.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 1:47pm

183. It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

     Posted by reg373 at 07/19/2009 @ 1:57pm

184. Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 1:47pm |

     I'm not scared of anything; that's your bag.

     If fearful and ignorant is your preferred way to go through life, have a ball; just don't expect anyone to follow you on your snipe hunts.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 2:51pm

185. We may all be forced into violence if this trend keeps up. Posted by antisocialist at 07/19/2009 @ 1:16pm |

     Leave it to a con to invoke violence as a `solution' to an imaginary problem; your fear-mongering bullsh-t is laughable in the extreme, Mr. Wanna-be-McVeigh Von Braun.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 2:56pm

186. "After retiring from journalism after 30 years (where I covered, mostly, comedy entertainment!) I can only wish that someone would give me a check for the cause I've taken up as an (unpaid) citizen journalist: "

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/18/2009 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     (Sure beats writing a BIG check to Jay Leno over a lawsuit doesn't it?)

     Like I said, judy brown is NOT just a paid blogger. She is either on staff at the nation, the staff shill of a Demoncrat congressman, or on the Obamanations White House internet staff at first base!

     She is not and independent individual citizen working diligently to pay the already burdensome taxes and raise a family just trying to keep everything all together and keep her job.

     Don't be fool by this kind of chicanery pushing the perfidy of the leftist marxist!

     The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats will do anything and destroy anybody who stands in their way in their quest to deny freedom and liberty in their mad thirst for power over the lives of all Americans!

     As more of the tenants of the marxist socialism embeded in the so called "healthcare bill are being made public finally we see that they are adamant about establishing social control even at the idividual and family level over you and your children.

     Even with something as simple as vaccinations by "mandating" inocculations even "against the will" of individuals and families! Liberty and Freedom is NOT something this Obamanation administration believes in!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 3:12pm

187. Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 3:12pm |

     They're gonna take away our Constitutional right to be friggin' idiots!

     No wonder you're all using them while you can...

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 3:24pm

188. It has been a long time since I have posted here, but it appears that the so-called conservative-libertarian-thumper trolls really haven't changed. Only the names have changed in order to protect the guilty.

     We have antisocialist who apparently is playing some sort of weird blog drinking game with his friends: "Dudes! Every time I write the word "marxist" or some permutation, we drink!" After reading his posts, it's clear he and his cohorts are snockered and think that Reagan is still president.

     sjchermak seems blithely unaware that there is this stuff called videotape that captured several members of the Bush Administration claiming, on the record, that the Hussein regime <i>clearly was in possession of WMD</i>/ He might want to check that out since he obviously has a computer and Internet access. And please, for your own sake cherm, take your anxiolytics regularly.

     As for Big Pasture, I am waiting for him to pull out the big gun: that Obama's middle name is Hussein. Where is Joe the Philologist when you need him, eh Pasture?

     Ignore these three, me hearties. Cheers.

     Posted by theoryhead at 07/19/2009 @ 4:01pm

189. And yes, the HTML I tried to use for effect failed miserably. Point that out if you must. And while I am on the subject of corrections, Pasture, the word is "tenet," not "tenant." The former is a postulate, the latter is a renter. Your screeds may not be more sensible if you get the words right, but at least you will have proper diction on your side.

     Posted by theoryhead at 07/19/2009 @ 4:19pm

190. That's what I love most about the marxist leftist, strong on spelling but devoid of truth!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 6:02pm

191. Your screeds may not be more sensible if you get the words right, but at least you will have proper diction on your side. Posted by theoryhead at 07/19/2009 @ 4:19pm |

     That's what I love most about the marxist leftist, strong on spelling but devoid of truth! Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 6:02pm |

     You are correct, for once, PigManure; your posts won't make any more sense, no matter how much your spelling manages to improve.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 6:23pm

192. Gee Rio, now Marxists are good spellers... You're devoid of brains and humor. But don't worry you're great at mimickry and projection. Your devil, however, is within you. The more you project him onto "Marxist lefties", etc., the more you are his.

     Posted by winyahn at 07/19/2009 @ 6:41pm

193. According to a study conducted by the California Nurses association a One Payer healthcare system would save billions of dollars simply by trimming overhead costs (Such as golden parachutes for healthcare CEOs).

     There would be enough to cover every American plus it would generate millions of jobs in the healthcare industry.

     Posted by nursevic at 07/19/2009 @ 6:43pm

194. I have no obsession with living one minute more than I'm supposed to in this world. It's leftists like yourself who have that problem and caused explosing of costs in healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:33pm

     Not for long. Government will be happy to determine who is fit to continue living and who can, shall we say, wither away on the vine.

     Posted by plainbruce at 07/19/2009 @ 7:08pm

195. I nominate Claude Castonguay as the greatest Canadian.

     http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/07/father-

     of-canadian-health-system-says.html

     Posted by plainbruce at 07/19/2009 @ 7:12pm

196. theoryhead seems blithely unaware that there is this thing called the public record (consisting of video, documented records, newspaper and magazine articles, etc) in which many Democrats claimed, on the record, that Saddam was a threat, that Saddam was in possession of WMD, and that the Saddam threat may have to be stopped by force ------ and that these sentiments were expressed even during the Clinton administration.

     And theoryhead seems blithely unaware that we had no way of knowing otherwise what Saddam really had because Saddam would not cooperate with the UN requirements.

     And theoryhead seems blithely unaware that in retrospect Saddam was jerking the world around and playing this situation out......and that Saddam had apparently decided the time had come for it to be determined that he had no WMD anymore, and so he let Hans Blix wander wherever he wanted, and glory be....he was finding no WMD!

     But theoryhead seems blithely unaware that once this "determination" had been made and the world started rejoicing that Saddam was "disarmed".....and the sanctions were lifted and world attention was off of Saddam.....that he was going to start making WMD again.......his own people have said so.........

     Thus theoryhead is for sure blithely unaware that with Saddam making more and more connections to terror organizations, it is certain that Saddam's WMD would have gotten into the hands of terrorists and then millions of us would have died.

     THAT, theoryhead would have been completely aware of......as theoryhead would have then been crucifying George W. Bush to blame for letting it happen.

     It seems that "theoryhead" has not chosen an appropriate screen name, because there appears to be no credible theories, just empty space, in theoryhead's head.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 7:29pm

197. Gee, cherm, you really cotton to the phrase "blithely unaware," don't you? Got under your skin a bit, yes?

     As for my politics, your vain attempts at casting me in with the Democrats, creating a straw man and then trying to pummel me along with said straw man simply won't do, I'm afraid. Your straw man is ridiculous, your overgeneralizations grating and I, my dear cherm, am not a Democrat. Your bizarre, unsourced view of history is also quite laughable. Are you angling to be a political comic? I hope, in this dreadful economy, that you have a day job that you can keep instead.

     Perhaps you view politics as some sort of ham-fisted cheerleading so that you can create Manichean "sides" and wave your pom-poms, but I do not. I would suggest you take a deep breath, pick up a text on logical fallacies and up the Lorazepan dosage. Go find your happy place.

     Posted by theoryhead at 07/19/2009 @ 8:55pm

198. The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats will do anything and destroy anybody who stands in their way in their quest to deny freedom and liberty in their mad thirst for power over the lives of all Americans!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 3:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Ah yes, the Republican credo: "We've got ours," and "Let 'em eat cake!"

     Posted by jarshadow at 07/19/2009 @ 9:27pm

199. Not for long. Government will be happy to determine who is fit to continue living and who can, shall we say, wither away on the vine.

     Posted by plainbruce at 07/19/2009 @ 7:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The Obamanation that makes desolation has said as much openly admitting that he and the Demoncrats plan to "ration" healthcare like good totalitarians!

     They seem to dream of Stalin and Hitlers form of negative eugenics and a geriatric euthanasia, but on a limited scale as they are the "kinder gentler" style of authoritarians!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 10:23pm

200. Liberals tend to be cowards who are always afraid of the wrong things. They are afraid of our president, the Patriot Act, hearing the name of God or Jesus, and global warming. They are afraid of their food, their appliances and their medications. They want to reassure themselves that the big, bad man in the room is some Christian white guy, like John Ashcroft, because deep down they know he poses no real threat. Freud called it displacement.

     Leftists are too scared to be scared of the right things. And so they create less scary things to be scared of. And what they were too scared to fear at that comment session at EPA headquarters -- but the one thing truly worth fearing -- was the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the Muslim leader. The Muslim leader directing them to focus their attention on the environment so the caliphate can proceed unhindered.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 1:47pm

     Squish!

     Another rotten pumpkin of failed logic, lobbed by sjchermak, has hit the pavement.

     Argumentum ad hominem: "liberals are cowards and are scared of the wrong things."

     Attack a position or belief by attacking a characteristic of the person(s) supporting the position or belief rather than offering substantive argument.

     Liberals = bad, so their concerns must be wrong. No need to produce proof or logic.

     Also, I don't think any psychologist would ascribe displacement to someone who fears global warming or any of the other concerns you list.

     Posted by koroviev at 07/19/2009 @ 10:38pm

201. Lets hear it from some working-class Republicans with families now, please, to defend our current health care system with some passion! Surely there must be millions of American homeowners and small businesspeople delighted with their existing insurance and health care?And why havent we heard a chorus of support yet, from unemployed or working poor conservatives, about how affordable and satisfactory their health care is. . .

     Posted by madImoody at 07/19/2009 @ 10:53pm

202. Posted by theoryhead at 07/19/2009 @ 8:55pm |

     Lorazepan...a fine paste formed from sugar, almonds, and benzodiazepines?

     Well, as long as you can get him to take the meds...

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 11:06pm

203. or working poor conservatives

     Posted by madImoody at 07/19/2009 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Not repub., but Independent netting under $25K income and happy with the healthcare affordability and the excellent responsiveness provided by it on all three kids! Do I qualify or am I poor enough, though NOT repub.?

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 11:38pm

204. I still think that we should start by terminating all of Congress's health benfits.

     Besides their need for greedy pockets all of their arguments are false because they don't know what it's like to be uninsured. How can they, they are monstrously the most self-pampering entity and devoid of any true concern for the needy. They argue against a single payer, public options are set aside, and the world remains the same --- a ball of confusion.

     Federal employees are under a form of single payer program with the stated ability to choose a plan based on their income levels. Both the employer and employee contribute, but they are all receiving money from a single payer --- The U.S. Governrnent via our taxes. We, as providers of the US Treasury are paying for both contributions as salary and subsidy, and salary is the smaller contribution. Also, isn't this somewhat of a public option that is offered to federal employees?

     Argue all you want but it's still a country whereby the rich can afford anything, and the not so rich scramble for the crumbs. And most congressmen and senators are too rich to even care --- but it would at least send a message as something is finally taken away from them as have had so many average Americans. And if they are rich enough to pay for their own health benefits then why are we even paying it for them in the first place?

     Posted by onekoleso at 07/20/2009 @ 12:10am

205. I agree with most of the posters who use reason and logic. But I'm sorry to say we all know that there are dark forces beyond our control which are determined to ruin this country: Obama has not rectified one thing and we are heading into the abyss.I'm sad to say I have terminal cancer but in a way I'm sorta relieved I won't be forced to live in a country which has such contempt for its citizens.the biggest m,istake I ever made in my life was come to America ; It was a great country then and I look sadlky and see it becoming soime grotesq

     Posted by mystic at 07/20/2009 @ 01:27am

206. I agree with most of the posters who use reason and logic. But I'm sorry to say we all know that there are dark forces beyond our control which are determined to ruin this country: Obama has not rectified one thing and we are heading into the abyss.I'm sad to say I have terminal cancer but in a way I'm sorta relieved I won't be forced to live in a country which has such contempt for its citizens.the biggest m,istake I ever made in my life was come to America ; It was a great country then and I look sadlky and see it becoming soime grotesq

     Posted by mystic at 07/20/2009 @ 01:27am

207. posted prematurely..continued: I see America beocoming some grotesque fascist Bolshevik country.

     Posted by mystic at 07/20/2009 @ 01:28am

208. What about S 898?

     S. 898 would amend the Social Security Act to provide grants and flexibility through demonstration projects for States to provide universal, comprehensive, cost-effective systems of health care coverage, with simplified administration.

     http://is.gd/1F1bq

     Posted by ActivistMotivator at 07/20/2009 @ 03:08am

209. One of the reasons Ted Kennedy has made healthcare the fight of his life:

     "Nothing I'm enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children's Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward."

     "During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage.

     But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world."

     http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 08:37am

210. I and I'm sure a lot of other people are cheering you on like I am,thanks. Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you may add me to that list. you go "girl"

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 09:27am

211. "No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world." http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 08:37am

     Compelling commentary.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 09:27am

212. I and I'm sure a lot of other people are cheering you on like I am,thanks. Posted by Denise29 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you may add me to that list. you go "girl"Posted by Citizen54 at 07/17/2009 @ 8:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     one might also ask the question: were no medical advances made in the western European countries which have universal health insurance?

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 09:32am

213. All of a sudden, no one from the right is around. Can't answer?

     facts are to repugs what kryptonite is for superman. it saps their strength.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 09:39am

214. Thank goodness SCOTUS upheld the right of individuals to keep and bear arms against tyranny. We may all be forced into violence if this trend keeps up.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/19/2009 @ 1:16pm

     It amazes me that theses con's can create a straw man. And then get themselves in such a lather over their own pschological constructions. The more evil and foul they can make the anatagonist, the better they can feel about their own ego heroic "good guy" mental construction. It is the "story brain" hyped with hate, paranoia and self loathing.

     It is dangerous to be sure. And this one is reaching a self generated boiling point.

     Scary. How do we reverse this cult mentality?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 09:42am

215. Many good posts here lately. Makes me feel like there is still some hope for us. I have been despairing lately.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 09:45am

216. I see America beocoming some grotesque fascist Bolshevik country. Posted by mystic at 07/20/2009 @ 01:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

     you might wish to go into that dark night somewhat clear headed.

     fascism and bolshevikism are diametrically opposed. fascism see Hitler and Mussolini. bolshevikism see Stalin and Lenin.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 09:53am

217. fascism and bolshevikism are diametrically opposed. fascism see Hitler and Mussolini. bolshevikism see Stalin and Lenin.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 09:53am

     Stole my thunder. But I hesitate to correct a sick person. Especially one who may be terminally ill and undergoing treatments or receiving large amounts of pain killers. Cancer is a bitch.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 09:59am

218. How to kick ass on health care today:

     http://tinyurl.com/nuzeme

     (By the by, I'm no longer reading or responding to the wingnut stuff, I can only bear so much stupidity.

     I'll be posting factual health care stuff as it comes up.)

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 10:24am

219. On another subject:

     There are rumors that behind closed doors the senate Democrats have dropped card check from the Employee Free Choice Act.

     This is either and underhanded gutting of of EFCA or a brilliant move. Depending on how you look at it.

     Binding Arbritration and Union oragnizers access to company property. Along with barring employers from requiring workers to attend "captive audience meetings" and a guarantee that union elections would be held between 5 to 10 days, is still in the bill.

     So in essence there would be little diference between this and card check. And by giving up an "essential" part of the bill they might well avoid a fillibuster.

     I'm not sure yet wheather it's a good move or Democrats folding again..

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 10:29am

220. Yet another example of the lies being spread about "socialized" medicine:

     Apparently, ads running in N.C. with a Canadian woman complaining about her healthcare are lies on top of lies:

     http://tinyurl.com/nuzeme

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 10:32am

221. (By the by, I'm no longer reading or responding to the wingnut stuff, I can only bear so much stupidity.

     I'll be posting factual health care stuff as it comes up.)

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 10:24am

     Many take that option. Listening to their nonsense can be distracting. But I like to keep abreast of any changes in their illness. It can be exhausting though.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 10:32am

222. By the by, it's also a lie that the middle class will be taxed for healthcare.

     Nancy Pelosi: Make millionaires pay for health care

     http://tinyurl.com/ms6lpj

     "Trying to sell a historic health bill to a balky caucus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told POLITICO in an interview that she wants to soften a proposed surcharge on the wealthy so that it applies only to families that make $1 million or more."

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 10:40am

223. We may all be forced into violence if this trend keeps up. Posted by antisocialist at 07/19/2009 @ 1:16pm |

     Leave it to a con to invoke violence as a `solution' to an imaginary problem; your fear-mongering bullsh-t is laughable in the extreme, Mr. Wanna-be-McVeigh Von Braun.

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 2:56pm

     Maybe you ought to study history and the views of our Founders

     "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

     Patrick Henry

     "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

     Thomas Jefferson

     "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights."

     H.L. Mencken

     "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

     Thomas Jefferson

     And this from a modern liberal Democrat

     "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

     Hubert H. Humphrey

     "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

     Thomas Jefferson

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 10:49am

224. And one more for you Snow

     "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

     Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

     The quotes from the founders and Hubert Humphrey certainly reflect a recognition that one day a govt that would embrace tyranny as Obama and the Democrats (with urging from the leftists) are currently rushing towards.

     It may well be that we enter a second civil war. This time it will not be North vs South, but those who love freedom and our constitution vs the marxist/socialists who believe this is their moment to transform the US into another Europe.

     Let me remind them that we fought to escape the tyranny of Europe before and we can again; even when it deceitfully rises from within our midst.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 10:53am

225. Thomas Jefferson Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 10:49am

     Your out of context and misleading quotes are tiresome. In the next post is the entire quote from Thomas Jefferson on Christianity and Religious Tyranny. Or as much as the Nation Magazine will allow.

     Careful, it might make your head explode!

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:10am

226. I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:11am

227. for they are men of truth.

     There's the whole quote which is the complete antithesis of your excerpt.

     You are a demon in a very real way. Distorting the words of a great man in order to futhur your own twisted bullshit agenda.

     Shame on you.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:16am

228. i've had fun with antisocialist posting anti-religion quotes from many founders (including thomas jefferson). antisocialist, of course, responded how wrong these men were, how they were going to hell, etc.

     the cherry-picking of quotes from politicians (and yes, the founders were politicians) is no surprise from a guy who cherry-picks lines from the bible to back up his homophobia (among other disgusting viewpoints)

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/20/2009 @ 11:29am

229. I could go through every quote you used and discredit it with the truth. For you misunderstand the intentions of great men and have a brain rotted with talking points, paranoia, hate, delusions and self serving ulterior motives.

     You disgust me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:30am

230. I could go through every quote you used and discredit it with the truth. For you misunderstand the intentions of great men and have a brain rotted with talking points, paranoia, hate, delusions and self serving ulterior motives.

     You disgust me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:30am

     You really are pathetic with your love of marxism and desire for totalitarian control over others. All so you can have "free healthcare" while becoming a slave.

     Your views are more dangerous to freedom than that of most Democrats even. Because despite your claims, you worship at the alter of socialism and the desire to see others enslaved to it.

     Perhaps that is the root of why my posts disgust you so much. You despise anyone that believes in liberty for all and removing the bondage of an all powerful govt which our founders and my own family fought for.

     I don't despise you. But I despise everything you believe in

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 11:42am

231. the cherry-picking of quotes from politicians (and yes, the founders were politicians) is no surprise from a guy who cherry-picks lines from the bible to back up his homophobia (among other disgusting viewpoints)

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/20/2009 @ 11:29am

     It occurs to me that people like Anti, already know all these things. They just post the talking points and cash the check from whatever right wing organization is paying them. I could almost understand that. Times are tough and a guy has to make a living. But to post this crap and carry water for the evil corporate bastards that currently run the country and damage their own country for profit, must exact a price.

     But ya never know. Look at the den of iniquity Prayer House was running on C Street. These people are just always surprising.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:44am

232. You really are pathetic with your love of marxism and desire for totalitarian control over others.Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 11:42am

     Interesting. You use the word Marxism to describe me. You would think if I was a Marxist I would be using the word more than you and quoting Karl Marx. You use it constantly to prop up your straw man. Either that or "Communist". Funny stuff that.

     I don't recall ever using the word. I might have in reference to something, but I can't recall an instance. And I don't promote Communism or Marxism.

     And also you just attempted to change the subject as to your misuse of quotations. Especially those of Jefferson. You can't respond to the burning light of truth. It scorches you, like the sun to a vampire.

     You have officially been outed as the scum you are. Have a little dignity and scurry benath the nearest moist rock.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:57am

233. Interesting. You use the word Marxism to describe me. You would think if I was a Marxist I would be using the word more than you and quoting Karl Marx. You use it constantly to prop up your straw man. Either that or "Communist". Funny stuff that.

     I don't recall ever using the word. I might have in reference to something, but I can't recall an instance. And I don't promote Communism or Marxism.

     And also you just attempted to change the subject as to your misuse of quotations. Especially those of Jefferson. You can't respond to the burning light of truth. It scorches you, like the sun to a vampire.

     You have officially been outed as the scum you are. Have a little dignity and scurry benath the nearest moist rock.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:57am

     You don't have to use the word marxist to be a marxist. I is the totalitarian aims that you express.

     1. You want to "take from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

     2. You want free healthcare and education-all part of marxist dogma.

     3. You want unionization to become dominant over private enterprise-marxist dogma

     4. Like all good marxists, you abhor judaism and christianity because marxism considers them to be the enemy of the masses.

     So how are you not a marxist?

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:24pm

234. Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 11:57am

     Typical leftist ignorance. You take one quote from one individual out of those I listed and say it can only have one usage-and by what standard? Yours.

     As I've said, I've been battling marxist idiots like you and your goal of destroying my country for 5 decades. I'm not about to let you finish the destruction without a fight. I've bleed for my country and earned the right to wage this battle while traitors like you spend your time trying to tear this country down.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:28pm

235. I've bleed for my country and earned the right to wage this battle while traitors like you spend your time trying to tear this country down.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:28pm

     Got my fingers ahead of my thoughts-

     s/b I've bled for my country

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:29pm

236. Because despite your claims, you worship at the alter of socialism and the desire to c. Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 11:42am

     You are a neverending source of amusement. "Worship at the altar of Socialism"? And on top of that "to see others enslaved to it"?

     Maybe you should get out a bit and travel to Denmark. "Happiness", which for the first time in history was enumerated in our Declaration of Independence seems to be the highest in the world there. Oddly enough a nations level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels. Status is related in Denmark as 'Jante-lov" or "Your no better than anyone else". And people feel "tryghed" the Danish word for "tucked in" or "snugly".

     Denmark is a Social Democracy and has what could be called a "Social" Healthcare program.

     So here are your "Socialists". Apparently the happiest people in the world. Enslaved? To what exactly? Not uncontrolled capitalism surely.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 12:35pm

237. Another apt Jefferson quote

     "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:35pm

238. You are a neverending source of amusement. "Worship at the altar of Socialism"? And on top of that "to see others enslaved to it"?

     Maybe you should get out a bit and travel to Denmark. "Happiness", which for the first time in history was enumerated in our Declaration of Independence seems to be the highest in the world there. Oddly enough a nations level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels. Status is related in Denmark as 'Jante-lov" or "Your no better than anyone else". And people feel "tryghed" the Danish word for "tucked in" or "snugly".

     Denmark is a Social Democracy and has what could be called a "Social" Healthcare program.

     So here are your "Socialists". Apparently the happiest people in the world. Enslaved? To what exactly? Not uncontrolled capitalism surely.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 12:35pm

     I've been to Denmark. I wouldn't live there. Nice people, but I would rather live free.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:37pm

239. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit."

     Abraham Lincoln

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:39pm

240. I've been to Denmark. I wouldn't live there. Nice people, but I would rather live free.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:37pm

     And just exactly how are you any more "free" than they are. They travel more than we do. They get longer vacations than we do. They are generally more satisfied with life than we are. They are healthier than we are. They have Democratic elections which are not rigged by special interests. How are they less free?

     I think what you mean by "free" is "free" to be a miserable old twisted fuck.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 12:44pm

241. and yes, the founders were politicians)

     I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. the founders did not anticipate political parties. hence they could not have been "politicians".

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 1:01pm

242. Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 12:39pm

     That's right you Moron. When in trouble resort to quote's taken out of context and obscure the relevant context.

     Lincoln was discussing to the House of Representatives in 1848 the boundaries of Mexico and Texas. It is a long speech and only has relevance to a disputed piece of land between the borders between the Rio Grande and the Nueces. It was a no mans land being disputed as part of the Louisiana Purchase.

     But to read the quote out of context does not take into account any relation to the subject being discussed in 1848.

     It must have taken some repug miscreant a long time searching to come up with that one.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 1:12pm

243. And just exactly how are you any more "free" than they are. They travel more than we do. They get longer vacations than we do. They are generally more satisfied with life than we are. They are healthier than we are. They have Democratic elections which are not rigged by special interests. How are they less free?

     I think what you mean by "free" is "free" to be a miserable old twisted fuck.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 12:44pm

     I can take a vacation whenever I want since I work for myself. And more Americans are self employed than anywhere else in the world.

     I'd be happier if I had less govt control over my life and my family.

     I don't use healthcare or doctors and I'm healthy without it. Being healthy is primarily about lifestyle choices, not doctors and hospitals.

     They have a monarchy, we don't. We fought to rid ourselves of one.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:17pm

244. News out of Denmark for Chaozen

     <The housing market is still in such a slump that if put up for sale, every third apartment in Copenhagen would be selling at a loss, according to calculations from Nordea Bank.

     Politiken newspaper reports that 32 percent of apartments in the greater Copenhagen area have dropped in value below their original purchase price, while the same is true for 11 percent of detached houses.

     On a nationwide scale, recent property purchases facing a loss amount to 22 percent of apartments and eight percent of detached homes.

     Up to 170,000 properties across the country would now sell at a loss compared to their original purchase prices – the highest figure since the housing crisis of the 80s - and an increase of 70,000 homes in the last six months.

     The situation in Copenhagen is so bad, that property economist Troels Theill Eriksen of Nordea said many have run out of options.

     ‘A lot of Copenhageners are now stuck in a frozen situation where they simply just can't afford to sell,' said Eriksen.

     The situation may be responsible for the current baby boom affecting the city as parents cannot afford to sell their city apartment and move to a house in the country.

     Copenhagen Council was caught napping by the boom, when it was discovered at the start of the year that there were 1,600 children more in the 0-5 age group than had been estimated for in the budget.

     The boom has resulted in record long waiting lists for daycare, schools and after school programmes. Sortedam School in the Østerbro district is already seeing the direct effects of the trend.

     http://tinyurl.com/lfme98

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:24pm

245. I suppose the positive aspect of all this is that I learn a bunch of historical facts that may come in handy later on.

     Other than that I'm starting to think that judibrowni has the right idea. Just ignore them. After all they are just here to waste our time.

     Maybe check in on them occasionaly.

     I guess I'm just the eternal optimist. That people just can't be that messed up.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 1:26pm

246. Up the thread you'll find some wingnut whining about how the poor, poor uber-wealthy shouldn't be taxed back to the rates of Pre-Reagan, in order to support healthcare for all.

     Here you'll find charts, graphs and statistics that show the how income gains of the top 1% in the last 30years consequently outstripped the rest of the nation:

     "the wealthiest 1 percent of all households benefited from income gains as the country grew wealthier from 1946 to 1976 (the group of bars on the left) --and the degree to which they shared in the nation's prosperity from 1976 to 2006 (the bars on the right.)

     During the thirty years following World War II, the richest 1 percent enjoyed 20 percent of the gains--which is to be expected. It takes money to make money. Wealthier Americans are in a position to pay for education that will help them leverage their talents, and they have the deep pockets to take advantage of the best investment opportunities--buying stocks, real estate, businesses and other assets when prices are low.

     But the vast majority of all Americans--the lower 90 percent on the income ladder--also did very well, taking in 80 percent of the wage benefits that came with the nation's growth.

     By contrast, in more recent years growth was no longer widely shared. <b>From 1976 to 2006 the mega-rich enjoyed 232 percent of the gains while the bottom 90 percent saw only 10 percent of the benefits. </>

     And in recent years, the trend accelerated. From 2002 to 2006, the share of the nation's income flowing to the top 1 percent climbed from 15.8 percent to 20.0 percent. "Not since 1928, just before the Great Depression, has the top 1 percent held such a large share of the nation's income," the Center observes." http://tinyurl.com/lsoa5y

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 1:26pm

247. Chaozen's "Danish Freedom"

     <Fingerprinting clubbers a hit with guests

     A new survey shows that 75 percent of nightclub guests favour registration, which often keeps troublemakers out of the clubs

     Three in four nightclub patrons are in favour of fingerprinting and registering guests to create a safe environment for clubbers.

     Most clubs that register guests take their names, addresses, telephone numbers and date of birth. Some also photograph and fingerprint their guests.

     We need a type of identity card, which could be the existing CPR personal registration card, that would tell us if a guest was subject to a restraining order. Right now, we have no way of knowing who the troublemakers are,' Bresling said.

     http://tinyurl.com/mz49oc

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:29pm

248. And I guess that Chaozen has been a hypocrite in his complaints about a "police state" here in the US. After all, he loves Danish freedom and look how they handle protestors

     <Mass arrests during Ungdomshuset protests netted too many suspects for the police to be able to try them all

     The cases have been dropped due to resource shortages and the likelihood that convictions would likely only result in suspended sentences, according to a police spokesman. The riots arose after a court decision that in March 2007 led to the eviction of squatters from the building they had used an alternative culture centre since 1982.

     The activists, including people from 10 foreign countries, were arrested when members of the Ungdomshuset youth culture centre protested against the decision that upheld the right of religious group Faderhuset to evict the squatters.

     The move is the latest blow against the mass arrest tactic adopted by police for stopping illegal demonstrations. The manoeuvre sees police corral large groups into a confined area and later charge them with disorderly conduct or vandalism.

     But most demonstrators arrested have had their cases thrown out in court due to lack of evidence. Others have been convicted, but of the lesser charges of participating in an illegal demonstration or failing to obey a police order to disperse.

     Police hope that new video equipment installed in a van can be used to record demonstrations and serve as evidence in trials.

     http://tinyurl.com/mm5sue

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:34pm

249. Danish Freedom on the right to keep and bear arms-straight out of a vision of either Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China

     <Police were unable to confirm if the majority were older weapons left over from Second World War or newer illegally imported weapons, but said they were pleased with the results.

     ‘People are presumably aware of how serious the consequences can be if weapons fall into the wrong hands,' said Deputy Police Chief Kenneth Joensen.

     The amnesty preceded the tightening of weapons laws, which came into effect on Tuesday. Those in possession of illegal weapons can now face up to one year in prison.

     The last weapons amnesty in 2003 netted 1,740 handguns, more than 3,000 knives and large amounts of explosives.>

     http://tinyurl.com/klge8a

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:37pm

250. Now that I have wet your appetites, here is the main course!

     this is the result of national health care in Chaozen's dream nation of Denmark

     <Private health insurance on the rise Reports indicate that the elderly are increasingly making use of the expanding private health insurance industry

     Private insurance companies are making headway in Denmark, with nearly a fifth of all residents now covered by an additional private policy, despite the country boasting one of the world's best public health care systems.

     In 2003, nearly 229,000 people had private health insurance. By last year that number had grown to over 983,000, with premiums increasing 42 percent and compensation payments rising a full 60 percent.>

     http://tinyurl.com/m4nchb

     the very thing that conservatives have charged. National Healthcare ends up rationing care and the elderly want better treatment than govt run healthcare provides.

     I can hardly wait for Chaozen's response as to why the elderly are leaving their govt run health coverage for private insurance.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:41pm

251. More reality in the face of wingnuttieness:

     "The effective tax rate for the top 1% was down to 31.2% in 2006, down measurably from the previous year and at an almost historical low."

     http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 1:52pm

252. the top tax rate was 90% several times. bring it back and health care is paid for.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

253. Hmm, there's something wrong with Chaozen's views on the military.

     He hates our military, yet loves the system in Denmark where they have a draft and now plan to draft women

     <Military moves closer to conscripting women Calling women before draft boards is seen as a way to encourage more to volunteer for a career in the military

     A broad majority in parliament is prepared to begin including young women who have reached their 18th birthdays in the military's draft board reviews.

     Since 1998 women have been able to request to be considered for conscription. If the proposal passes, some 18-year-old women will be contacted by the military to take part in a selection process similar to the one for males.

     The goal, according to proponents, is to increase women's interest in serving in the military.

     ‘It's a matter of principle. Men have to do it, so women should also,' said Social Democratic MP John Dyrby Paulsen.>

     http://tinyurl.com/pfex4z

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:02pm

254. Public Support for the Public Option: yup, the American public wants it

     A comparision of several polls:

     http://tinyurl.com/m7fynm

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 2:04pm

255. the top tax rate was 90% several times. bring it back and health care is paid for.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

     Nonsense, they will simply go back to sheltering their income again.

     And why is that actors and rock stars come to live in the US? TAXES

     The come here so they can pay less taxes.

     And here's a question no libs ever answer.

     If you libs all want to pay higher taxes, why don't you just pay more than you have to and leave the rest of us alone?

     You could simply not claim all your writeoffs and exemptions. But you don't do it; nor do all those leftist celebrities who call for higher taxes.

     You're hypocrites. You just want others taxed to pay for your laziness and irresponsibility.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:06pm

256. Poll Bankrolled By Foes Of Health Care Reform Finds Overwhelming Support For Public Plan

     "A new poll by a nonpartisan, D.C.-based research group finds truly overwhelming support for the public option. The kicker: The poll was bankrolled partly by previous opponents of health care reform, including one of the nation's best-known insurance companies.

     The poll -- which was just released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. policy think tank -- finds that a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% "somewhat" support it. That's a total of 83% in favor of a public plan -- a staggeringly large majority.

     Even more interesting, guess who paid for the poll? From the release:

     This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

     Not exactly a band of raging lefties. The American Association of Retired Persons and Blue Cross Blue Shield were among the opponents of HillaryCare in the 1990s."

     http://tinyurl.com/knnsgs

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 2:08pm

257. The cases have been dropped due to resource shortages and the likelihood that convictions would likely only result in suspended sentences, according to a police spokesman. The riots arose after a court decision that in March 2007 led to the eviction of squatters from the building they had used an alternative culture centre since 1982.Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 1:34pm

     Police State? LOL. You know nothing at all do you? I paticipated in the Newmarket riots in Amsterdam in the early 70's. There were many abandoned buildings in the area of Newmarket Square that were being used for nothing. So squatters moved in and started renovating them for living spaces. Apt's and Townhomes. It was called "cracking". You crack a house or building and then move in and improve it for the use of citizens who can use these spaces for living.

     The people did the same in Denmark. It is a common practice in formerly abandoned buildings in the city.

     Once the former owners discovered the grand improvements to these once dilapidated buildings, they wanted them back.

     No dice said the squatters. There were public protests which involved the throwing of bricks or anything else at hand. The police were not armed with guns. They wore riot gear and weilded water cannons and the like. It was a hell of a lot of fun actually.

     At the time the dutch government said lay off and the squatters went back to their homes. Same thing in Denmark.

     This kind of thing happens sometimes in places where public protest is tolerated to a great degree. Rarely does someone actually get seriously hurt.

     Police State? . LOLOLOLOL! Funny guy you are! But deranged.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 2:20pm

258. Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 2:20pm

     Why I am not surprised that you took the least of the issues I posted and simply put your spin on it.

     It was totally unrelated and bore no resemblance to the current police state tactic which you have condemned here when done in a lessor manner.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:23pm

259. And here's more evidence about why Chaozen's Danish national healthcare model is bound for failure.

     First we saw that the elderly are dropping out of the system in favor of private insurance.

     Now we see that within a few decades, there won't be enough workers to pay taxes to support the system. The number of younger people in the population is decreasing.

     <New projections from national statistics agency show the population increasing from 5.15 million to almost six million in the next few decades

     The latest population projection from Statistics Denmark shows that the population is likely to peak at almost six million by the year 2050, with dramatic increases in the number of elderly.

     The general population is due to increase by 7.9 percent by 2050, but the number of those aged 65 or older will increase by a massive 76 percent by the year 2042.

     During the same period the number of those of a prime age (25-64) to contribute to the labour market will fall by 8.7 percent to 2.71 million.>

     http://tinyurl.com/lvqa4t

     it proves once more, a govt run system is not sustainable. Even in a nation where people willing live in a socialist nation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:28pm

260. By the way in those countries the "offenders" are called "anarchists". Sounds real scary huh? Boy Larry you could build some great straw men from the word "Anarchist"! Any paranoid sociopath could. In reality they are just a bunch of people in a community, who look out for each other.. For the most part they are very generous and giving. I always loved the cussing in Dutch. Godver, Godverdomme, Kutding, Kutzooi (my favorite).

     Take your B.S. elsewhere..

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 2:32pm

261. Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 2:32pm

     As suspected, you have no legitimate defense for the failure of the facts to back up your contention that Denmark is a workers paradise.

     It is a socialist system that is breaking down, as they all do.

     Eventually people tire of the enslavement and pursue personal liberty.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:40pm

262. current police state tactic which you have condemned here when done in a lessor manner.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:23pm

     I have no recollection at all as to what you are talking about. But we do have an actual "Police State" here. We have the largest prison population in the world. In many cases a private for profit slave labor market type prison system that feed off of mostly non-violent drug offenders and that has prisoners working for a few dollars a day.

     And what do you think would happen here to people "cracking" unused buildings in lets say Detroit and soon maybe the whole state on Michigan (given the economics there)? If they resisted they would shot dead in the streets by a slew of homicidal well armed police. Now that is a "Police State" my friend. And those that surrendered would be put into corporate funded slave labor to produce goods for their prison masters.

     But I shouldn't get too graphic, as it will probably give you a hard-on. And that is a picture I cannot abide. It's almost dinner time for me.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 2:50pm

263. it proves once more, a govt run system is not sustainable. Even in a nation where people willing live in a socialist nation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:28pm

     All you cited was an article predicting a demographic shift in the country. The article says nothing about the healthcare system, let alone future funding of it. So how exactly does a set of totally isolated projections prove your point. And I'm assuming you already know that the first universal healthcare system was established in Germany by Otto von Bismarck- a conservative.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/20/2009 @ 2:54pm

264. Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to bother to read or counter any nutball wingnut posts, but who can resist when one especially stupid keeps popping up before my fact-filled posts, which can be obliterated by a simple Google search, that turns up:

     DENMARK POPULATION HAPPIEST IN WORLD, AMERICA #23:

     "Piecing together information from <b>more than 100 studies<b/> in the growing field of happiness research, a British psychologist has produced what he says is the first world map of happiness.

     It ranks 178 countries, with <b>Denmark at the top<b/> and the African nation of Burundi at the bottom. <b>The United States comes in 23rd<b/>."

     I imagine one of the reasons Danes sleep comfortably at night is because they don't have to worry about whether they'll have healthcare when they get sick.

     http://tinyurl.com/m5vpqc

     Wingnut flailing to follow, along with the "but I know I'm happier than the damn Danish!"

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 2:57pm

265. It is a socialist system that is breaking down, as they all do.

     Eventually people tire of the enslavement and pursue personal liberty.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 2:40pm

     Here dumbass, I grow tired of your game. Can you actually read? If so check this out.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

     I can spend no more time debunking your ass.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 3:02pm

266. Rumors of the Demise of ObamaCare Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

     "Obama still has most of his tactical flexibility intact. And there are at least four scenarios under which health care reform could still pass this year:"

     http://tinyurl.com/n3uo36

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 3:04pm

267. one of the reasons Danes are happier is that they don't have the proliferation of guns.

     It has been estimated that 3 million people have been killed with small arms in conflict over the past 10 years, about 300,000 per year. What is less well-known is that a comparable number, 200,000 per year, are killed with firearms in murder, suicide and accidents.

     • They are a major cause of death: 30 countries in the UN study reported more than 200,000 deaths per year in murder, accidents and suicide. Many are preventable.

     • The cost among children and youth is particularly high.

     • Firearms are used in crime. Firearms theft fuels other crimes.

     • Firearms increase the lethality of suicide attempts.

     • Guns figure prominently in the cycle of violence against women.

     • Small arms, including firearms, account for as many as 90% of the deaths in armed conflict. A growing number of victims are children, both as combatants and victims.

     • The unrestrained proliferation of firearms undermines peacebuilding, governance and civil society.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 3:19pm

268. All you cited was an article predicting a demographic shift in the country. The article says nothing about the healthcare system, let alone future funding of it. So how exactly does a set of totally isolated projections prove your point. And I'm assuming you already know that the first universal healthcare system was established in Germany by Otto von Bismarck- a conservative.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/20/2009 @ 2:54pm

     Simple math...the same problem that exists here for Medicare..not enough future taxpayers to pay for the services.

     And you still ignored my earlier post that the elderly in Denmark are leaving the govt run healthcare for private insurance.

     But you don't want to talk about that fact.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 3:20pm

269. I imagine one of the reasons Danes sleep comfortably at night is because they don't have to worry about whether they'll have healthcare when they get sick.

     http://tinyurl.com/m5vpqc

     Wingnut flailing to follow, along with the "but I know I'm happier than the damn Danish!"

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 2:57pm

     Hey DNC Shill..I don't have healthcare, am 60 years old and I sleep great at night.

     BTW, How much does the DNC pay you to post your BS?

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 3:22pm

270. Simple math...the same problem that exists here for Medicare..not enough future taxpayers to pay for the services.

     Still says nothing about their ability to fund the system in the future. Maybe a more relevant statistic would be the actual budget projections, or a comparison of future growth in spending.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/20/2009 @ 3:28pm

271. I respect your factual posts. And appreciate them. You must have a helluva spell checker there, for I have yet to see you misspell a word. And your posts are cogent, biting and well thought out.

     But I must disagree with you here. Obama is quickly losing his base. The real left and labor is what got him elected. Many people busted their ass and contributed money they did not have to support him. Including me.

     I knew from jump street that Obama was not from the left. And only excercised his talents to obtain support. Although I am still reserving final personal judgement, I fear the worst. There has never been a time in our great country when we needed a strong leader more than now. Someone who would kickass and take names. But that does not seem to be happening. His polls will continue to drop as he loses the previously hopefull support of those that got him elected.

     The left can be very vindictive. And once they feel that they have been fooled again they will retaliate with a fever. This could ensure some Repug success in 2012. I am worried and disheartened.

     I hope I am wrong.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 3:33pm

272. BREAKING: AMERICA STILL HATES/DISTRUSTS REPUBLICANS

     According to our resident wingnuts the scary boogieman of socialized public healthcare -- and the intendent cost of a healthy America -- must surely have driven the American public away from President Obama into the arms of savior Republicans.

     What, no?

     "Obama now only receives positive marks from 59% of the population, only 6% more than the number that delivered him an enormous mandate in the 2008 elections and only 2% higher than Ronald Reagan's approval at the same point during his presidency...

     Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care reform?

     Obama - 54 Republicans in Congress - 34

     .Who do you trust to do a better job handling the federal budget deficit

     Obama - 54 Republicans in Congress - 35

     How much blame do you think [Bush/Obama] deserves for the current economic situation?

     A Great Deal or Good Amount Bush - 63 Obama - 31

     Do you think Obama has brought needed change to Washington?

     Yes - 65 No - 35

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 3:37pm

273. here's a solution, make the 15 million illegal aliens citizens, and there WILL be enough future taxpayers.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 3:38pm

274. Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 3:04pm

     My previous post was directed to you. I forgot to post what I was referring to.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 3:38pm

275. how about this one, repatriate ALL the soldiers stationed overseas. that'll pay for plenty of health care.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 3:39pm

276. BTW, How much does the DNC pay you to post your BS?

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 3:22pm

     It is so easy to read you. Especially when you blame someone else for doing what you do. I should think the RNC which pays you can afford it. After all, the Repugs are the party of the filty rich.

     DNC, not so much. And the real left has little money for anything.

     Bill Maher quote paraphrased: "The Democrats are the New Republicans, and the "Republicans" are just fucking crazy."

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 3:47pm

277. Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 3:39pm

     Two off the wall, but possibly workable solutions. Thinking out of the box is refreshing.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 3:53pm

278. I'm done for now. Goodnight all.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 4:06pm

279. Hide, obfuscate, and Lie, Lie, Lie ! Looks like the planning of the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats is catching up with them! Maybe the Repubs. and tax paying citizens won't let them destroy America after all!

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/20/2009 @ 4:18pm

280. "Obama Hides Bleak Budget Report to Push Healthcare, Cap-and-Trade

     The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.

     The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.

     The release of the update -- usually scheduled for mid-July -- has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town Aug. 7 on its summer recess.

     The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.

     The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.

     "Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare," Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. "There are some things that can't be escaped."

     The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits. "

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/20/2009 @ 4:19pm

281. "Obama's national health care plan is based on two whoppers: that 47 million American households are without health insurance, and that it won't create yet another huge addition to the federal budget deficit.

     The 47 million number comes from a 2007 Census Bureau report. But that same report says that more than 27 million of those households earn over $50,000 a year, and one-third of them earn more than $75,000 a year. Which means that those 27 million families choose not to pay for health insurance.

     The second big Obama health care whopper is that his plan won't increase the federal deficit and will actually decrease health care costs.

     In May, having corralled representatives of health care providers and insurers, Obama claimed that he'd negotiated reduced costs and other savings that amounted to nearly $2 trillion over the next decade. Which he then proceeded to spend.

     Obama's titanic health care program hit a factual iceberg on July 16 in the House and Senate testimony of Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf. CBO is the non-partisan expert congress goes to for estimates of the cost of legislation.

     Elmendorf said, "Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall."

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/20/2009 @ 4:25pm

282. "In his personal blog that same day, Elmendorf wrote "…CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of these deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010."

     Those enormous deficits will increase if Obama's health care program becomes law. What about all those promises Obama extracted from healthcare providers and insurers? They are as ephemeral as any political promise, and the legislation being considered by Congressional Democrats doesn't require they be fulfilled.

     Elmendorf said, "The changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals." Elmendorf's testimony sent shock waves through Congress. Obama's plan will be delayed, and probably blocked, at least for the remainder of the year."

     Posted by BigPasture at 07/20/2009 @ 4:27pm

283. So here are your "Socialists". Apparently the happiest people in the world. Enslaved? To what exactly? Not uncontrolled capitalism surely.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 12:35pm

     You might have missed the article in Newsweek (maybe Time) discussing the Danish government's concerns of having to provide so many "benefits" for an aging population. It turns out the younger generation is high-tailing it out of there to escape the confiscatory taxes. Maybe they aren't so happy after all?

     Posted by plainbruce at 07/20/2009 @ 4:35pm

284. share

     Posted by istaylor at 07/20/2009 @ 4:49pm

285. Like I said earlier: "Wingnut flailing to follow, along with the "but I know I'm happier than the damn Danish!"

     Wait for it, wait for it, "Hey DNC Shill..I don't have healthcare, am 60 years old and I sleep great at night. "

     Yeah to hell with the rest of us, while Anti-Social sleeps.

     I'm also still waiting about a mile down this thread for the wingnuts to give me the info on how I can be paid to comment by the DNC or any other not-conservative/wingnutty organization.

     They insist it's so, but I've only found reference to wingnut welfare.

     If I'm to be slurred, I want my check now!

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 5:04pm

286. chaoszen,

     You said goodnight up above so maybe you won't see these until tomorrow:

     1. You seem to love Denmark and how free you think it is. Is Sweden free, also? I ask this because I have mentioned how there was a guy in Sweden who couldn't get the medication he needed because it wasn't on the government formulary AND he couldn't pay for it out of his own pocket because the government said that was "not fair".....Is that freedom to you?

     2. You seemed to slam Detroit and Michigan.....you have forgotten Dave Bing is Mayor of Detroit now...and is successful in whatever he does.....so Detroit is on the comeback.....so forget about slamming Detroit....pick another city to slam...

     3. You made a comment "........This could ensure some Repug success in 2012......" then you said you hoped you would be wrong....on this you WON'T be wrong.......and you won't be happy I am sure when President Palin takes office on January 20, 2013.....it will be good for the country that you are not happy!

     4. You implied that the "right wingers" on this site are being paid to post their comments........maybe you were the one who contended this before and I asked you before and never got an answer.....so I will ask again.......WHERE ARE MY CHECKS?.....I want my money....if you know where it is going let me know, because I have not seen any money.

     5. You called antisocialist a moron....I have stated more that once on this site that the word moron refers to one thing only......a person who plays on an NFL team that shares a stadium with the New York Jets and whose team was unfortunately Super Bowl champions in 2008 because the game ran 30 seconds too long.........and whose team (known by others as NY Football Giants) are FORTUNATELY not the champs any more..the Steelers are.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/20/2009 @ 5:18pm

287. If I'm to be slurred, I want my check now!

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 5:04pm

     Shush.. When they think I'm asleep they all come to post... Like deer to the sweet tender grass next to the interstate.

     they don't know it's my day off... LOL.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:25pm

288. I guess they do now though.. Still be berry quiet and they will return to the grove.. Deer are so easy to fool..

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:27pm

289. Posted by sjchermak at 07/20/2009 @ 5:18pm

     Now they are making lists... Quiet now thaey are almost in my sites.. Just a moment more. Damn, I forgot they can only count to 5. My bad.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:35pm

290. No reason to respond to Schworm though, waste of time. Has no concept of the difference between an ass and a hole in the ground. I will lie in wait for bigger game...

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:41pm

291. Fall out and surround the enemy on another post. I will keep these zombie's busy in the meantime... Just leave me a couple clips of quips. And a snickers.

     Meet ya on the flip side.. Tread quietly, they are bit skidish.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:46pm

292. One day, most of those ranting and raving about public healthcare or single-payer healthcare, are going to look at a medical bill or bills that are going to drive them into bankruptcy, or if they decide not to have any medical care, into death. America's ratings among industrialized nations in regard to healthcare is dropping every year. If we do not get public healthcare or single-payer healthcare the greedy rich will have finally completed the total put down of the middle class.

     Posted by bobold at 07/20/2009 @ 6:28pm

293. From allenhip

     Sorry to tell you but HR 676 is NOT being considered. Even with the desperate move to add a State option for Single-Payer. It's a sad reality when politicians give false hope to supporters when they know HR 676 will NEVER PASS.

     The only bill that's is moving on the fast tract is HR3200 and it is NOT a single payer it's a public option.

     But if we do not support President Obama we will have no health care reform at all. Don't let the people who want all of us who support NATIONAL HEALTH CARE reform to fail.

     So weather we like it or not we must now stand up and fight for a National Health Care Plan even if it's not perfect. YES WE CAN if we work together.

     AND right NOW we need to support HR3200 or we will fail again to help large numbers of people who are counting on us to be united.

     Posted by allenhip at 07/20/2009 @ 6:45pm

294. So weather we like it or not

     The climate is made up of "weather"; whether it is nice out depends on whether it is raining or not. A wether is just a castrated sheep.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 7:10pm

295. Meet ya on the flip side.. Tread quietly, they are bit skidish. Posted by chaoszen at 07/20/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person |

     Kudos on being today's energizer-bunny of idiotbane!

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/20/2009 @ 7:41pm

296. Kudos on being today's energizer-bunny of idiotbane!

     Posted by snowball777 at 07/20/2009 @ 7:41pm

     He certainly was the an energizer bunny idiot today.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/20/2009 @ 7:48pm

297. "there was a guy in Sweden who couldn't get the medication"

     Really? One nameless "guy" in Sweden who couldn't get his medication -- well, THAT certainly blackens all of "socialized" medicine.

     I'm here to report that I've got a name, and I've been refused medication by my health insurance company, so by that evidence alone...

     Never mind facts, figures, actual statistics that those countries with "socialized" medicine have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, inspire more confidence in the citizens, who are more satisfied with their healthcare, and so on and so forth.

     But there's this guy! In Sweden! And the wingnuts don't even know his name, but on that hearsay alone oooo scary boogieman "socialized" medicine ooga ooga!

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 8:05pm

298. I've never said that the poor troll idiots on this blog are getting paid by their conservative overlords, even wingnut welfare doesn't stretch that far into incomplete thoughts, incoherent points, misspelling and grammatical suicide.

     However, I have pointed out two very obvious and well-reported attempts at conservo propaganda on blogs, one in the news last week: a conservative blog's attempt to get Fed Ex to pay 'em $3 million for complimentary propaganda -- Fex Ex refused.

     And then there's the infamous Pajama Media, which also failed miserably.

     But even the conservative propaganda squad require basic English writing skills.

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 8:15pm

299. Under Bush, my taxes went down $250 and my health insurance premiums went up $5,000

     http://tinyurl.com/kstav3

     Posted by judybrowni at 07/20/2009 @ 8:19pm

300. I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. the founders did not anticipate political parties. hence they could not have been "politicians".

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're wrong. the federalists and anti-federalists existed at the time of the signing. they abhorred each other.

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/20/2009 @ 8:42pm

301. Antisocialist---America still allows you to enslave yourself for hours and hours blabbering anonymously about topics you have no control over w/in the confines of the interweb.

     LET FREEDOM RING!

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/20/2009 @ 8:52pm

302. Posted by urmygyro at 07/20/2009 @ 8:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     yet parties go unmentioned in the constitution.

     Political parties are such a basic part of our political system today, that many people might assume the Constitution must at least mention parties in one way or another... but there is absolutely no mention of political parties anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, in the times of the Articles of Confederation, there weren't even any parties; factions, perhaps; regional blocs, yes; but no parties. Not until the Jackson and Van Buren administrations did organized parties really take hold in the American political system.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 9:06pm

303. one more.

     Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations

     Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said: [While speaking on the subject -- The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]

     "All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

     "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 9:17pm

304. what say you, gyro?

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 10:35pm

305. Posted by emile duBois at 07/20/2009 @ 9:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     the federalists and anti-federalists were well on their way to becoming "official" parties when the constitutional convention happened. the "federalist papers" were written by hamilton and madison (and jay) and anonymously published in new york newspapers to convince new yorkers that adopting the constitution (which meant giving more power to a federal gov't than the articles of confederation had) was a good idea.

     and the anti-federalists sprang up in opposition of the federalists, arguing that the states needed to retain more power, they were afraid of a big central gov't, etc.

     political parties don't need to be "official" (or be codified, least of which in a constitution) for the founders to have taken sides on issues and be political in nature; i.e.--politicians.

     indeed, politics doesn't require parties, although it seems to naturally evolve that way. and why not? the POLICY one chooses to push is going to effect his POLITICS!

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 12:17am

306. judybrowni,

     ooga ooga! You say, hip hip horray for Socialist Medicine!

     Why would you do that, since cancer survival rates are better here in the U.S., where we don't have socialist medicine?

     U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One Thursday, October 11, 2007 by Betsy McCaughey http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

     UK's Bad Medicine: Why US Has Better Odds vs. Cancer November 05, 2007 By David Gratzer http://www.manhattan-institute.org/ html/ miarticle.htm?id=3004

     (links may contain spaces that need to be removed after pasting into browser)

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 06:49am

307. sjchermak--no medicare patients get cancer huh?

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 08:20am

308. Why would you do that, since cancer survival rates are better here in the U.S., where we don't have socialist medicine? Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 06:49am

     Not true as usual. Deaths by cancer per 100,000 people. The U.S. ranks 9th out of sixteen countries with 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Australia, Norway, France, Austria, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom all fared better.

     http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea

     _fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 09:12am

309. And all those countries have some form of government healthcare.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 09:13am

310. Cancer deaths per 100,000 people are declining dramatically worldwide. I guess that is some good news in the midst of much bad news.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 09:22am

311. Some of these statistics are dated, but show a general trend.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 09:23am

312. Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 06:49am

     Your post was written by a political hack to discredit Michael Moore's movie Sicko. It is a political article and has little to do with actual facts.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 09:26am

313. chaoszen,

     The statistics I produced were for survival rates.....the rate of people who got cancer who survived.......

     Which would be the measure of the adequacy of the health care system.....

     When the health care debate comes up those of you always throw up stats on infant mortality and life expectancy and....not surprising....the stats show the U.S. behind and you then declare this shows how inadequate the health care here is.

     But those measures can be and are based on the demographics of the population and not based solely on the health care system....

     As far as my argument I was talking survival rates.....once somebody got cancer.....

     Perhaps more people get cancer here in the U.S. than in some other places, for unexplained reasons, thus more people would die even though the survival rate is greater.

     The survival rate of people who get cancer is higher in the United States. You have not disproved my argument.

     You then launch into another common tactic on this site. You declare the purpose of my articles as invalid and thus the data invalid....It is apparently wrong to dispute a liberal, in this case Michael Moore. (we see this with global warming, where it is declared wrong to question Algore)......

     I see this all the time on this site....A leftist will post articles from other leftists, and that is declared proof, or in your case you will posted stats that were not relevant to question, and declared that to be proof.

     But a Conservative will post articles or stats and they are declared invalid because of their source or percieved purpose.

     I know everything I say is going flying over your head and will make no headway with you, and will probably draw nonsense from judybrowni as well.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 09:59am

314. The statistics I produced were for survival rates.....the rate of people who got cancer who survived....... Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 09:59am

     If you can't see the connection between cancer survival rates and deaths from cancer per 100,000 people, what can I say?. I simply can't wate time on people who refuse to see the simplest of statistical connections.

     And instead of quoting real medical statistics, you chose to relate a story from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. A notorious right wingnut think tank founded by William Casey who was Reagan's CIA director. An organization known for lying, assasination, overthrowing foreign governments and the like.

     This sort of thing has no business in a discussion of Healthcare and Cancer Deaths.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 10:24am

315. The statistics I produced were for survival rates.....the rate of people who got cancer who survived.......

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 09:59am

     6That Gratzer article is a joke. In fact, the statistics in that article were proven to be falsificationss when it came a year and a half ago. And this is hardly Gratzer's first offense either. Kucinich humiliated him when he testified before Congress. Save for Frank Luntz, you couldn't have used a worse source.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 10:37am

316. Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 10:37am

     In any "normal" debate, once overwhelming evidence is presented to dispute another opinion, the other side of the debate usually retires the side. Any reasonable person would concede under unassailable evidence to the contrary.

     At least in a rational world. But when dealing with wingers, there is some short circuit in the brain that prevents the truth from penetrating the brainwashed mind. I'm no expert on psychology, but something is seriously wrong with them.

     Either that, or they just enjoy being contrary or have some financial stake involved.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 10:50am

317. Perhaps you leftists will accept a BBC report to support Chermak

     <Wednesday, 16 July 2008

     The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.

     The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

     It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s. The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

     Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

     The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.>

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:05am

318. In any "normal" debate, once overwhelming evidence is presented to dispute another opinion, the other side of the debate usually retires the side. Any reasonable person would concede under unassailable evidence to the contrary.

     At least in a rational world. But when dealing with wingers, there is some short circuit in the brain that prevents the truth from penetrating the brainwashed mind. I'm no expert on psychology, but something is seriously wrong with them.

     Either that, or they just enjoy being contrary or have some financial stake involved.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 10:50am

     Well then, let's see if you are a "reasonable person" and concede the debate now that the evidence refutes your claim.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:06am

319. Perhaps you leftists will accept a BBC report to support Chermak

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:05am

     How does this support sjchermak's argument? What he originally posted was a piece by David Gratzer allegedly "proving" Canada had a far lower 5 year cancer survival rate.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 11:20am

320. chaozen,

     You say ".....If you can't see the connection between cancer survival rates and deaths from cancer per 100,000 people, what can I say?. I simply can't wate time on people who refuse to see the simplest of statistical connections. ......"

     So I guess we need to run through a simple math example here.

     (these are all hypothetical numbers made up for the demonstration).

     Assume that out of 100,000 people in the U.S, 50,000 got cancer and 40,000 survived. Thus 10,000 would have died, 10% death rate per 100,000, without regard to who got cancer and survived.

     (don't forget, chaozen, your stats did not quote who got sick and survived, just who ultimately died)

     Of the people that got cancer, 80% would have survived.

     Now assume that in Denmark, a free country according to you, out of 100,000 people 20,000 got cancer and 15,000 survived.

     So 5,000 free socialist Danes would have survived. So the death rate out of 100,000 would be 5%.

     And you would declare Denmark better, only 5% died in socialist Utopia, whereas 10% died here in the opressive and unjust U.S.

     But........the survival rate of those who got cancer would be 75% in Denmark.........lower than the U.S. 80%

     So you can not just take the amount that died in the total population....you have to take the survival rate among those who got sick.

     You say I refuse to see the simplest of statistical connections......I apologize that I can not...because I have taken mathematics into account and the question of what the data is based on.

     I know you are not supposed to do that with a leftist....you are supposed to accept what the leftist says and not worry about math or are the assumptions valid or is the data valid, etc.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 11:26am

321. Typo,

     when I said "So 5,000 free socialist Danes would have survived."

     it should have been "So 5,000 free socialist Danes would have died."

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 11:28am

322. <Wednesday, 16 July 2008

     The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported. Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:05am

     Well then, let's see if you are a "reasonable person" and concede the debate now that the evidence refutes your claim.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:06am

     Nice try again antieverything, but the original debate revolved around the U.S. for profit healthcare system and the government healthcare systems of other countries. And from the rights point of view as to how those "Socialist" healthcare systems were inferior.

     Even according to your Lancet Oncology report 4 out of 5 of the countries that had the best survival rates for Cancer have government run "Socialist" healthcare systems.

     The only difference is in the U.S. those poor suckers probably had to sell the farm to afford to "survive". In the other 4 countries they paid little or nothing for the privilege.

     You really should see these things coming Anti. You are losing it.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 11:32am

323. Perhaps you leftists will accept a BBC report to support Chermak

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:05am

     How does this support sjchermak's argument? What he originally posted was a piece by David Gratzer allegedly "proving" Canada had a far lower 5 year cancer survival rate. That article from the BBC opens with " The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates," which, at the very least means the Canadian figure is far higher than what Gratzer claims, if it doesn't outright contradict him. Besides, 4 of the top 5 countries have single payer systems. This is nothing but another reason to suport single payer.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 11:35am

324. (these are all hypothetical numbers made up for the demonstration). Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 11:26am

     Exactly. Just like somone can produce the argument that 2+2=3. LOL.

     Your demonstration is not only idiotic but absurd.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 11:45am

325. If we take the data and conclusions from the American Cancer Society, no form of Govt run healthcare, Sgl Payer or Medicare for all, will significantly change our cancer rates.

     That's because as I have stated repeatedly, our biggest contributor to cancer in the US is LIFESTYLE.

     <Scientific evidence suggests that about one-third of the cancer deaths that occur in the US each year are due to nutritional and physical inactivity factors, including excess weight. For the majority of Americans who do not use tobacco, dietary choices and physical activity are the most important modifiable determinants of cancer risk.

     The American Cancer Society reviews and updates its nutrition and physical activity guidelines every 5 years. The Society's most recent guidelines, published in 2006, emphasize the importance of weight control, physical activity, and dietary patterns in reducing cancer risk.

     In the US, overweight and obesity contribute to 14%-20% of all cancer-related mortality. Overweight and obesity are clearly associated with increased risk for developing many cancers, including cancers of the breast (in postmenopausal women), colon, endometrium, kidney, and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Evidence is highly suggestive that obesity also increases risk for cancers of the pancreas, gallbladder, thyroid, ovary, and cervix, as well as for myeloma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and aggressive prostate cancer.

     http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/500809web.pdf

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:48am

326. So you can not just take the amount that died in the total population....you have to take the survival rate among those who got sick.

     Yu're missing the point. If 20,000 per 100,000 as opposed to 40,000 per 100,000 people are coming down with cancer, this obviously means the former country's system is far more effective at prevention. And perhaps not too surprisingly, the U.S. has an excess of specialists and a dearth of primary care physicians.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 11:55am

327. So you can not just take the amount that died in the total population....you have to take the survival rate among those who got sick.

     You're missing the point. If 20,000 per 100,000 as opposed to 40,000 per 100,000 people are coming down with cancer, this obviously means the former country's system is far more effective at prevention. And perhaps not too surprisingly, the U.S. has an excess of specialists and a dearth of primary care physicians.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 11:55am

328. So you can not just take the amount that died in the total population....you have to take the survival rate among those who got sick.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 11:26am

     You're missing the point. If 20,000 per 100,000 as opposed to 40,000 per 100,000 people are coming down with cancer, this obviously means the former country's system is far more effective at prevention. And perhaps not too surprisingly, the U.S. has an excess of specialists and a dearth of primary care physicians.

     Posted by nkurland at 07/21/2009 @ 11:59am

329. Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:06am

     I would not argue that the U.S. doesn't have terrific healthcare available to those who can afford it (Like the top 1%).

     But comprehensive quality healthcare for all citizens means "access" to advances in medicine. Not just "access" for a few privleged individuals. And as it stands now that "access" is denied many people unless they bankrupt their entire family. Unless they bankrupt that small business enterprise that employs people in the community.

     In other countries like Canada, France, Japan and Australia people do not have to go through the financial misery for families and businesses that we do here. There is no Bankruptcy for these people. And all the stress and anguish that such things induce.

     How do you expect people to get well when they must stress over losing everything due to an illness?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 12:02pm

330. How do you expect people to get well when they must stress over losing everything due to an illness?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 12:02pm

     Our Constitution does not and should not promise that "life will be fair". Life isn't fair and there is and cannot be any guarantee of it being so.

     Life is about doing the best you can with who you are and where you're at.

     We didn't have the stress when people had more realistic expectations in life. This who stressed out population and the fact that anti-depressants are the most prescribed medicine are due to Americans becoming lazy and living with unrealistic expectations of life.

     As someone who has travelled to 3rd world countries, I would think you would have a more realistic world view.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

331. Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 11:48am

     So what does that entire post have to do with passing government healthcare? Nothing. If anything it speaks to the tremendous need to deal with the problems related to the food supply. And how much work is necessary in preventative care and regulation of the food supply. Along with public supported excersise infrastructure like bike trails and public parks and nutritional counseling.

     In fact it is a call for intelligent and insightful investigation into these very problems. At the local, state and federal levels.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

332. So what does that entire post have to do with passing government healthcare? Nothing. If anything it speaks to the tremendous need to deal with the problems related to the food supply. And how much work is necessary in preventative care and regulation of the food supply. Along with public supported excersise infrastructure like bike trails and public parks and nutritional counseling.

     In fact it is a call for intelligent and insightful investigation into these very problems. At the local, state and federal levels.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

     So, you want the US govt to become the babysitter of Americans?

     Only if the govt pushes and funds it will Americans make the right decisions about what to eat, and that they should exercise?

     And how is it the responsibility of the govt to do this?

     Should the govt ban all activities that are bad for you?

     Should the govt ban fast food? or maybe you want the govt to impose limits on how often and how much you eat at these places?

     Should they make you exercise? And what are the penalties if you don't?

     that is the result of what you are saying.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 12:53pm

333. chaoszen,

     You say "......Your demonstration is not only idiotic but absurd......"

     I guess you declare that because it showed the weakness in your argument.

     You obviously want socialist health care, you have described yourself in the past and recently as a leftist.......so you probably want socialist everything....

     All I can say is you have the right man for the job right now (in the Presidency) to do what you want....but come January 20, 2013 after the noon hour that will change, you betcha!!

     You won't be a happy camper after that.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 12:55pm

334. Hey Chermak, nonsense? NONSENSE????? We are talking about healthcare and life or death here, for far too many of our citizens, and you call it nonsense. I swear I can't beleive how uncaring you righties are.

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/21/2009 @ 1:33pm

335. Our Constitution does not and should not promise that "life will be fair". Life isn't fair and there is and cannot be any guarantee of it being so.Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

     No, life is not fair. Life is suffering. That is by design. That is precisely why as human beings we are encouraged by this circumstance to improve the well being of human society. That is why we as human beings advancing in our spiritual evolution must learn to share.

     There is no more noble cause than to relieve suffering. There is no guarantee for the relief of suffering unless we as human beings make the effort to alleviate it. This is the pupose of life. And if you were a true Christian you would realize this. END.

     As someone who has travelled to 3rd world countries, I would think you would have a more realistic world view.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 12:38pm

     The result of my having travelled to 3rd world countries is exactly why I hold these opinions. I have witnessed unbelievable suffering, especially in many provinces in India. Terrible squalor and poverty. It was then that I understood why we are here.

     We are here to relieve the suffering of others so that we might relieve the suffering in ourselves.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 1:41pm

336. Once we understand the true "purpose" of life, we are much closer to understanding the true "meaning" of life.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 1:49pm

337. But enough of that. Let's get back to the struggle. Dogma is always a little embarassing. Don't ya think?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 1:56pm

338. There is no more noble cause than to relieve suffering. There is no guarantee for the relief of suffering unless we as human beings make the effort to alleviate it. This is the pupose of life. And if you were a true Christian you would realize this. END.

     We are here to relieve the suffering of others so that we might relieve the suffering in ourselves.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 1:41pm

     It is absolutely correct that Christians are called to relieve suffering in others. But we are called to do so as either individuals or the "church which is the body of Christ. There is not a single verse in the New Testament calling for Christians to have govt assume this responsibility. It ran counter to everything that Christ taught.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 2:08pm

339. Denise29,

     I called what judybrowni says nonsense.

     I did not call adequate health care nonsense.

     You are applying your standard template. "Righties" are not uncaring because we do not advocate socialism.

     Socialism ruins lives....causes people to suffer....and dumbs down life for all in the name of "fairness" and "equality".

     The free market and free enterprise system with limited government has done a much better job of providing for people's needs and wants than any command economy or intrusive government involvement.

     And the people who achieve success in this kind of system have continually reached out to help those less fortunate.

     And once those people get on their feet, then they continually have reached back and helped others overcome their difficulties.

     And we live in a country (United States) which has done a considerable amount of effort to fix injustices and disenfranchisement that existed here, much more so than any other society in history and by ourselves with no forecful effort required by other nations......and many of these injustices would not have been fixed elsewhere had they occurred there ......and also many of these injustices continue to exist elsewhere.

     But rather than fix any problems we have with the mechanisms that got us where we are, you on the left always advocate that we must turn our life over to government control and socialist economics.

     In fits of leftist sanctimony you promote this stuff, and crucify those who oppose it as "uncaring"....but then keep silent if what you advocate is imposed and lives ruined as a result.

     Some of the Great Society programs discouraged marriage among the poor in the cities, and thus were responsible for essentially destroying the concept of family among inner city Blacks.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 2:13pm

340. Denise29,

     If you look at the op-eds and a lot of the posts by leftists on a site such as this.....you see the constant angst against society and the constant promotion of governmental socialistic remedies to make everything fair and just.

     You see very little or no suggestion that people should strive to be the best they can be as individuals and that there have been tons of examples over the life of our country of people doing just that, including people overcoming modest or impoverished circumstances to succeed.

     By success I do not mean material wealth but getting to where one wants to be in life and living a comfortable life in a free country.

     There are over 300 million people in this country now, it would be impossible to tabulate the amount of people that have succeeded by the above definition.

     This is a country where one can succeed and where people are eager and willing to help those who need help.

     But you see the opposite on a site such as this, and apparently in your mind, also.

     What you see is the constant carping of how lousy everything is, how unfair and wrong everything is, with the only hope being benevolent rich white liberals who "see" all the wrongs and who advocate the socialism to fix them. People are encouraged to demand that things be taken from others collectively through socialistic means to make things "fair".

     And even though many have worked to combat racial and sexual injustices life is still looked at through those prisms by the enlightened on this site. (see comments about Sonia Sotomayer).

     This does not get anybody anywhere, does not improve people's lives, and almost always makes things worse for some and totally ruins lives for others.

     Stop the liberal sanctimonious hubris!

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 2:21pm

341. . There is not a single verse in the New Testament calling for Christians to have govt assume this responsibility. It ran counter to everything that Christ taught.Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 2:08pm

     Sounds like you are trying to escape your Christian responsibilities by scapegoating "Government".

     Since "Govermment" is, in a Democracy, a representative entity of the will of the people. If the will of the people is an investment in social programs designed to relieve suffering, then your effort to subjugate a Democratic Government is clearly an effort to avoid taking responsibility for your part in it.

     I don't see any contradiction against what your "Christ" taught. Last time I checked Jesus was not a politician.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 2:31pm

342. I know everything I say is going flying over your head and will make no headway with you, and will probably draw nonsense from judybrowni as well.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 09:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

     To recap:

     "I know everything I say is going flying over your head and will make no headway with you"---read: I'm way smart!

     "and will probably draw nonsense from judybrowni as well"--read: Please don't go away, I need to criticize your thoughts so I can continue to feel way smart!

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 2:36pm

343. Socialism ruins lives....causes people to suffer....and dumbs down life for all in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 2:13pm

     Ask the French, Swedes, Italians, Swiss, Danish, Dutch, Norwegians, Canadians, Austrians, Spanish, Portugese, English and 23 other countries how socialism has ruined their lives. They would laugh in your face.

     Idiots!

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 2:38pm

344. chaoszen,

     Rather than ask French, Swedes, etc about this.......

     Perhaps you should investigate how the Great Society programs destroyed the concept of the Black family in the inner cities of this country for many years....

     And how they made people life-long wards of the welfare state and kept them in poverty in crime-stricken neighborhoods. (crime-stricken thanks to liberal attitudes about crime that it is society's fault rather than the criminal's fault)

     And you would see how countless numbers of lives were ruined by well meaning people who said they just wanted to help people with government programs....

     If Lyndon B. Johnson were alive today he would not be pushing this stuff any more, he would be trying to find and implement something that would work and help people.

     If he would not be pusing this stuff, why are you?

     Look in your own back yard, don't bother going to Paris or Stockholm for your answers.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 2:45pm

345. I need to criticize your thoughts so I can continue to feel way smart!

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 2:36pm

     You forgot to add: "way smart! And continue to get my check from the RNC! WAAA! Snivel..

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 2:45pm

346. If Lyndon B. Johnson were alive today he would not be pushing this stuff any more, he would be trying to find and implement something that would work and help people.

     If he would not be pusing this stuff, why are you?

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Quite the rhetorical flourish!

     1--I know what a dead guy would do today if he was alive. How do I know? I just do.

     and...

     2- What that dead guy would do is the opposite of what you want.

     hence....YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT.

     YAY!

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 3:01pm

347. I am a Vietmam Era Marine Vet and use the Veteran Administrations medical facilities, in particular the Lewis H. Johnsom VA Medical Facility in Clarksburgh, WV. It's the best medical service I've ever had...better than any private facilities. I pay an $8 co-payment on ALL medications...that's it (and I've had a number of sugeries, CAT scans, MRIs, X-Rays, etc.). I am grateful for this "socialized" system. I earned it and would probably be dead without it.

     Posted by DharmaTalk at 07/21/2009 @ 3:02pm

348. DharmaTalk

     thank you for your contribution.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/21/2009 @ 3:05pm

349. I am a US citizen and have lived in Canada for over 19 years for family reasons. I fully support the Canadian health care system.

     The US insurance lobby is currently airing exagerations, distortions and outright falsehoods about the quality of care here, intent on deceiving the gullible US public by scaring the hell out of them.

     The right wing scaremongers focus on the few system errors and misrepresent them to be the general rule. They love to use the phrase "government bureaucrats" but ignore the fact that insurance company bureaucrats regularly deny coverage and even cancel policies, all for the maintenance of profit.

     In Canada no one needs permission from anyone to see a general practitioner, and we are free to choose our own doctors.

     A few years ago I had to have my gall bladder removed on a somewhat urgent basis. I got excellent care, and my only out-of-pocket expense was cab fare to rush to the hospital.

     Canada devotes less than 11% of its GDP to health care and covers everyone. The US ["We are NOT Number One! "] pays nearly 16% of GDP on health care and leaves 15% of its population with ZERO health insurance and similarly large numbers inadequately insured, and millions more afraid to change jobs for fear that they will not get coverage for pre-existing conditions.

     And Canada's health outcomes and statistics are superior to those in the US!

     There is no doubt in my mind which system is bettter.

     Perhaps the US public would be more supportive if they knew that the Rev. Tommy Douglas, the "father of Canadian medicare", was the grandfather of the actor Kiefer Sutherland. [How many of you even knew that KS is a Canuck? They walk among you.........]

     Posted by ArsLongaVitaBrevis at 07/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

350. p.s.

     Here in Canada, nobody goes bankrupt because of health care costs.

     In contrast, in the US most personal bankruptcies involve medical debt.

     The economic cost to the US of grossly inadequate health insurance coverage is enormous. If the right wingers understood how much it costs the country NOT to provide health care they would rush to adopt broader coverage.

     I doubt that the right wing can be moved by speaking to the human cost of inadequate health care coverage, as that is not part of their value system.

     Posted by ArsLongaVitaBrevis at 07/21/2009 @ 3:34pm

351. The US insurance lobby is currently airing exagerations, distortions and outright falsehoods about the quality of care here, intent on deceiving the gullible US public by scaring the hell out of them.

     they have a lot of practice in this. remember Saddam's WMD?

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/21/2009 @ 3:49pm

352. chaozen/urmygyro,

     Your posts are hilarious!

     You seem to have no clue that the way you portray that I am behaving on these blogs is exactly how many leftists behave here, all the time.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 4:33pm

353. Since "Govermment" is, in a Democracy, a representative entity of the will of the people. If the will of the people is an investment in social programs designed to relieve suffering, then your effort to subjugate a Democratic Government is clearly an effort to avoid taking responsibility for your part in it.

     I don't see any contradiction against what your "Christ" taught. Last time I checked Jesus was not a politician.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/21/2009 @ 2:31pm

     No, Christianity is about the giving through love. Govt is about coercion and theft. there is no parallel.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 4:46pm

354. You know anti I was taught to treat other human beings as I would want to be treated, the golden rule. In the case of you and chermak and darin and the rest, you guys are in for some bad juju, if that rule holds true. Juju has nothing to do with being right or left, it has to do with right or wrong. You guys don't seem to understand that how you treat your fellow man (and women) is more important than money.

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/21/2009 @ 5:38pm

355. You know anti I was taught to treat other human beings as I would want to be treated, the golden rule. In the case of you and chermak and darin and the rest, you guys are in for some bad juju, if that rule holds true. Juju has nothing to do with being right or left, it has to do with right or wrong. You guys don't seem to understand that how you treat your fellow man (and women) is more important than money.

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/21/2009 @ 5:38pm

     Because I don't want these things dealt with through the coercion of Govt?

     Where do you get such a standard? the only way in your opinion that we can help those in need and to obey the golden rule is through the govt?

     How did Christians ever obey G-d then, before representative forms of govt?

     I believe in what the Bible teaches that these things are an individual responsibility. It is not an act of love or free will to have the govt steal the fruit of your labor and then have them decide how and when, and how much to help people.

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 5:46pm

356. Anti, we are all in this together, we either do the right thing and pay a little more to help, or we pretend that our neighbor doesn't matter. This isn't biblical times, this is now and we can help others and help ourselves at the same time. Its really simple, what are you afraid of?

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/21/2009 @ 6:05pm

357. Anti, we are all in this together, we either do the right thing and pay a little more to help, or we pretend that our neighbor doesn't matter. This isn't biblical times, this is now and we can help others and help ourselves at the same time. Its really simple, what are you afraid of?

     Posted by Denise29 at 07/21/2009 @ 6:05pm

     I don't trust govt

     I don't want the govt doing what I'm supposed to do.

     I don't believe in coercion to do right-which is what govt is

     I'm not afraid. I prefer personal responsibility.

     Large govt is a danger to liberty. that has been the motto of our country from it's founding.

     "The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

     "A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

     Thomas Jefferson

     "Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

     Abraham Lincoln

     Posted by antisocialist at 07/21/2009 @ 6:39pm

358. Denise29,

     You are the one who doesn't understand that how you treat your fellow man (or woman) is more important than declaring you "care" about them.

     How you treat your fellow man (or woman) is more important than slapping some government program in place, and then declaring you "cared" and then not being accountable when the government program harms rather than helps them.

     In all this "caring" you on the left display there is no mechanism to build up individuals as individuals, promoting they be the best they can be, opening up opportunity so then they can achieve on their own through their own work and merit, and have the personal self-esteem and self-worth from having done so. With the capability and desire to help others do the same.

     Conservatism promotes this, liberalism impedes this.

     If someone's goal is to succeed by making a lot of money, fine, but Conservatism promotes that people be the best they can be and achieve their goals in life, monetary or non-monetary.

     Liberalism promotes that rather than strive for success, you are to carp and whine that you have been wronged and demand that things be made right, by some leftist politician who "cares".

     And things being made right seem to always include government programs that take people's freedoms away, dumb things down to mediocrity, and make people wards of the state.

     That is unless it destroys their lives altogether, such as the example I mentioned of how Great Society welfare discouraged marriage, people more easily qualified for assistance if they were single mothers, with the result that the concept of the Black family was decimated in the inner cities.

     This is helping people? This is "caring"? Speaking out against this is "wrong", and those who do are in for bad "juju"?

     You are full of yourself.

     Posted by sjchermak at 07/21/2009 @ 6:55pm