Give States an Option to Lead on Single-Payer

The goal of real reformers is clear: a "Medicare for all" single-payer national healthcare system.

Getting there could be a little tough this fall.

But America will get there.

The current system is broken; it fails to serve 45 million Americans and underserves another 45 million. It costs too much and it delivers too little to a country where life expectancy rates are rapidly falling below those of developed nations with universal healthcare programs.

The compromises of a weak "public option" or less are insufficient to the point of being laughable, and potentially more costly than the current monstrosity.

So we will get to single-payer.

The only question is how and when.

One answer, perhaps the best, is offered by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, who has proposed and promoted the idea of allowing states to experiment with different healthcare systems.

Under Baldwin's plan, a progressive state such as Oregon or Vermont could develop a "Medicare for all" program within its borders. At the same time, a more traditionally conservative state such as Mississippi or Alabama could muck around with so-called "medical-savings accounts" and other gimmicks developed by the insurance industry and its political mouthpieces.

Then it would be a case of may the best state win -- with the evidence of which model works best developing over time.

Canada went this route, experimenting first with single-payer in Saskatchewan.

Slowly, other provincial governments recognized that the "Medicare for all" model delivered quality healthcare at affordable prices and adopted it. And, eventually, the reforms initiated in once province went national.

Baldwin has introduced a House resolution expressing the determination of the Congress to facilitate state-based innovation in national healthcare reform. And she has encouraged moves -- by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and others -- to insure that this sort of flexibility is a part of any plan that comes out of the House.

This is important, since federal rules regarding Medicare and other programs can limit the options for states. And a mangled healthcare reform plan passed in rush by legislators who just want to "do something" could further constrain progressive initiatives.

Baldwin's gotten a number of co-sponsors for her resolution -- including a few Republicans. It's important that single-payer backers sign on now, as part of the broader push to make sure that if the feds fail us, states can lead.

Washington may not give us real reform this year. But it should at least give progressive states a chance to move in the right direction.

Comments (208)

1. Representative Baldwin never stops giving me reasons to admire her.

   Now, where are the "tenthers" who will take a truly principled stand for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution - by praising Baldwin's proposal, which so clearly affirms it?

   My view of the conflict between the powers of the federal government and those of state governments is not absolutist, but pragmatic. If the federal government is more progressive, I say, may it prevail over the regressive states, and with my blessing. But don't let the feds stand in the way of the progressive states.

   As I have stated elsewhere, I would like to see the Senate's power greatly reduced compared to that of the House of Representatives.

   An attractive option would be to give our Senate the same power as the "upper" chamber of the German parliament, the Federal Council ("Bundesrat"). This body votes only when federal legislation passed by the "lower" chamber, the Federal Diet ("Bundestag"), encroaches upon the Constitutional authority of the states ("Länder"). If a majority in the Federal Council rejects a law, it is nullified only in those states whose deputies vote against it, but is still enacted in those states whose deputies vote for it.

   The deputies in the Federal Council also represent populations rather than states, albeit not very accurately. I would like to see our Senate do this, too, rather than giving two Senators to each state, regardless of its population.

   I would of course also prefer that we, the people, continue to elect our Senators, rather than let state governments elect them - as is done today with the deputies to the Federal Council in Germany, and as we once did with Senators.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 09:56am

2. Giving the states more leeway to work the Fed dollars allocated to them is non-controversial and quite obviously, several states have done so.

   One quick but highly relevant question, one that Nichols won't answer EVER, is to point out just one state that has met its original projections on costs, number of beneficiaries, more choice, bended cost curve.......

   Knowing Nichols' limitation (ideological) and lack of track record to respond, Libs, please jump in and enlighten us.

   Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:15am

3. I like this idea. But I would add that states should be allowed to also create a public option to compete with insurers. I am from Iowa. 75% of our health insurance market goes to one insurer. Another 10% to another insurer. I think Iowa would be one of the first states to go for state run public option - we have the will and the expertise to pull it off - very quickly. A state public option needs to allow governments to negotiate with drug companies and health care providers. The law should allow states to form regional offerings It also should allow states to require that all individual and micro group health insurance sold be sold via a statewide or regional exchange.

   This allows states with an electorate who think that government exists to serve their personal welfare can have a public option and states that think that government is evil can keep the public option out of their state.

   If we have to weaken the public option, I much prefer a state opt-in over a national trigger. Both would be good too - allow states to opt in when they choose, but if (when) the health care sector exceeds 17% of our GDP or if the uninsured/underinsured reaches 17% of our population, then the national public option is triggered. And a nationally triggered public option would be a single payer or buy-in to medicare system.

   Posted by Nicole635 at 09/04/2009 @ 10:30am

4. Nichols:

   I have a company that makes "Mao" suits and hats. We still do a brisk business in China, and want to expand into the US. We would like to offer you a free suit and hat, as we believe as the foremost proponent of Maoism, you could help our marketing program. We shall be in touch to arrange for getting your measurements and to make sure the color is the appropriate shade of gray.

   Yours is solidarity, Comrade!

   Posted by sntauri at 09/04/2009 @ 10:33am

5. Yours is solidarity, Comrade!

   Posted by sntauri at 09/04/2009 @ 10:33am

   Hey, you left out "Comrade" before "Nichols"!

   Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:45am

6. Nichols: if the Feds don't produce a plan that allows for the so-called "public option" then the Feds will produce a plan that ensconces the insurance industry formally in Washington DC, more so than is already the case. The plan will be about enhancing the revenues of the insurance and pharmaceutical cartels and preventing their regulation more than anything else. Either the Feds lead or its a disaster for everyone. State government legislation is normally easily railroaded by (inter)national corporate interests.

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/04/2009 @ 10:47am

7. Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

   You guys are real jackasses.

   Posted by syfriendly at 09/04/2009 @ 10:48am

8. From David Corn.....an excellent and objective look at Magic....a Lib who is weaning himself from Kool-aid:

   Obama's Big Health Care Speech Won't Solve His Big Political Problem

   Posted: 09/4/09

   As we await President Barack Obama's Big Speech on health care -- which he will deliver to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday -- let's flash back to this spring. Congress's approval ratings ranged from the high 20s to the high 30s. Obama was in the low 60s. On some days, his approval number was doubled that of Congress....

   With all that in mind, here's the big question: Why did the White House allow its health care reform initiative to become the property of an entity much less popular than the president himself?

   .......Talk about bad branding.

   ....Obama lost control of the process and, thus, the issue......It sure didn't have to be this way....But this would have required him to lean on the House and Senate.....Admittedly it's difficult for a fellow whose last job was a first-term junior senator to play Lyndon Johnson with his former colleagues.

   ......A bang-up speech could help. But it's unlikely to change the political dynamics on the Hill....Once the speech is over, Obama will still encounter the dilemma he presently faces: whom to tick off?

   Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:58am

9. Without stressing it, Corn put his finger on the glaringly obvious defect of Magic's being POTUS, said he: "....it's difficult for a fellow whose last job was a first-term junior senator to play Lyndon Johnson with his former colleagues."

   Cons knew this and hammered BHO's lack of qualifications and experience (aka seasoning)...but Kool-aid drinkers and legs-tingled Legacy Media prevailed. But this would have required him to lean on the House and Senate.....

   Look out, when the Congressional rats abandon ship....it's highly unlikely they will scramble back on based on Hopey and Changey teleprompted speeches....can't blame them. Other than newbies, the seasoned rats don't owe Magic much....irnoically, it's the newbie rats that are least loyal......LMAO!

   Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:04am

10. You guys are real jackasses.

    Posted by syfriendly at 09/04/2009 @ 10:48am

    But my side surely isn't the only one.....I know what to do with your side's jackasses, do you need some tips from on how to stay HAPPY?

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:06am

11. 'One quick but highly relevant question, one that Nichols won't answer EVER, is to point out just one state that has met its original projections on costs, number of beneficiaries, more choice, bended cost curve.'

    Yes, let's require evidence of success before we even conduct an experiment. This is what "Happy" and his ilk always require for a liberal proposal, but curiously never for a conservative proposal.

    If we want evidence that single-payer payment for health care works, there are lots of states we can look at - in other countries. Nichols mentioned Saskatchewan. (Yes, this is a "province," not a state, but you have to speak another language in Canada.)

    It should be common knowledge that Canada is managing its economy - most particularly its banks - much, much, more cheaply and efficiently than we are. Canadians have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than we do, despite the fact that they obviously belong to the same species and have many of the same bad personal health habits. And they spend much less on health care than we do.

    These are all true claims; Google "life expectancy," "infant mortality," and "Canada," and see what you get.

    There is a lot of fear-mongering about government-paid health care, but I fail to see what is scarier than a reduced life span and more dead babies. This is what OUR health care system delivers, people.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 11:18am

12. ...Canadians have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than we do,...

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 11:18am

    Did you know folks up north generally live longer...GW hasn't stopped them from hibernating for a good part of the year? Freeze warnings in NH in August caused by GW, you know.

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:25am

13. 'With all that in mind, here's the big question: Why did the White House allow its health care reform initiative to become the property of an entity much less popular than the president himself?'

    I have an answer, for both "Happy" and David Corn: it's the Constitution. This is the document that gives the Congress the power to enact legislation, including health care reform. All the president can do is veto it or sign it, though I agree with David Corn that a little more bullying from the presidential pulpit (well, okay, ANY AT ALL) might help.

    I know you Republicans tried to make us a monarchy back when George the Second was president, but you FAILED. You LOST the election of 2008. Deal with it.

    There are many possible explanations for why Congress is unpopular. The one that I personally find most plausible is that it's structurally broken. My remedies are the following:

    (1) Enact strict campaign-finance reform, such that each individual can give only $10 per candidate. Supplement this with public campaign financing and free air time for multi-partisan debates.

    (2) Regulate campaign ads (and all other ads) as follows: Each ad must display the number of people who have contributed money to it. Do not impose any other restriction.

    (3) Demand voter-verifiable paper copies of all ballots.

    (4) Implement instant-runoff voting in all elections, thereby increasing the accuracy of elections and the number of parties.

    (5a) Abolish the filibuster.

    (5b) Change the Senate so that its members represent populations, as the House of Representatives does.

    (5c) Restrict the Senate's powers to special cases, or abolish it altogether.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 11:29am

14. Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:15am

    So what have you got against the states exercising their rights to democratically decide which health care option will work best for its people?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/04/2009 @ 11:36am

15. Obama's Afghanistan Contradiction

    He's trying to sell a tough slog while saying his commitment is not open-ended.

    --By David Corn

    Fri September 4, 2009 3:28 AM PST

    With the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama faces a contradiction. He says he wants to win the war but he will not commit to fighting for as long as that might take.

    ....On Monday...Robert Gibbs...said over and over that the Afghanistan war had been "under-resourced" for years...Asked if the situation in Afghanistan was spiraling out of control, Gibbs replied..."the situation is quite serious but the war is indeed winnable."

    ....I asked Gibbs to define "winnable." He answered:

    The President and his advisors have talked about disrupting, dismantling, and destroying al Qaeda and its extremist allies. We have to ensure that there are-- while there are those currently plotting to do our country harm, that we don't provide them a safe haven to do that; that we have a government in Afghanistan that is self-sufficient, that we have a security force in that country that's able to deal with the challenges that are presented to it.

    But without being prompted, Gibbs added..."Our commitment can't be forever." I followed up by asking, "How can you say the commitment is not forever if you set up those goals? Maybe it will take close to forever to reach those goals." Gibbs responded:

    I don't think it will take close to forever. But I don't know what year that would be.

    So Obama has established high benchmarks for victory in Afghanistan...But the White House maintains that the president's commitment in Afghanistan will not be without an end--without specifying when that end might be. The tasks Gibbs outlined could well require many years to accomplish--that is, if they are even achievable....

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:38am

16. Posted by sntauri at 09/04/2009 @ 10:33am

    Chairman Mao?

    One can always count on crazed rightwing zombies to grunt out non-sensical historical "allusions" that would be tiresomely pretensious if not for their sheer random aburdity and stupidity. (Would it have made any *less* sense to anger that Nichols is the incarnation of Mickey Mouse or Mickey Mantle, as he is of Mao/Maoism?)

    But let's go with this one for a moment ...

    ...if Nichols is the American Mao, as SNTAURI sagely rants ...

    Who is Canada's version of the Great Helmsman? Or the United Kingdom's? France's? Or anywhere else with universal health coverage? And how much of a Maximum Leader/Great Great Great Helmsman whould these other "Maos" have been to not simply scribble a blog like Nichols but to have actually *implimented* a healthcare program? A program that, for the feverish SNTAURI, is indistinguishable from iron-fisted, one-party Commie China??? And doing so in each of these nations while no was looking, no one noticed even to this day, and no one objected???

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/04/2009 @ 11:39am

17. Corn, cont'd:

    That leads to an obvious question: if the goals are critical to the security of the United States, shouldn't they be pursued until the job is done? It seems as if Gibbs was almost saying, We'll give this a shot and see what happens. Which, of course, is a formulation Obama cannot voice--even if it reflects the true sentiment at the White House.

    Obama is in the awkward position of hard-selling the war--we must do this, this and this--while downplaying what all this could entail. It's a rhetorical balancing act that could end up being tough to sustain....

    The politics of the war are becoming more dicey for the Obama administration. Liberal Democrats are increasingly concerned....and when columnist George Will wrote this week that US forces in Afghanstain should be "substantially reduced," he signaled the possibility of opposition from the right. (There is indeed the potential for a left-right coalition against the war.) For the time being, Obama's most reliable supporters on the war are congressional Republicans. This poses a dilemma for him: can he simultaneously keep Democrats from open rebellion by promising that Afghanistan won't turn into a Vietnam-like sinkhole, while preserving GOP support by standing firm on the war?

    ....Given what the polls indicate, the public is losing patience. Yet the mission in Afghanistan, as defined by Obama, will take loads of time. How Obama deals with this friction could end up shaping his presidency more than his handling of health care reform.

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

    The Nation needs to bring on board someone like Corn, if not Corn himself! I'd like to see how their subscriber/reader base Hopeyed and Changeyd post his departure.

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:43am

18. Jakob: "You LOST the election of 2008. Deal with it."

    Can you make a public Friday confession that I/we are dealing with the LOST election rather HAPPILY....certainly more so than the rampant UNHAPPINESS that has become the blog staple here?

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:48am

19. I'm all for the states exercising their 10th amendment rights if a state wants to implement a single payer plan. In fact, I've said that for several years on this website.

    I must add though that the states do not need any legislative action from Congress in order to take this step. this is just another attempt by Congress to be involved in state actions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 11:49am

20. Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:15am

    So what have you got against the states exercising their rights to democratically decide which health care option will work best for its people?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/04/2009 @ 11:36am

    Why you choose to interpret my as (wrongly) being "against the states exercising their rights to democratically decide which health care option will work best for its people"?

    My first post very expressly stated that this is "non-controversial and quite obviously, several states have done so."

    I do consistently question any large endeavors undertaken by the (generally) incompetent Gubbers in most every level of the Gubber establishment beyond a simple country village. That doesn't mean I am against the Gubbers from trying despite the horrendous records.....see Cali, Michigan, NJ, NY, Illinois....to get refresher courses on Gubber (IN)competence!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 11:56am

21. happy completely dodged jakobfabian's challenge. no opponent of single-payer can point to any available empirical data (from other countries) to back up their claims that it costs too much money, diminishes quality or quality of life, or reduces life spans.

    in fact, it's quite the opposite. every other industrialized country spends less on health care than we do AND insures all of its citizens.

    but, even in the face of this FACT, opponents of single payer just keep trudging along, living in fear/delusion.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 12:06pm

22. but, even in the face of this FACT, opponents of single payer just keep trudging along, living in fear/delusion.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 12:06pm

    Unfortunately, it appears to be working!!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/04/2009 @ 12:12pm

23. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/04/2009 @ 11:39am

    Phil, you take far too lightly my offer to Nichols. It is not just for Health Care alone that he deserves the revered Mao suit, but for an entire consistent worldview that he so aptly displays here at The Nation, month after month. He is a true hero to the people!

    Posted by sntauri at 09/04/2009 @ 12:26pm

24. Edward Bernays knew 100 years ago that his principles of mass manipulation propaganda were effective....

    But even he would be astonished at how they might be used to convince a bunch of hillbillies to stand up publicly and defend corporate rights to screw these same hilbillies to their knees!

    Posted by lumenpro at 09/04/2009 @ 12:30pm

25. Posted by sntauri at 09/04/2009 @ 12:26pm

    Really? Specifically, what makes him a "Maoist", or are all liberals "Maosists"?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 09/04/2009 @ 12:31pm

26. In many ways this has echoes of 19th century governance. The president was often the weak partner in the executive-legislature tug-of-war. The important measures were taken by legislators (Calhoun, Webster, Clay, Blaine, Cannon) just as often as by presidents, who were often not of great stature, and states were quite powerful in relation to the federal government (though this gave some problems in 1860).

    Will the Massachusetts model be the one taken up by the federal government?

    Posted by Mistral at 09/04/2009 @ 12:53pm

27. posted by antisocialist 09/04/2009 @ 11:49pm

    "I must add though that the states do not need any legislative action from Congress in order to take this step. this is just another attempt by Congress to be involved in state actions."

    According to my congressman, this is incorrect, and there is currently a "federal Barrier" to states' adopting single payer.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 09/04/2009 @ 12:59pm

28. Single Payer in each state that wants it would be great, but then again it would have to include reciprocal Health Benefits only to citizens of other states that have a Single Payer system as well.

    Otherwise as Ross Perot would say, there'd be a huge sucking sound of sick people moving to Single Payer states, and the band plays on.

    Ah what the hell, how about states passing Statewide Constitutional Amendments declaring the RIGHT of each and every citizen to equal quality health care.

    Long Live Jesse Jackson Jr.!

    Jesse Jackson Jr. Constitutional Amendment Proposal and reintroduce it as the TED amendment... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj108-30

    H. J. Res. 30: 108th Congress 2003-2004 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.

    So far there 35 Cosponsors: Donna Christensen [D-VI] Eleanor Norton [D-DC] Sanford Bishop [D-GA2] Julia Carson [D-IN7] William Clay [D-MO1] James Clyburn [D-SC6] John Conyers [D-MI14] Elijah Cummings [D-MD7] Danny Davis [D-IL7] Peter Deutsch [D-FL20] Chaka Fattah [D-PA2] Bob Filner [D-CA51] Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7] Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4] Alcee Hastings [D-FL23] Maurice Hinchey [D-NY22] Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18] Stephanie Jones [D-OH11] Patrick Kennedy [D-RI1] Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13] Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10] Barbara Lee [D-CA9] Kendrick Meek [D-FL17] Gregory Meeks [D-NY6] Juanita Millender-McDonald [D-CA37] Donald Payne [D-NJ10] Bobby Rush [D-IL1] Timothy Ryan [D-OH17] Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9] Robert Scott [D-VA3] Bennie Thompson [D-MS2] Edolphus Towns [D-NY10] Maxine Waters [D-CA35] Diane Watson [D-CA33] Melvin Watt [D-NC12]

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/04/2009 @ 1:00pm

29. 'My lord, this reached the Fourth Level Of Suckitude in near record time.' -- Eric Alterman -- The Nation -- 4 September, 2009

    http://www.thena tion.com/blogs/alte rcation/469129/sla cker_friday

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/04/2009 @ 1:09pm

30. 'I do consistently question any large endeavors undertaken by the (generally) incompetent [corporate oligarchs] in most every level of the [corporate] establishment beyond a simple country village. That doesn't mean I am against the [oligarchs] trying despite the horrendous records.....see [S&L crisis, Dot-Com Bubble, Enron, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc.] to get refresher courses on [oligopolistic] (IN)competence!'

    See, all you have to do is change a few words, and I agree completely with "Happy."

    There is a lot of incompetence in government, too, but you have to learn to see the corporate lobbyists working in the background. Otherwise, you're just mystified by the Great and Powerful Oz and fail to see the corporate flack pulling the levers behind the curtain.

    The small-is-beautiful principle applies both to government and the corporations. Indeed, whatever it is that we allow to grow "too big to fail," whether it is a private or public entity, BECOMES the government, whether we realize it or not.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

31. Poor President Obama. I think that the guy probably means well and he wants to make sure his presidency shows results toward HC reform but he keeps on making things worse. He's been so overexposed that his words become monotonous to the extent that the only people who tune in are his most fervent worshipers. Weds. speech will be no different I'm afraid. He's just not Presidential anymore. Too much Obama.

    Regarding this state by state idea, well, go for it. The states that try to adopt single payer strategy will go bankrupt in no time. Why doesn't Congress create a monetary pool which people who want to fund others health care, outside of the programs we already have, can contribute to voluntarily. I'm sure all the Obama backers and Pelosi supporters will gladly fork over, say, twent-five bucks a week toward the program. Then the illegals, the lazy and those who feel entitled because of history will have their health taken care of.

    The rest of us who feel differently and are happy with our policies can keep the HC insurance we have. If you lose your job and your health care, get another job. What did you do for health care before working, besides being covered under a parents policy which didn't last forever. Or how about working two jobs or even three so you can BUY a policy. What a foreign idea huh? There are plenty of jobs around.

    We already have Medicare and Medicaid. Just strengthen it. Provide catastrophic insurance and eliminate prior condition denials. Enact Tort reform.

    Why doesn't any of The Nation's contributors ever support tort reform. It will save taxpayers a trillion or more over the next decade in unnessary testing. It's a no-brainer.

    And what the hell is up with all these Czars? They don't represent the people.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:28pm

32. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

    How in general have those societies with bigger Gubbers than us done relative to us? Don't cite some niche statistic on life expectancy or wide discrepancy from highest to lowest income....just simply, which country overall is the most emulated and dominant?

    And if Gubbers are a smaller % of this "most emulated and dominant" country, doesn't it reason that its non-Gubber parts will be heavily `corporate'.

    Heck, I'm a LLC!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 2:31pm

33. And whats up with this education speech. Anyone in this day and age who doesn't realize that their kids education is the most important asset they will ever have is brain dead. The President shouldn't have to tell you that. Don't expect Barack Obama to give your kids the same freebies that you had. This is a different time and people are awake now. We will continue to pump billions into public education but it's up to the individual to get his or her education. No one educator can learn for you. I hope that's what his message will be.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:33pm

34. The small-is-beautiful principle applies both to government and the corporations.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

    You're like most libs, narrow-minded! That principle only applies to the sentimental side....mostly to the Libs! You can only relate to "small-is-beautiful" in terms of the family farm, the corner mom-and-pop store, the shoe repair shop (found every 10 miles now), the indie music store.......

    Without our own IBM, Oracle, & EDS, where do you suppose SAP (Germany) would be today? Small and beautiful?

    Without GM & Ford in their heydays, you think VW, Toyota & Hyundai would be small and beautiful?

    Wake up....unless all you want for your following generations is to live like 90% of the Afghans do now!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 2:40pm

35. According to my congressman, this is incorrect, and there is currently a "federal Barrier" to states' adopting single payer.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 09/04/2009 @ 12:59pm

    I'd love to hear what constitutional barrier your congressman cites against states exercising their 10th amendment rights.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 2:41pm

36. With a 16.8 percent REAL unemployment figure, 15,000,000. jobs lost, a $9,000,000,000. budget deficit making Bush years deficits look anemic, and now the Obamanation and Demoncrats want to pass even more exponential debt for current and future generations just to grab more power they wonder why American citizens and voters rebel!?

    All we have to do is look at the fail healthcare of California and Mass., Great Britton with its brutal care and black ink, and Canada's problems to see how foolish the Obamanation and Demoncrats are yet they continue to push their LIES!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 2:48pm

37. Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    You guys are real jackasses.

    Posted by syfriendly at 09/04/2009 @ 10:48am

    and...to put it mildly, have WAAAAAAY too much time on their hands, based on volume and frequency here.

    It's the same bullcrap over and over and over again, essentially, the constant references to "Magic" et al., accompanied by a complete lack of even attempted creativity.

    Waiting to see how they treat their buddy George Will.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/04/2009 @ 3:02pm

38. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 09/04/2009 @ 11:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Phil, our neocon friends here are all about smaller government, a lighter federal footprint, etc., etc., until up for discussion comes a massive, bloated, unmaintainable overseas military empire of countless and at times obsolete military installations from Guam to Germany, and, somehow, our system is supposed to hold all of this up.

    But, other than THAT, they're for "small government".

    LOL.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/04/2009 @ 3:25pm

39. Many of the peasants are ready to turn you into a rump roast, Happy, but those of us with a penchant for mercy will plead your case.

    "Happy has been an ass for decades. A fact his wife is certain to confirm. Let him live. He does, after all, provide us with comic relief & he's been roasted so many times on the Nation's blogs he's a virtual cinder."

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/04/2009 @ 3:26pm

40. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:33pm

    I guess Obama is trying to be like George H Bush and Ronnie Reagan, both of whom gave speeches that I think will turn out to be similar to Obamas. Maoist?

    Funny, again, that those (like SNTAURI) that supported a gulag in Cuba, rendering, kidnapping, warrant less wiretaps of US citizens, federal govt access to library records and book sales without citizens allowed to consult legal counsel....NOW they are afraid of Maoism? When did Mao supply decent, affordable health care to the peasants of China? Looks to me like Mao DID do the things supported by SNTAURI, but not the things he is afraid of.

    Somewhat typical of our resident cons to fear that which does not exist...again.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/04/2009 @ 3:31pm

41. Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/04/2009 @ 3:25pm

    You're still too new to know that I share much of Pat Buchanan's traditional GOP stance on foreign entanglements! I didn't want Reagan or any POTUS to put marines in Beirut or Somalia under the circumstances that led to those fiasco!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 3:36pm

42. "just simply, which country overall is the most emulated and dominant?"

    (question of the day)

    the award is given simply because the questioner unselfconsciously implies that the foreigners (still) emulate americans.

    way to go, happy!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 3:40pm

43. Posted by Sorelish at 09/04/2009 @ 3:26pm

    I've gotta give you some credit.....for `bravely' holding out here as most of you Libs have shrunk into your own little soft shells as you realize your Messiah, the one-time true Magic, is an Empty Shell.....

    I appreciate your sacrifice to demonstrate to me, your side's total disintegration....I would've paid real money to see what is unfolding....real life is truly better than fiction!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 3:40pm

44. I remember a time when the "conservatives" promoted respect for their Commander in Chief. See Bill Bennets reaction to the 2004 Pulitzer winners.

    What happened to that? We are still at war.

    SNT, you must really hate America to go after the CIC during war time. There was a time when your friends and cohorts would have gladly feathered you for writing ill of the CIC.

    Oh, I know what happened....a democratic election!!!

    They can't stand that!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/04/2009 @ 3:42pm

45. the award is given simply because the questioner unselfconsciously implies that the foreigners (still) emulate americans.

    way to go, happy!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 3:40pm

    I certainly meant over the period of several decades but let's take your knee-jerk position of a snap-shot approach....tell me, which nation is the one most emulated TODAY? Oh, back your candidate up.

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 3:43pm

46. Who gives a s##t what nation Loopy, you are the epitome of the right wing nutters, with a teeny bit of education, but your still a nutter, actually that teeny weeny bit of education is a dangerous thing in you nutty wutty hands Hoppy.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:48pm

47. Posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 11:49am

    so you support Massachusetts' health care system?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:50pm

48. The small-is-beautiful principle applies both to government and the corporations. Indeed, whatever it is that we allow to grow "too big to fail," whether it is a private or public entity, BECOMES the government, whether we realize it or not.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 2:18pm

    A nice point and a good way of viewing it.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:54pm

49. Obama lied. Healthcare died.

    Posted by newsbrowser at 09/04/2009 @ 3:54pm

50. here's the scenario:

    conservatives like to point to foreign or domestic localities, states, provinces, countries, etc, which have universal healthcare, and argue that all of them are *losing* money or are *bankrupt*.

    yeah, and?

    folks, healthcare is a worthy investment. probably the most worthy of all investments, in fact.

    would you rather talk about how much we spend on wars foreign and domestic?

    how profitable are those systems for our government?

    just askin'

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 3:56pm

51. There are plenty of jobs around.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:28pm

    There are? Where? Do you not know how to read a newspaper, or better yet, watch your local news?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:56pm

52. Why doesn't any of The Nation's contributors ever support tort reform. It will save taxpayers a trillion or more over the next decade in unnessary testing. It's a no-brainer.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:28pm

    I actually like the idea of tort reform (to a point), although I don't know where you get your figures from, because lawsuits are about 1% of the costs of healthcare in this nation. 1%. I don't think that's anywhere NEAR a trillion dollars.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:01pm

53. "..tell me, which nation is the one most emulated TODAY? Oh, back your candidate up."

    that that is even a consideration of yours, i.e. which nation is most emulated, is rather indicative of a mind which sees his own nation as superior, even in the current state of affairs in which the united states is clearly suffering from too many republicans.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:01pm

54. let's see, bush's two foreign wars didn't *make* us any money.

    ok?

    where are the republicans demanding an *end* to foreign wars, as they so obviously 'bankrupt' the government.

    this is all the proof we need to argue that today's modern republican is (serious, i'm not kidding) a brainless, bloodsucking zombie.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:03pm

55. Yea weren't we suppose to pay for the war with the money from their oil? How did that work out hmmm?

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:07pm

56. There are plenty of jobs around.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 2:28pm

    There are? Where? Do you not know how to read a newspaper, or better yet, watch your local news?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:56pm

    People who are unemployed fall into four catagories:

    1. Those who have lost high paying jobs and will not settle for a job that pays less. 2. Those who aren't educated enough to work anything but a menial job but refuse employment because it is beneath them and would rather take a hand out. 3. Those who had a decent job but can milk the unemployment system for all it's worth before they'll find another job. 4. Those who can go to school and learn a skill to make a career but are just too damn lazy.

    Yes Stephen, I read and watch and I see plenty of jobs in the want ads for all levels of intelligence, especially in the health field. Don't be fooled by percentages or use them as an excuse.

    There's always the military.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:14pm

57. Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People's Organs Without Explicit Consent!

    Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would "presume" someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

    Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

    Outlined in the 2008 book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

    Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased's family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one's organs.

    "The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members," said Sunstein and Thaler.

    This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver's license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this "explicit consent."

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 4:14pm

58. Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:03pm

    Not much left up there, huh?

    Let me help you...offer up Cuba which at least has several countries emulating it!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 4:15pm

59. They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call "presumed consent."

    "Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate," they explained

    This is how Obamanation and the Demoncrats feel about your liberty and freedom and why they should be the LAST people to handle healthcare!!!!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 4:16pm

60. I actually like the idea of tort reform (to a point), although I don't know where you get your figures from, because lawsuits are about 1% of the costs of healthcare in this nation. 1%. I don't think that's anywhere NEAR a trillion dollars.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:01pm

    The savings come from unnessary testing. Who do you think pays for all those diagnostic tests x-rays and ultrasounds. Doctors have to cover bases that aren't necessary to cover, just to cover their own asses. Meanwhile, trial lawyers get rich and contribute huge amounts of money to democratic and some republican candidates and the taxpayers pick up the tab. And what about the pharmaceuticals? Please stop defending these people. What's in it for you?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:18pm

61. How does our Constitution provide for the appointment of these Czars who are running the country. Why isn't Congress protesting the loss of their scrutiny? Somethings rotten in Denmark.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:21pm

62. During a town hall meeting at the Fredericksburg Expo Center, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said there is "no place in the Constitution" that mentions health care or education, or even gives individuals the right to own a telephone!

    Good to know at least one Demoncrat knows how to read the constitution!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 4:22pm

63. You really know how to get to us peasants, Happy. Just as you prosper regardless of party or POTUS in power, you will probably survive a populist insurrection & ADD to your serf roster.

    However the mercenaries & temporaries you advocate (on a recent thread) are the Achilles heel in your strategy. You've got to keep those mercs busy overseas or as probable neighbors of yours in the upscale Houston district, idled, drunken & unemployed soldiers of fortune might pose a threat to yourself.

    And if you use temps to install steel doors & shutters to your house, you'll likely end up with just what you've paid for. Better opt for skilled aliens. Good luck.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/04/2009 @ 4:26pm

64. Tort reform is barking up the wrong tree entirely.

    We are a litigious society because civil suits are obliged to compensate for a lack of decent statutes, which would define in greater detail what constitutes acceptable practice and what constitutes negligence.

    We lack decent statutes because most of our legislatures are bicameral and place too much power in their upper chambers, that is, in their Senate chambers. This slows down the pace of legislation, so that the law fails to keep pace with rapid technological changes - for example in medicine.

    Merely capping compensation for civil suits would do nothing but reduce compensation in those few cases in which the abuses are so obvious and egregious - and the abusers so rich - that very large compensation would be only right and proper. It would do nothing to stop petty lawsuits that pursue only small rewards and that consequently set the bar rather low in terms of evidence. However, in terms of our collective pocketbook, those petty lawsuits do add up.

    When the Legislative Branch moves too slowly, the other two branches of government overreach to compensate. This is evident both in our increasingly imperial presidency and in the politicization of our courts. Our president was intended merely to execute the law - not to create new law by means of decrees, "signing statements," or expansion of secret government. Our courts were intended only to interpret the law - not to amend it when our legislatures, for purely structural reasons, are too slow to adapt the law to changing circumstances.

    I know I must be getting on all of your nerves banging on the same old harp, but this really does seem to be a core problem with the structure of our political system. Bicameral, Senate-heavy legislatures are just too slow.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 4:31pm

65. People like John Nichols and other advocates of HC reform kepp throwing this 45,000 uninsured figure around. Can we please have a breakdown? Does that figure include illegals, people who don't want healthcare and those who are in between jobs? Some honesty please. I believe the figure is more like 15,000.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:31pm

66. Sorry, thats million.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:32pm

67. "During a town hall meeting at the Fredericksburg Expo Center, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said there is "no place in the Constitution" that mentions health care or education, or even gives individuals the right to own a telephone!"

    bigpasture really is a character out of one of the simpsons' lynch mobs

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:33pm

68. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 4:31pm

    You sound like a lawyer. There is already a cap on compensatory damages.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:35pm

69. My gut tells me that the democrats will lose or at least have their majority severly watered down in 2010. This is probably a good thing and it does explain the pace at which the party is trying to enact their radical agenda. This is a result of the republicans misuse of the power they once had. Remember Rove and Delay?

    The country could not have elected a worse President, not once but twice. If John Kerry had won in his try, the world would never had heard of Barack Obama. Not that Kerry was the best choice either. But he would not have been the radical that Obama is showing himself to be. Look at the people he is surrounding himself with. It really is frightening.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:42pm

70. 'The savings come from unnessary testing. Who do you think pays for all those diagnostic tests x-rays and ultrasounds. Doctors have to cover bases that aren't necessary to cover, just to cover their own asses. Meanwhile, trial lawyers get rich and contribute huge amounts of money to democratic and some republican candidates and the taxpayers pick up the tab. And what about the pharmaceuticals? Please stop defending these people. What's in it for you?'

    Unnecessary testing, "gunslinger1," proceeds from the faulty assumption that, in medicine as everywhere else, the "customer is always right." Therefore, if the customer demands another test, the customer gets it, whether it's medically necessary or not. Especially if the customer is rich enough to sue.

    Better statutes, those that would make our health care system more efficient, would be based upon science and would define in greater detail what constitutes best medical practice and what is a waste of money. These same statutes would shield doctors from lawsuits if they could demonstrate that they acted according to best practice as defined by science, and when possible by statute as well.

    Again, the problem is that we need better legislation. With better legislation, we get less superfluous litigation, both because doctors conform to better rules of practice - which reduces injurious errors - and because petty and baseless litigation is more often recognized as such.

    I have addressed the slowness of the US-American legislative process in my previous posting. Here, I will stress that its quality also leaves much to be desired. Better representation, such as elections by Instant-Runoff Voting and a Senate based on population, would greatly improve this quality. And of course, we need campaign-finance reform, too.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 4:52pm

71. posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 2:41pm

    I doubt he was citing a constitutional barrier & in fact if there were a well-defined constitutional barrier they wouldn't be able to get around it with legislation (though I'm sure you would argue that they have done exactly that on multiple occasions). No, I'm sure he's talking about legislative or funding barriers.

    The constitution, as interpreted over the last 200 years by the courts, is not simple. There are few obvious conclusions to be drawn from it. And federal law is, as we all know, complex. Any way, I trust my Congressman (the more fool I) on this, and couldn't get into the web link to the bill to check exactly what he was talking about.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 09/04/2009 @ 4:56pm

72. 'This is a result of the republicans misuse of the power they once had. Remember Rove and Delay?'

    Yes, I do, "gunslinger1." And I'm glad that here, at least, there is a point on which we can both agree.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 4:56pm

73. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:42pm

    You're so full of crap. Take a sedative after listening to Rush today?

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/04/2009 @ 4:57pm

74. According to "Wikipedia":

    "The 'czar' title was first used to refer to an appointed government official in a Time Magazine article in December 1973, referring to William E. Simon's appointment as the head of the Federal Energy Administration."

    Mr. Simon's actual title was "Secretary of the Treasury." The president who appointed him was Richard M. Nixon.

    So on the one hand, I'd caution against the assumption that what we call a 'czar' in the Executive Branch of our government bears any resemblance at all to a Romanov emperor.

    Of course, on the other hand, it does occasionally happen that the Executive Branch overreaches itself and does more than merely faithfully execute the law as defined by Congress. Undoubtedly, it is sometimes some 'czar' or other who does the overreaching; surely this has happened in our so-called "drug war." More often, I suspect, it is a private subcontractor, such as the Blackwater firm, who does the overreaching. And in recent times, we have seen that the office of Vice President offers a prime position (no doubt located inside a secret bunker) from which an unscrupulous authoritarian can overreach in every possible direction.

    With a reformed Congress (as I have defined it in previous postings), both kinds of overreach on the part of the Executive Branch would happen less often. And impeachment, let us hope, would happen more often.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 5:10pm

75. "During a town hall meeting at the Fredericksburg Expo Center, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said there is "no place in the Constitution" that mentions health care or education, or even gives individuals the right to own a telephone!"

    bigpasture really is a character out of one of the simpsons' lynch mobs

    Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Darlaloon! How is your Van Jones fanclub going? I figure you are the next appointee Obamanation will pick for a czar! Since he thinks 9-11 was a Bush conspiracy and calls Republicans A-holes I figure you are a shooin for the job!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 5:16pm

76. 'Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased's family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one's organs.'

    Yup. This is why we all need to be required to sign organ-donor cards. Not because we all must become organ donors, but because we all must state our own opinion on the matter, for or against, because if we don't state any opinion before we die, our surviving relatives will. Moreover, out of misguided respect for the dead, our relatives will often refuse organ donation - thereby depriving the living of possibly lifesaving organs.

    The solution is to encourage as many people as possible to express a living will, while they still can. There can be no "forcing" of this, "BigPasture," because threats make people run away, and what we want is the fullest possible participation. More likely, we'll do what they do in Wisconsin and make every driver's license function as an organ-donor card. Again, you're not forced to give up your organs. You're only required to make a decision about organ donation, for or against.

    Cass Sunstein is a decent humanitarian who would like us to stop suffering so much from our own innate irrationality. I'm glad President Obama appointed him.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 5:29pm

77. JakobFabian,

    I appreciate your persistent posts about how broken the process is, and steps to fix it. Yay instant run-off.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 09/04/2009 @ 5:30pm

78. Giving states authority to experiment is a great idea. What would be crucial is not only authority to experiment within a state, but authority for multiple states to join together to form public insurance entities to compete and offer coverage to their respective citizens.

    Posted by bartlet4america at 09/04/2009 @ 5:36pm

79. Why are conservatives so selfish?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:39pm

80. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 4:31pm

    Any response to the simplest of tort reform: Loser pays for both sides?

    If a case has merits, good lawyers will take it on (sort of like venture capital where good investors like me can be convinced to write checks), especially after this SIMPLE REFORM, a bunch of 3rd & 4th tier lawyers will turn in their licenses over several years, and the remaining lawyers will fight over meritorious cases.

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 5:43pm

81. 'Darlaloon! How is your Van Jones fanclub going? I figure you are the next appointee Obamanation will pick for a czar! Since he thinks 9-11 was a Bush conspiracy and calls Republicans A-holes I figure you are a shooin for the job!'

    There isn't a liberal alive who hasn't called Republicans a-holes and much, much worse, at least in private, many times over the last eight years.

    Moreover, I'll wager there isn't a conservative alive who hasn't done the same to Democrats.

    I think you'd just better get used to the fact that people call each other disrespectful names, "BigPasture." It's only human.

    As for 9-11 conspiracy theories, I have two points.

    (1) The petition Van Jones signed in 2004 called for "immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

    There's no accusation there that conservatives haven't made against FDR for "allowing Pearl Harbor to happen."

    (2) Van Jones himself apologized for signing the petition, saying the following (as reported by David Roberts at Grist.org):

    "In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration--some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.

    My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 5:46pm

82. Gunslinger1, do you know how many people turn out for that"one" job? Do you realize that people look and look and look, and still have no job? Get your head out of the righty sand bub.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:47pm

83. Why are conservatives so selfish?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:39pm

    Why are Libs so generous with OPM (Other Peoples' Money, for benefit of the young) financing?

    Heard of Rangel hogging 4 rent-controlled NYC apts.? Not paying income tax on luxury ($600/nite) Carribean rental property? Daschle? Geithner? Magic's own donation of LESS THAN 1% of his income through 2006, about the same as Biden's donation level!

    Just remember, I am more generous than your Messiah and Vice Messiah!

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 5:47pm

84. But I must say yours and Big pees concern is touching. NOT!

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:59pm

85. OBAMA in response to Tom Brokaw during a debate with the big McPain IN THE AZ about healthcare being a RIGHT: "Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAR8K2KCiGc

    LONG LIVE OBAMA AND JESSE JACKSON JR.!!! Jesse Jackson Jr. Constitutional Amendment Proposal... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj108-30

    H. J. Res. 30: 108th Congress 2003-2004 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.

    So far there 35 Cosponsors: Donna Christensen [D-VI] Eleanor Norton [D-DC] Sanford Bishop [D-GA2] Julia Carson [D-IN7] William Clay [D-MO1] James Clyburn [D-SC6] John Conyers [D-MI14] Elijah Cummings [D-MD7] Danny Davis [D-IL7] Peter Deutsch [D-FL20] Chaka Fattah [D-PA2] Bob Filner [D-CA51] Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7] Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4] Alcee Hastings [D-FL23] Maurice Hinchey [D-NY22] Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18] Stephanie Jones [D-OH11] Patrick Kennedy [D-RI1] Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13] Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10] Barbara Lee [D-CA9] Kendrick Meek [D-FL17] Gregory Meeks [D-NY6] Juanita Millender-McDonald [D-CA37] Donald Payne [D-NJ10] Bobby Rush [D-IL1] Timothy Ryan [D-OH17] Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9] Robert Scott [D-VA3] Bennie Thompson [D-MS2] Edolphus Towns [D-NY10] Maxine Waters [D-CA35] Diane Watson

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 09/04/2009 @ 6:46pm

86. 'Any response to the simplest of tort reform: Loser pays for both sides?'

    I'll have to demand of you what you demanded of us, "Happy." Find a state where this reform was enacted and tell us whether it achieved any desirable result.

    Raising the stakes, it seems to me, would deter only lower-income folks from bringing suit. Higher-income folks able to accept the risk would be undeterred.

    For example, loser-pays legislation would not stop a deep-pocketed corporation like Monsanto from suing farmers for "stealing" its genetically altered pollen by inadvertently locating their farms downwind from it. But it might stop farmers from suing Monsanto, as I truly hope they do, and soon, in a successful class-action lawsuit that draws some blood.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 6:59pm

87. the whole topic of organ donation has been a very sensitive one for BigPasture, ever since he was tricked by an unscrupulous insurance company into donating his brain in exchange for coverage.

    Posted by canaro71 at 09/04/2009 @ 7:13pm

88. JakobFabian,

    Way up above, you declare (in the context of trying to prove that Canadian health care is better):

    "..............Canadians have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than we do......."

    Comments:

    1. Life expectancy of a population is based to a large degree on the demographics of the population ....based on plenty of factors besides the health care system.

    As an example, if you took two nations and the automobile drivers in one of the nations were more careless...and there were more accidents and more fatalities per capita....then the life expectancy of that nation would be worse as a result, wouldn't it? A circumstance not in any way related to the health care system.

    2. Amongst people who have been diagnosed with cancer, the survival rates of those people are better in the U.S. than in places such as the U.K. That is DIRECTLY attributable to the health care system.

    Question:

    Items 1 and 2 above have been, in one way or another, pointed out on these threads in the recent year as this health care debate has unfolded. Pointed out many times, in fact.

    Yet you, as well as others, continue to proclaim that a lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. compared to places like Canada and some of the Western European nations is due to the health care system.

    Why? You are wrong, yet you continue to declare what you declare in spite of the fact that you have been proven wrong, over and over again.

    Why? Excuse me for being contentious, but it seems ridiculous to me for some of you on the left to continue to push ideas that do not hold up. I would really like to know why you do this.

    Do you really believe what you say,

    ---------OR--------------------

    Do you know what the truth is, but are continuing to ram your agenda down our throats?

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/04/2009 @ 7:27pm

89. Posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 11:49am

    so you support Massachusetts' health care system?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 09/04/2009 @ 3:50pm

    That is a different issue from supporting the right of each state to implement whatever healthcare system their citizens approve.

    The Mass system appears to be a failure from recent reports. Furthermore, it's not a single payer system, but an insurance mandate with subsidies for low income (If I understand their plan correctly).

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/04/2009 @ 8:26pm

90. Gunslinger1, do you know how many people turn out for that"one" job? Do you realize that people look and look and look, and still have no job? Get your head out of the righty sand bub.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:47pm

    What 'one' job are you talking about. As I've stated, the want ads are full of jobs. People are responsible for themselves, especially while they're young and supposed to be getting an education. Unfortunately, we've created a culture in this country of entitlement. If one is hungry enough and wants a life, one will realize it. I have no argument with feeding children but when those same children become able bodied adults and we're still feeding them, well, I have a problem with that.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 9:36pm

91. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 4:42pm

    You're so full of crap. Take a sedative after listening to Rush today?

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/04/2009 @ 4:57pm

    Didn't listen to Rush today or most other days either. Do you believe that people can actually think for themselves? Foreign idea huh?

    Don't believe in sedatives either.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/04/2009 @ 9:39pm

92. Look, "sjchermak," life expectancy is life expectancy. It includes ALL diseases and ALL causes of death. This includes not only cancer and other rich people's diseases, but ALL diseases.

    A higher life expectancy rating means a BETTER OVERALL SCORE. You can't claim to beat a better overall score by claiming - without evidence, as usual - that the US health care system treats cancer victims better than other health care systems do.

    That would be like saying, "All right, your GPA may be 3.90 and mine might be only 2.50, but I got a better grade in Pottery class! So there!"

    You also do what conservatives always do when faced with hard data - disparage them, without providing any data of your own. By way of example, let's consider your points (1) and (2).

    (1) "Demographics." That's a nice big word, isn't it? I'm impressed. Now, maybe you can explain exactly what demographic factor it is that causes more US babies to die and shortens our life span compared to EVERY COUNTRY WITH GOVERNMENT-PAID HEALTH CARE.

    (2) Then you suggest traffic fatalities. Okay, but if this is the real cause of our infant mortality and our lower death rate, there should be some really impressive statistics out there that prove this, and I'm sure you can provide them, can't you?

    In short, if you don't like the theory that better health care outcomes are caused by government-paid insurance, you have to come up with an ALTERNATIVE THEORY. With DATA.

    Until you accomplish this, "sjchermak," I'm sorry to say that we liberals will continue to be unimpressed with your imagined refutation of our well-founded claim that government funding improves overall outcomes in health care.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:26pm

93. "Okay, but if this is the real cause of our infant mortality and our lower death rate..."

    Sorry, I obviously meant our HIGHER death rate. It's that "high-means-good, low-means-bad" notion short-circuiting my logic. This often happens when I stay up past my bedtime.

    Good night, everyone!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:32pm

94. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 5:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by canaro71 at 09/04/2009 @ 7:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bad news, you are both on the list and they want your organs tonight! Don't forget you are doing it for the Magic Messiah Obamanation himself!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 10:38pm

95. Life expectancy of Americans lags other `advanced' countries.......says Jakob

    Academic performance of Americans lags other `advanced' countries.....

    The average American is getting shorter.....

    Now, why doesn't someone do a study and see what is the correlation of our relative decline with the 30~40 million of immigrants we've had from afar (SE Asia) and close by (South of border) who don't have the DNAs to average close to 6 ft., didn't have the level of childhood nutrition nor medical care `traditional' America provided....?

    Also, Jakob, no state that I know of, has been able to implement Loser Pay, not even in TX, but we did have serious tort reform by placing caps on non-economic claims. Made a huge difference in reducing medical malpractice lawsuits!

    The Tort Bar is seriously powerful and knows more than just to stuff Dems' campaign coffers, but also w/local charities to buy themselves cover.

    Posted by Happy at 09/04/2009 @ 10:46pm

96. Sorry. I can't go to bed yet. I have to respond to this.

    'Why are Libs so generous with OPM (Other Peoples' Money, for benefit of the young) financing?' asked "Happy."

    Come on, that's too easy: It's because Other People (OP*) have more money than I do! Especially when you count them all together.

    By way of illustration, there's no way I could possibly fund a public library myself - I may be comfortably middle-class, but I'm no Andrew Carnegie. But by pooling our funds, We the Public CAN fund public libraries - lots of them. And we can buy ourselves a better health care system, too.

    Of course, Some People (SP*) actually make significantly LESS money than I do. I actually believe I should contribute MORE money toward the commonwealth than they should. But also believe that I should contribute LESS money than people who are significantly wealthier than I am.

    This is what we call "progressivity" in taxation. It's also known as "taxing people according to their ability to pay" or simply "fairness."

    __________

    *for the benefit of people who love KFC but have no idea what Kentucky Fried Chicken is, or was.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:48pm

97. This is what we call "progressivity" in taxation. It's also known as "taxing people according to their ability to pay" or simply "fairness."

    __________

    *for the benefit of people who love KFC but have no idea what Kentucky Fried Chicken is, or was.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Like most liberals, leftist, regressives Jako must look on armed robbery of banks as liberation of assets of the uncharitable selfish for the good of the proletariat. Why do they all live in the Robin Hood fantasyland of "I'm entitled", or "society owes me"?

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:00pm

98. Big Pasture.. you like most republicans lie and distort reality. LIBERALS don't say: "I'm entitled, or society owes me" That is what you say to make your frightened self feel better. You live in a lie and your jealousy is obvious. Your party is IMPOTENT.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/04/2009 @ 11:11pm

99. Dummy, My party is Independent so rave on!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:15pm

100. Big Pasture: ie, you have no idea what to think, so you spin a needle!! Lou Dobbs calls himself an independent, and he talks the same bullshit that you do! Hate against liberals. It is obvious that you fear them. Because the liberal agenda is to HELP Americans, not fuck them over as you advocate!!!

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/04/2009 @ 11:22pm

101. Here is how the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats are helping the average American!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:27pm

102. The jobless-recovery theme re-emerged on Friday with the arrival of a disappointing employment report. The daunting number was the unemployment rate, which jumped from 9.4 percent in July to 9.7 percent in August. This is a big-versus-small-business issue. Sort of the haves versus the have-nots.

     The large companies are gradually recovering as a result of major cost-cutting, inventory reduction, and a lean-and-mean return to profitability and high productivity. So the payroll survey registered a 216,000 job loss, the smallest drop in over a year.

     However, the household survey, which picks up small, owner-operated, LLC/S-Corp-type businesses, registered a devastating 392,000 job loss, which follows losses of 155,000 and 374,000 in the prior two months. This is the source of the unemployment-rate jump, as 466,000 newly unemployed were scored in the report.

     So while the big companies are getting healthier, the smaller firms are being left in the dust. Unfortunately, small businesses provide most of the new job creation in the United States.

     Veep Joe Biden is out there saying the Obama stimulus plan has saved or created 150,000 jobs in the administration's first 100 days and another 600,000 in its second 100 days. But he sure isn't talking about small-business jobs.

     In fact, it's hard to know what he's talking about. Uncle Sam has borrowed $388 billion in the second quarter and is scheduled to borrow $406 billion in the third quarter and nearly $500 billion in the fourth. In order to provide $152 billion in so-called fiscal stimulus, the government is draining close to $800 billion from the private-sector savings supply -- $800 billion that will not be invested in new-business enterprises, including small businesses.

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:27pm

103. Borrowing from Peter to redistribute to Paul is not fiscal stimulus. It's a fiscal depressant. Small businesses are having enough trouble getting their hands on credit. And now they can't find enough capital for new start-ups. The government prospers, but the small-business sector sinks.

     Then there are all the tax and regulatory threats related to health-care and energy reform. Until Mr. Obama retreats from his plan for a government takeover of the health-care sector, and a cap-and-trade program that will cripple the energy sector, the cost of hiring the new job will continue to rise.

     The threat of higher payroll taxes and energy costs is more than enough to deter new hiring. Taxes on upper-end investors are going to rise, too, and there may be a health-care surtax on top of that. And don't forget that small businesses pay the top personal tax rate, which is going up. Oh, and how about the recent minimum-wage hike? Yet another business cost.

     So while the government doles out money for transfer payments and one-time temporary tax credits, the ensuing increase in the private-sector tax-and-financing burden becomes a complete deterrent to new job creation, as well as capital formation.

     We're going to recover. Improved ISM reports for manufacturing and services, along with better profitability for big corporations, suggest we're looking at a mild, V-shaped recovery of 3 percent. But it will be a jobless recovery.

     Of course, if Mr. Obama pulls the plug on his new government-insurance plan, and all the spending, taxing, borrowing, and regulating that goes along with it, the stock market will rally at least 500 points -- at least.

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:29pm

104. Investors understand that an Obama retreat on government-run health care will lead to stronger economic growth for America's vibrant health-care industry -- and small businesses in general.

     With all this, why is Wall Street so shocked by the recent gold rally, with the yellow metal marching back toward $1,000 an ounce? The run into gold is a clear revolt against paper money and financial profligacy.

     The Federal Reserve's monetarist experiment to balloon the money supply will backfire with much higher future inflation unless the economy is capable of generating enough new investment and jobs to produce the goods to absorb all the new money. Indeed, this is a worldwide problem. Too much cash chasing too few goods.

     The G-20 finance ministers are meeting in Pittsburgh this weekend, although nobody there has an exit strategy from the money explosion that has been aimed at solving the financial meltdown. None of the big countries have plans to reduce marginal tax rates to promote economic-growth incentives. There is no golden anchor of currency value, and no exit strategy from the potential inflation effects of the new-world monetarism.

     The bottom line is that governments today have no financial discipline. And while growth will reappear, it may be a meager sort, with incipient inflation pressures plaguing the new recovery.

     What most of the fools advocating this administrations disasterous economic policies is that 50% ,yea, 50% of our economy is BASED on small business which they are destroying!!!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:32pm

105. Little pasture and Droop-you two fools don't get it. Little you are not entitled to ramble on. Droop you just are not to sharp. Do you get the benefit of the doubt because you live in Texas and squirt poison into people? The notion that insurance protects people in case of a health emergency is a notion. I do not think it matters if it is subsidized. It is a myth. We are for competition(the Republicans). Explain to me who the group of people are that are going to compete for your health care dollars? Are they the advertising agency people who make a living from insurance companies? Are they bankers that work with these companies? Hedge fund managers? Who are these creatures that are going to have huge upfront costs to compete with entrenched interests? So all of you good conservatives that are telling us how smart you are and how bad we middle class guys are,I say go away. Go tell some other conservatives how to not do something. Go stand in the road so traffic stops. Then turn to those people and say "See this is progress".

     Posted by whatizz at 09/04/2009 @ 11:42pm

106. Posted by whatizz at 09/04/2009 @ 11:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Pity wisdom, knowledge, and wisdom that comes from reading and comprehension isn't your strongpoint. Funny, I'm sure you make twice what my wife and I do ($30,000. gross) and you think others are "upper class" now that is dumb!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:54pm

107. "(1) "Demographics." That's a nice big word, isn't it? I'm impressed. Now, maybe you can explain exactly what demographic factor it is that causes more US babies to die and shortens our life span compared to EVERY COUNTRY WITH GOVERNMENT-PAID HEALTH CARE. (2) Then you suggest traffic fatalities. Okay, but if this is the real cause of our infant mortality and our lower death rate, there should be some really impressive statistics out there that prove this, and I'm sure you can provide them, can't you? In short, if you don't like the theory that better health care outcomes are caused by government-paid insurance, you have to come up with an ALTERNATIVE THEORY. With DATA. Until you accomplish this, "sjchermak," I'm sorry to say that we liberals will continue to be unimpressed with your imagined refutation of our well-founded claim that government funding improves overall outcomes in health care." Posted by JakobFabian at 09/04/2009 @ 10:26pm

     jakob: Here's some DATA that pretty much destroys you liberals' "well founded claim". From WHO, total neonatal and perinatal mortality:

     Canada: 1.5 % of births

     USA: 1.7% of births

     UK: 1.8% of births.

     You should notice that mortality in the US is between the UK and Canada, which pretty much shoots your theory ("better health care outcomes are caused by government paid insurance") to hell.

     http://tinyurl.com/ksrl29

     Posted by twillie at 09/04/2009 @ 11:55pm

108. "would you rather talk about how much we spend on wars foreign and domestic? how profitable are those systems for our government? just askin' " Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 3:56pm

     I'm answerin':

     Not too much profit in them wars. But, they keep the oil flowin'.

     Which keeps the power plants runnin'.

     Which keeps the electricity flowin'.

     Which keeps The Nation blogs goin'.

     Sometimes you don't measure profits in dollars. But you knew that, didn't you?

     Posted by twillie at 09/05/2009 @ 12:00am

109. "this is all the proof we need to argue that today's modern republican is (serious, i'm not kidding) a brainless, bloodsucking zombie." Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2009 @ 4:03pm

     Wrong, yet again, darladoon. Zombies don't suck blood. Zombies eat human flesh. Vampires suck blood.

     Educating proggys - just another service I offer.

     Posted by twillie at 09/05/2009 @ 12:03am

110. The data that you use to prove your case, "twillie," are all from 2004.

     If you want to examine data gathered over SEVERAL years, I recommend the following CIA website. (Yes, that's the website of our Central Intelligence Agency.)

     www.cia.gov/ library/ publications/ the-world-factbook

     The "world factbook" ranks most of the world's nations both according to infant mortality and according to life expectancy. Needless to say, the data it contains tend to favor my point of view rather than yours. But don't take my word for it: Check it out yourself.

     By the way, I found this website simply by googling "infant mortality."

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 12:46am

111. The "world factbook" ranks most of the world's nations both according to infant mortality and according to life expectancy. Needless to say, the data it contains tend to favor my point of view rather than yours. But don't take my word for it: Check it out yourself. By the way, I found this website simply by googling "infant mortality." Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 12:46am

     Thanks, I did. The CIA factbook doesn't give its source, nor does it break down the stats into different categories, as the WHO data does. According to the WHO data, stillbirths are lower in the US than in both the UK and France. Again, that does not support your contention about a "well-founded claim". Offhand, I would say that the World Health Organization has a better handle on infant mortality than the CIA.

     Posted by twillie at 09/05/2009 @ 01:10am

112. Posted by BigPasture at 09/04/2009 @ 11:32pm |

     You know, you can just link to Kudlow at the Nat Review...we'll still laugh at you; it'll just save time.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/05/2009 @ 04:24am

113. Look, Rio. I can cut'n'paste too!

     From economist.com:

     <American manufacturing expanded in August for the first time in 19 months, according to the Institute for Supply Management. Its main indicator rose by four points, to 52.9, the first time since January 2008 it has been above the reading of 50 that separates rising from falling activity.>

     <New orders for factory goods rose by 1.3% in July.>

     <The National Association of Realtors' index of pending home sales rose by 3.2% in July and was 12% higher than a year earlier.>

     <Americans' personal incomes were flat in July, but their consumption rose by 0.2%.>

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/05/2009 @ 05:09am

114. JakobFabian,

     You complained that I provided no support for the fact that cancer survival rates are better here in the U.S. than in the U.K.

     In past threads, people mentioning this including at times me have posted links to articles that discussed this fact and provided data.

     Support has been provided for this claim before, and since you are a frequent contributor to these various threads you almost certainly have seen it before.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2009 @ 05:58am

115. Droop- what stats do you have that shows why the economy tanked ? Was it lack of investment or lack of spending?Was it a lack of confidence in the top business players(Wall Street,Big Banks etc.)? Since Obama took office with a runaway train flying into a sand pile it has been interesting to watch the conservative crowd. They have rooted agaionst him at every turn. They will not acknowledge the work of the worst administration since Hoover. A phony war financed with borrowing from your greatest trade deficit partner. Increased deregulation which results in the biggest banking crisis in the history of our country. Stock market manipulation that leads Wall Street to the brink of collapse. The conservative owned media helps paint Obama as a crazy liberal that is "way" to the left. The course chosen by the President has been down the middle with the continuance of several Bush policies which are looked upon with disdain by progressives. Obama's support has dropped with progressives and independents which see him as moving too slowly in "changing" things that are detrimental to America. Conservatives such as Droopy would not sup[port him even if they got free money from the government. The states rights issue puts people like Santi in a corner. Now a public option would be legal in his eyes. He would just have to wrestle with the fact that someone other than himself might benefit from being helped by the government. Not all people without insurance are indigent or on welfare. He might then change his mind about helping them. Another way to look at this problem might be to talk with a wide range of people and see who is or isn't covered in this day and age. You just might be surprised.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/05/2009 @ 08:47am

116. Idiot asked: "what stats do you have that shows why the economy tanked ?"

     I don't need stats....I know "why the economy tanked" by observing just how many idiots there are now in the US!

     You believe in the Kool-aid fed to yu by your Obamas that you can buy w/bad credit and/or no income, that whatever you buy (w/money force-lent to you by the Gubbers) can only be entitled to go up, that you are entitled to the good life you see on your Idol shows, that you can spend now and hope never to pay back......

     Posted by Happy at 09/05/2009 @ 09:26am

117. Why are conservatives so selfish?

     Posted by Citizen54 at 09/04/2009 @ 5:39pm

     Because conservatives do not have a sense of entitlement. They sure don't apologize for their country and they sure don't expect hand outs.

     Conservatives, a label like any other, have worked and fought for their keep. They didn't abuse welfare because they worked to advoid it. Conservatives donate to charity and volunteer in their communities to help the disadvantaged. Selfish? Very unfair.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 09:52am

118. And the sun shines brightly this Saturday...

     "Bob Beckel said on Fox this morning that Obama White House green jobs czar Van Jones will be canned by Tuesday. Beckel reasoned that Jones's background is simply indefensible for a White house appointment, and wondered if the FBI screwed up because they must not have uncovered this in the vetting process."

     Posted by sntauri at 09/05/2009 @ 09:59am

119. 'Support has been provided for this claim before, and since you are a frequent contributor to these various threads you almost certainly have seen it before.'

     I could say exactly the same thing about my claims, "sjchermak," but since I'm not a lazy bum like you, I take the trouble to dig up some data - which, as it turns out, aren't difficult to find.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 09:59am

120. How to enslave your mind 101:

     Belong to a political party and convince yourself that that party's platform is the correct one.

     Belong to an organized religion and convince yourself that your God is the true God.

     Watch and listed to only one viewpoint and support it because you belong to the party or religion that that viewpoint supports.

     Don't question your political leaders or your clergy.

     Believe what someone else says instead of doing your own research.

     Depend on your government to support you.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 10:01am

121. Posted by sntauri at 09/05/2009 @ 09:59am

     There should be no such thing as a Czar anything in the United States Of America. I don't care who started it. Read the Constitution people.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 10:03am

122. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 09:59am

     If you need a serious operation or other serious medical treatment, what country would you go to to get it. If you are lucky enough to be a United States citizen and have health insurance, you don't have to go anywhere. If you are poor without insurance, you will still be taken care of. Great country huh?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 10:06am

123. 'Offhand, I would say that the World Health Organization has a better handle on infant mortality than the CIA.'

     So would I, "twillie," but that doesn't alter the fact that your data are from only one year: 2004.

     Here are some World Health Organization data from ANOTHER year: 2003 (available at www.amsa.org/ uhc/ IHSprimer.pdf). Every number represents infant mortality per 1000 live births.

     United States: 7.0 United Kingdom: 5.3 Germany: 4.2 France: 3.9 Netherlands: 4.8 Japan: 3 Canada: 5.4 Sweden: 3.1

     If the CIA data are worth anything at all (and I would say offhand that they are), they are extrapolated based on data collected over SEVERAL years. They may therefore not be qualitatively more accurate than WHO data, but in pure quantitative terms, there are more there.

     I am willing to concede that I have insufficient data to claim that the United States ALWAYS ranks first in infant mortality, ahead of every other country that has government-paid universal health care. I'm sorry I slipped into hyperbole there.

     In light of your undoubtedly accurate (though small) set of data, I will revise my claim to say that the United States USUALLY ranks first in infant mortality, ahead of every other country that has government-paid universal health care.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 10:15am

124. 'If you need a serious operation or other serious medical treatment, what country would you go to to get it[?]' asked "gunslinger1."

     Based on what I know, I'd say France. This assumes, of course, that a long trip across the Atlantic wouldn't do me any harm.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 10:31am

125. JakobFabian,

     I have dug up the data before.....apparently my point went flying over your head.....thus I am not a "lazy bum".....

     I have dug up the information before, presented it before, and you no doubt ignored it when I did that. Libs like you repeatedly ignore facts and thus there is not much point in continuing to re-dig up the information and present it to you again only to have you ignore it again. I do not know if you were the individual involved in the back and forth when I presented the data before, in fact I do not think it was you, but as I said you are frequently on these blogs and I am sure saw it before you ignored it.

     Or maybe you are like John F. Kerry and you saw it before you didn't see it, and thus it was not "seared, seared" into your memory forever.

     About your post above......you pose the possibility that a trip across the Atlantic could potentially do you harm........how could it?..........if one is to believe (as we are told we are supposed to) what libs say here on The Nation, the only thing that does anybody any harm is health care in the United States!

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2009 @ 11:07am

126. Yea and tighty rightys like you couldn't give a flying f##k about the common good, so whats your point?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 11:12am

127. <i>Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 10:01am </i>

     The last 4 you list seem to fit your mold: only paying attention to one point of view without listening to those that disagree with it.

     I don't know how the first two fir in. They seem to be different iterations of: "affirm certain propositions as true and seek to live them out." That's enslaving your mind?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/05/2009 @ 12:04pm

128. Posted by Thrawn at 09/05/2009 @ 12:04pm

     I listen to ALL points of view as a rule. That's why I choose to be an independent. No one can put a collar and leash on me and lead me around like a dog. I respect others opinions and have the right to disagree just as you have the right to disagree with me. I respect all points of view but I use common sense. It's gotten me this far and I'm proud of what I've accomplished in my life, coming from a poor background. I've worked two and three jobs for most of my life, raised a family, sent my kids to college and never took a handout. I opened my own doors. I don't relish giving away what I've earned without a fight.

     People are born with rights. One of them is the ability to think for yourself. When someone else gets control of your mind, whether it's a politician, an educator a clergyman or a partner, you give up your right of free will and yes, your mind becomes enslaved. Only in the military does this not apply and even there, you have the right to refuse an order that it considered reckless.

     People, especially young people have to realize at some point that they only have but one life to live. They can either spend it on their own terms or on sombody else's. It's my opinion that liberal policies have kept poor people down for years by giving too much help. As I've said, I believe in feeding hungry children and the helpless but I do not condone abuse of the system or in affirmative action. Nothing could be more unamerican than what happened to those New Haven firefighters. Thank God the SC saw the problem and corrected it. Call me selfish or uncaring or whatever other adjectives you can think of but call me free.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 1:21pm

129. <i>Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 1:21pm </i>

     I think you misunderstood my post. I agree with you that when you allow another human being, fallible just as you are, to dictate everything you say and do, your mind is effectively enslaved. I don't disagree with that at all.

     I was just puzzled by a couple of the items you include on the list: being part of a religion and identifying yourself with a political party. I'm not clear why either of those necessarily involves enslaving the mind. They ultimately involve, as I said, affirming certain propositions and trying to live them out on a day-to-day basis. That certainly doesn't seem like a bad thing.

     I would also say this, however. Being able to think for yourself is one thing, and I don't doubt in the slightest that it's a virtue. Is your ultimate goal, though, the ability to be free in every conceivable way, to "possess yourself totally" as one author put it? Is there any role in such a scheme for community, or for attachments that define you independently of your own act of choice? And when it comes to ethical questions, is the only relevant standard a respect for the choices of others, or is there more depth in it than that?

     I'm curious as to what your perspective is here.

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/05/2009 @ 1:38pm

130. I just saw the last 5 minutes of Bill Moyers Journal, it was powerful, to the point, no BS, if only Obama could take his advice, we need a fighter not a coddler.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 1:49pm

131. Labor Day, a time for BBQ and polls:

     "PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago."

     Posted by sntauri at 09/05/2009 @ 1:53pm

132. Well Droop-Since you obviously think a guy who works hard for his money is a bad guy I feel bad for you. Were you sleeping from 2000-2008? I think I will call you Rip. With foreclosures continuing it seems your viewpoint is simply false. It is people with 2 income families that have a lost job involved that are now losing their homes. Probably people you know Rip , are having it happen to them. We are going to have a jobless recovery. I hope for your sake Rip, that you are a good enough actor that your customers believe you care about them. If not you will be like Ted Stevens, an ass that everyone let twist in the wind. It is your call in how you act.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/05/2009 @ 2:02pm

133. Posted by Thrawn at 09/05/2009 @ 1:38pm

     Sorry I didn't respond right away. I've been working in the yard on and off and checking back.

     Sure, I think that it's alright to belong to a community organization and I think it's actually admirable. I've spent time as a coach, scout leader and social club member among other things.

     My point was that, when it gets to the point where someone votes strictly party line because thats what they think belonging to a political party requires or worshiping some God or another because that's what your parents and their parents and on and on did before, we're in trouble.

     The point is that not enough people are able to think for themselves. They require one crutch or another to get through life. There is danger in such a society, where the sheep are led by a gifted speaker, that loss of freedom will no longer be the issue but rather, protecting what are rights of freemen to remain free and not be controlled by big government just for the sake of taking care of one's constituents or supporters. This is why there exists the huge public outcry that the MSM tries to play down.

     Our forefathers understood this. We cannot be dupes of media or persuasive orators. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. We have to weed out the crap that politicians of all stripes foist upon and keep the country strong. We are all tested in many ways but no one else is going to solve your problems for you. There will always be another.

     Watch how many times that democrats will cry racism , the further Obama's polls slip. Right now the cry is that republicans simply can't stand the thought of a black man as President. As an independent, I can appreciate both side of the coin and I consider both of those arguments as pathetic.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 2:29pm

134. Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 1:49pm

     Who is 'we?'

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 2:29pm

135. Posted by whatizz at 09/05/2009 @ 2:02pm

     People need to live within their means, cut up the charge cards and find another job. If you are in foreclosure, that means that you can no longer afford to be a home owner. Find a cheaper rent.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 2:33pm

136. Ya know gs1, you talk about following party line as being dangerous to our freedoms but isn't that exactly what the birthers and deathers and tenthers etc, ect, ect, are doing right now to their own detriment? Your right about wolves in sheeps clothing, just wrong about which side the wolves are on.There are a lot of people out there that work hard and pay their taxes, and for one reason or another can't afford HC, who are not dependent on "welfare",they need our help for the common good.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 2:43pm

137. Furthermore, if we all chipped in it would be far less expensive, and the people (not the sheeple) would be happier and healthier and more productive, and creative and jeez it could snowball, and who knows all the good that could come from it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 2:48pm

138. Denise29,

     You are 180 degrees out of whack.

     "Rightys" ARE concerned about the common good.

     Leftist belief and socialism make things worse, not better, for the very people the left claims to "care" about.

     You are the one who is not concerned about the common good, but you promote that you are.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2009 @ 2:55pm

139. 'About your post above......you pose the possibility that a trip across the Atlantic could potentially do you harm........how could it?.......' asked "sjchermak."

     Just a reminder. That posting to which you refer was in response to this question:

     'If you need a serious operation or other serious medical treatment, what country would you go to to get it[?]' asked "gunslinger1."

     If I needed a "serious operation or other serious medical treatment," a trip across the Atlantic easily COULD do me harm - by delaying the operation or the treatment.

     There is also the question of citizenship, which might pose difficulties if it turns out that the French are as unkind to non-citizens as we are. So perhaps I should rephrase my answer:

     If I needed "a serious operation or other serious medical treatment," I would, according to all that I know and in all honesty, prefer to be a citizen of France, rather than a citizen of the USA. Absolutely and unqualifiedly.

     As it happens, I am a US-American citizen in mostly good health. Therefore, I consider it my privilege and my responsibility to argue for a better health care system. I am confident that when we get one, everybody will accept it is perfectly normal, just as we all accept Medicare as perfectly normal today. Moreover, I believe quite a few people who now raise the alarm about "death panels" will someday claim to have favored health care reform all along. It's only human!

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 3:00pm

140. Selfish? Very unfair. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 09:52am

     then...

     How to enslave your mind 101: Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 10:01am

     These two posts are in conflict. While I agree completely with the 'enslavement' post, the other one seems to protect conservatives across the board without stating that they, just like everyone else, are subject to human fallacies and are not always right. I've been to a 'tea party' gathering, mostly attended by 'conservative' leaning folk, and it's not pretty. Lot's of false assumptions, socialist and Hitler referencing.

     One can only assume that you have problems with liberals, or progressives, while simultaneously saying that you are not one who can be led by a 'school' of thinking. I think that that is a noble position, but you seem to be espousing it without actually practicing it.

     You then say that some are 'sheep' led by a gifted speaker, a clear derogatory reference to Obama. I welcome your 'school' of thought, but raise the bar a little... you have some good things to say; don't muddy the water with derision and across the board analogies.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/05/2009 @ 3:01pm

141. Gunslinger 21-You think this is not a correction in the housing industry? They had a great marketing plan. They took young people and put them in homes that were too big for them. It was a competition to keep on selling homes that were bigger than what people grew up in. What has the result been. Disaster in the home construction business. Foreclosures that have yet to slow down. I agree the credit cards have to go. Where are the jobs to be had. So basically you think young people are behind the housing mess. I go to different businesses around the Twin Cities all day long. I see open commercial space all over town. How do people that are at the bottom of the economy cause a collapse? I think our pillars of the community have to take responsibility for the mess. Look at the cause not the effect.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/05/2009 @ 3:10pm

142. "Rightys" ARE concerned about the common good. Posted by CHERMAK at 09/05/2009 @ 2:55pm

     I wonder if Madoff voted liberal or conservative? Or Ivan Boesky? Leona Helmsley?

     One side is not 'right' while the other is 'wrong'. Both sides are involved in a struggle and mistakes are made by everyone. As gunslinger says, belonging to one side or the other just puts a leash on your thinking.

     Bush screwed up...Obama screwed up.

     Answer? They all screw up and we need to hold them to account in a rational and unified manner. Toeing the party line is not free thinking. Just go to 'Right Wing News' and witness the sickness that that kind of thinking generates.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/05/2009 @ 3:16pm

143. sjchermak, I know you want to think that you are "right", but from my position, being cruel to be kind is not helpful, its only hurtful, and solves nothing for the millions out there that need HC.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 3:16pm

144. Posted by ficheye at 09/05/2009 @ 3:01pm

     Ronald Reagan was a charasmatic gifted speaker as well. So was Bill Clinton. I think I've made myself pretty clear. No need to take offense unless you are one of the ones I'm talking about. I doubt if you are.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 3:23pm

145. Posted by whatizz at 09/05/2009 @ 3:10pm

     This would take too long to reply to with the limited space here. I suggest you research Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Look into mortages that were given to people without the means to pay them back. Look into Wall Street and how these bad loans were handled. Just Google it.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/05/2009 @ 3:27pm

146. gs1, "we" is we the people.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/05/2009 @ 6:10pm

147. I like what John said. I thought states had more freedom to experiment than this article suggests. I assume that circumstances can make such experimentation easier or harder, depending.

     The only thing I would add is, It's unfortunate that Nichols's article wasn't a Nation editorial rather than what we got.

     What power costs...

     Posted by Aarby at 09/05/2009 @ 11:10pm

148. The savings come from unnessary testing. Who do you think pays for all those diagnostic tests x-rays and ultrasounds. Doctors have to cover bases that aren't necessary to cover, just to cover their own asses. Meanwhile, trial lawyers get rich and contribute huge amounts of money to democratic and some republican candidates and the taxpayers pick up the tab. And what about the pharmaceuticals? Please stop defending these people. What's in it for you?

     Posted by gunslinger1

     Alert!!

     Red herring bullsh*t!! Red herring bullsh*t!!Red herring bullsh*t!!

     If this is truly the case who will determine what tests are wasteful?

     Presently, the insurance companies determine what treatment they will pay for.

     Look at the statistics...people's hospital stays are shorter now, less testing is done, more cost effective measures are in place and not for the benefit of the patients. It's all because the insurance companies have more power than they did 25 years ago.

     What's in it for me? Access to the courts that the insurance lobby wants to end.

     Posted by koroviev at 09/05/2009 @ 11:33pm

149. G21- I do not think a book is needed. We are in an advertising age. Older people did not come up like today's consumer. There was a conscience effort made to build homes that were too big for their occupants . Just drive by developments in the suburbs. People have been marketed into buying homes beyond their means. You are right, lets Google it. I think you should do a poll of all the commercial airline pilots in Minnesota who have homes beyond their means. The real culprits are the real estate people who took the money and ran. They are everywhere. Fannie and Freddie are easy targets for guys who want easy answers to go with their philosophy. Wall Street loans are the biggest scandal perpetuated against the American people of this young century. Where is the default swap money. David Copperfield came to town and it disappeared. Just Google Bernie Madoff and what do you learn,A. He was a crook B. He was a crook Do I make myself clear.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 12:05am

150. Here are some World Health Organization data from ANOTHER year: 2003 (available at www.amsa.org/ uhc/ IHSprimer.pdf). Every number represents infant mortality per 1000 live births. United States: 7.0 United Kingdom: 5.3 Germany: 4.2 France: 3.9 Netherlands: 4.8 Japan: 3 Canada: 5.4 Sweden: 3.1

     In light of your undoubtedly accurate (though small) set of data, I will revise my claim to say that the United States USUALLY ranks first in infant mortality, ahead of every other country that has government-paid universal health care. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/05/2009 @ 10:15am

     It appears that you are dealing with an incomplete data set. My mortality rates for Canada, the US and the UK are 15 per 1000 live births, 17 per 1000 live births, and 18 per 1000 live births, respectively. I don't know if your data excludes stillbirths, neonatal, and perinatal deaths.

     And, if you're conceding that the US doesn't always have the highest mortality rates, then that would indicate that infant mortality is independent of government-paid health insurance, wouldn't it? Otherwise, the US would ALWAYS rank first. Right?

     Look, here's my point. I'm tired of hearing, "We need single payer healthcare because our infant mortality rate sucks."

     If you want single payer because you want rich f**ks to stand in line with everyone else, then just say so, and we'll debate that.

     Posted by twillie at 09/06/2009 @ 12:34am

151. SJCHERMAK..... Are you a heavy drinker or just plain stupid. Do you actually believe the statement you made below? It is the lie and distortion your republican party uses to destroy America. Ted Kennedy worked to make America better by helping people. republicans voted against nearly everything he stood for, and you have the audacity to make such an ignorant statement? reagan, bush and the rest stood for screwing the people of America, as they took our freedom away, and made our lives much harder by taking our money and giving to the rich and to the corporations. Are you rich or just stupid?

     Denise29,

     You are 180 degrees out of whack.

     "Rightys" ARE concerned about the common good.

     Leftist belief and socialism make things worse, not better, for the very people the left claims to "care" about.

     You are the one who is not concerned about the common good, but you promote that you are.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/05/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/06/2009 @ 03:18am

152. It is INTRIQUING that is what it is!

     Here at the nation is a full set of koolaid drinking leftist who actually believe in the term JOBLESS RECOVERY! Real unemployment is 16.8 % , 15,000,000. are unemployed, and those jobs are NOT coming back and we have all these fools embracing and applauding the administration that plans to make it worse by increasing exponetially the nation debt we can never repay!

     You can not buy the entertainment value of it! They seem to think the Magic Messiah rooting out all falsely presumed social injustice they feel will make life better for them and somehow they will ascend to a new nirvana of life! What a ship of fools!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/06/2009 @ 06:18am

153. Tiger2Lover,

     I am not rich and I am not stupid.

     Some questions for you, though:

     1. How did Presidents Reagan and Bush take our freedom away, as you claim?

     2. How did Presidents Reagan and Bush take "our" money away and give it to the rich?

     Since on number two almost certainly you will answer: "tax cuts for the rich", I hope you realize:

     1. The wealthy pay most of the tax in this country now (look it up at www.irs.gov). The top 1% in income pay 40% of the taxes, for example.

     2. When tax rates were cut, the economy improved and more investment was made in hiring and job growth, etc....and thus revenue to the treasury went up.

     You say Ted Kennedy worked to help people. Liberal help huts people, and makes their lives worse. Do you think people are helped by being made lifetime wards of the state?

     Do you think that it is "help" to promote an entitlement mentality among the population of this country, instead of promoting that people strive for personal success?

     Are you aware, or not, that it is people who have succeeded in life who are in the best position to help others, and that this happens every day in this country, and that kind of help does much more good for others that need help than government "compassion" ever could?

     Are you aware that one of the byproducts of the Great Society was the virtual destruction of the family as an entity among Black people in our inner cities? In order to receive assistance, in most cases people could not be married, thus single motherhood was encouraged amongst low income people, with disastrous results.

     That was an unintended and unexpected result of the liberal compassion and the liberal caring and liberal effort to help people.

     This is not lie and distortion by the G.O.P., it is reality, Tiger2Lover.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 07:29am

154. Little Past- I agree with you on employment. It is very high,I want to ask if you live in a vacuum?Virtually every move of Obamas has been to continue Bush Policies.Bank and Big Business bail out.Continuation of "war on terror". Helped out our car companies(large corporations),maybe that will save jobs-bad thing? The fact of the matter is the koolaid stands have been set up fropm day 1 of this administration. Never before in American history has the opposition party operated with flat out "hate politics"like right know. Just say "No" i9s the Republican mantra. They aren't lies maam, it is just stretching the truth! The Democrats are going to take away from your Medicare. Well Schmomak when did that entitlement become a Republican one? When it became the latest scare tactic for a party of people "who do the Twist". Let people know that 8 Republican Senators voted for Medicare in 1965. That the party shot holes in drug coverage and other parts of the plan. Come up with a better reason than government rationing of marriages in the black community. That is absurd,racism in this country has come a long ways but you sure look like a guy who held the hose in Selma.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 08:10am

155. Posted by BigPasture at 09/06/2009 @ 06:18am |

     "Here at the nation is a full set of koolaid drinking leftist who actually believe in the term JOBLESS RECOVERY!"

     If it was good enough for Ronnie, it's good enough for us.

     "Real unemployment is 16.8 % , 15,000,000. are unemployed, and those jobs are NOT coming back and we have all these fools embracing and applauding the administration that plans to make it worse by increasing exponetially the nation debt we can never repay!"

     Unemployment among college grads is < 6%...a.k.a. close to normal for a healthy economy. You're complaining about aspects of the structure of the Wal-Mart economy that YOU VOTED FOR!

     TWICE!

     Why pretend that you care about the unemployed when you don't want them to have any assistance and don't want to pay taxes to balance the budget for the war toys you refuse to give up?

     "You can not buy the entertainment value of it! They seem to think the Magic Messiah rooting out all falsely presumed social injustice they feel will make life better for them and somehow they will ascend to a new nirvana of life! What a ship of fools!"

     Not even close...we're hoping to tack back away from the edge an iota and keep the "Mission Accomplished" banner from going into the drink, putz.

     Tell you what, how about we scrap social security as the trade-off for universal healthcare coverage?

     Sure it'll lead to a lot of elderly homeless and deaths, but we'll fix up that budget deficit problem in a hurry and hire goons to round them up and move them to the next town over.

     Whaddaya say? Will you be our `death panel', Rio?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/06/2009 @ 09:28am

156. 'And, if you're conceding that the US doesn't always have the highest [infant] mortality rates, then that would indicate that infant mortality is independent of government-paid health insurance, wouldn't it? Otherwise, the US would ALWAYS rank first. Right?'

     Uh, no, you're wrong.

     If the US doesn't ALWAYS have the highest infant mortality rates, but USUALLY does - and this is a fact that you can neither refute nor ignore, despite all your data from 2004 - then what this means is that there is USUALLY a direct correlation between government-paid health insurance and better health outcomes in both infant mortality and life expectancy.

     The numbers are really striking, when you consider country after country, as the AMSA study did. This CAN'T be just a coincidence, though of course we must always be careful with correlations.

     So why does the United States NOT ALWAYS rank behind ALL countries with government-paid health care in these two important health indicators (infant mortality and life expectancy)? It's because there are other factors involved. Efficient payment for health care is only one factor among many.

     But why does the United States USUALLY rank behind ALMOST ALL countries with government-paid health care in these two important health indicators (infant mortality and life expectancy)? It's because efficient payment for health care is apparently an important factor in positive health outcomes.

     You may dispute this last explanation, because it's always permissible to point out that a correlation is not necessarily a cause.

     But it's also permissible for me to challenge you, as I challenged "sjchermak" earlier, to FIND A BETTER EXPLANATION for this correlation. Neither one of you has done so.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 12:18pm

157. Amen brother, Why would you not pay a trillion to maim and kill when you could use it to heal the sick. We wouldn't want to help the poor either. Lets help out Goldman and hide their "Toxic assets". Don't dare roll back the Bush reconciliation tax cuts". If we are lucky Phil Gramm will lead the charge to being Bahamian residents. Then he will not know if billions are being invested in a post office box "corporation"that is next to his house. What a pile of crap these me-me's are.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 12:28pm

158. Meme's, I like it.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 2:31pm

159. When are you stooooopid LIBZ going to realize REAL americans dont want you COMMIES anywhere near our heathcare!!!This will go down like the TITANIC!!!!Thank God!!!!

     By the way, Katie Van Dumb Evil looked HORRIBLE on TV today....Honey you need to brush your hair and put on makeup before you get on TV like that .....made me want to PUKE!!!!

     Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/06/2009 @ 3:04pm

160. Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/06/2009 @ 3:04pm

     You are one sad and angry person. All the poor folk just need to die. Right? Then there will be more people like you. I've got it.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/06/2009 @ 5:27pm

161. Just what we need, more moroons like libzRfreaks2.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/06/2009 @ 5:36pm

162. JakobFabian,

     And it is permissible for me to challenge you to prove your assertion. You have not done so.

     Your conclusion is blatantly obvious to you, because that is the answer you are looking for to begin with.

     So you assume that one (life expectancy/infant mortality) must be related to the other (socialist health care).

     You challenge others to come up with a better explanation, as a means of attempting to pass the burden of proof to others, but YOU are the one making the assertion so the burden is upon YOU to prove it.

     Forget politics or ideological arguments for a second..........just from the basis of scientific analysis and debate you would not be deemed to have proved your case.

     Did you take geometry in high school? If so, then you know that you prove certain things based on certain other knowns.

     Were you in some kind of debate club in high school? If so, then you would know that your logic so far on this subject would not meet the test of having proven your argument.

     In scientific analysis it is the same way.

     If you expect to convince others of your argument you will need to provide a more rigorous analysis of how socialist medicine somehow increases life expectancy and lowers infant mortality.

     Just declaring it is so and claiming it stands as so unless someone proves otherwise would not cut it in other arenas such as courts of law, scientific debate, etc. You would not win an argument there.

     You need to identify other factors that could impact life expectancy and infant mortality and show though data or logic why you do not believe those other factors would impact life expectancy and infant mortality.

     Since it is permissible for me to point out that you have not proven your case, I thought I would go ahead and do that.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 5:51pm

163. ficheye/Denise29,

     Did either of you consider the possibility that libzRfreaks2 is really a lib who is posting in with comments such as above on purpose just to try and make Conservatives look bad?

     It appears the answer is no, you did not.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 5:54pm

164. It appears the answer is no, you did not. Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 5:54pm

     Nice try. For someone to go to all the trouble of registering a name like that just so they could post things to vilify the other side is quite a stretch. It's possible, but only faintly.

     Ideological protectionism of the most absurd type. And, of course, you are right and we are wrong. In your search for some sort of credibility there is only black and white. Once you told me that you go to Rightwingnews.com. I now go there often to reacquaint myself with the mental condition that you inflict upon us. 'Kneecapping Barack Obama at every Opportunity' is the current hate filled adage at the top of the page. I'll bet that brings a smile to you face. And the blog posts are the most hate driven drivel that I have ever read. Thanks for directing me to that site. One must stay informed.

     If you would ever view this place as a forum for an exchange of ideas instead of someplace where you could attempt to 'beat' an opponent and make them submit you might have fewer people making fun of you.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/06/2009 @ 7:26pm

165. Cons are Jokes-When are you going to figure out that yelling like Glenn Beck out of your car window just makes you hoarse and gives you a headache. Do you know what your health care is ? You seem a little unhinged did you miss the medication. Are you related to Barry 15?

     Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 9:21pm

166. Never before in American history has the opposition party operated with flat out "hate politics"like right know. Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 08:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

     Better know as Rip Van Winkle who slept through both terms of the "Hate Bush" decade!

     Posted by BigPasture at 09/06/2009 @ 10:18pm

167. ficheye,

     If you were talking instead of posting on a blog it could be said that you were suffering from oral diarrhea tonight!

     Boy, do you go on and on and expand upon things that weren't brought up to begin with!

     I posted a simple question to you and Denise29, and back comes a dissertation about rightwingnews.com!

     I guess sometime in the past I must have posted a link to an article at rightwingnews.com, and from that you hypothesize that I told you I go to rightwingnews.com, and you hypothesize I am a frequent visitor.

     I surf a lot of sites on the Internet but that is not one of them, if there is such a site to begin with. I could put the URL in my browser right now to check it out, but I am not going to bother.

     If that site exists than you certainly are a more frequent visitor to it than me. There must be something there that captivates your attention......similar to the fixation that Mask has about Rush Limbaugh.

     When was I concerned about people making "fun" of me? Why would I be concerned if libs like me or not?

     My name is not John McCain and thus I do not worry about whether I am liked by libs or liked by the media (same thing).

     What I like and find amusing is the stuff you post, as you twist yourself into knots trying to show that you are some bastion of intellectual comportment and discourse, while functioning as a self-appointed instructor on how to behave on the Internet.

     You could not ask for a better stereotype of an elitist lib than you, ficheye.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 10:25pm

168. Well Little Pasture, that is a point of conjecture that even an incapacitated sort of guy would know was just rational people commenting upon the my way or the highway crowd. You would know that crowd because you were in the middle of it. We that were protesting had to be wrong. Let's see , we spent a trillion on "the war on terror"and a"nutball",George Will, is saying we should get out of Afghanistan. It is all about consistency. The people protesting Bush never ,ever approached the level of hate that is being spewed as we argue about it.It is all about the message and how many people can get it. Rush is every where on the radio. I hope that you would agree it is because of conservative ownership of radio stations. You hate liberals and would not have one on "your" station.Rush is on 1000 stations,Glenny is on X amount, and so is Sean. So that helps the goof ball cause and you are talking about the Bush haters who were" milk toasters".I do not remember guys walking around outside of a Bush speech location with a semi automatic weapon. You want to call me Rip von Pasture? Well go right ahead,I am sure you will be as successful as George,Dicky, and Karl were. Oh by the way I am not a CIA agent so I don't think I can be outed.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/06/2009 @ 10:53pm

169. But why does the United States USUALLY rank behind ALMOST ALL countries with government-paid health care in these two important health indicators (infant mortality and life expectancy)? It's because efficient payment for health care is apparently an important factor in positive health outcomes. You may dispute this last explanation, because it's always permissible to point out that a correlation is not necessarily a cause. But it's also permissible for me to challenge you, as I challenged "sjchermak" earlier, to FIND A BETTER EXPLANATION for this correlation. Neither one of you has done so. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/06/2009 @ 12:18pm

     Why do I need to find a better explanation for that correlation, which you can state but can't prove? I say my interpretation is valid.

     And, you did not explain the deficit in your numbers, which is an incomplete data set, as I pointed out. BTW, that AMSA study? That was a report written by a medical student. Can you vouch for its accuracy?

     Posted by twillie at 09/06/2009 @ 11:16pm

170. The Soviet system was the one where the Party members have access to the best healthcare. The current US system is quite similar. Maybe we should bring this up more often when people call us Communists.

     Posted by moyer at 09/07/2009 @ 12:15am

171. The Soviet system was the one where the Party members have access to the best healthcare. The current US system is quite similar. Maybe we should bring this up more often when people call us Communists. Posted by moyer at 09/07/2009 @ 12:15am

     Wasn't everyone in the USSR a party member? Except for those in the gulags?

     Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 01:16am

172. Interesting column this morning at Huffingtonpost.com by self-described political hack John Neffinger, concluding that the gist of opposition to a single-payer option is that said program will work well and doom so-called "conservatives" to their richly deserved minority status for a long, long time. Thus, the only option for the "frighties" who post here, there and everywhere is to push scare tactics like "death panels" headed by dreaded "socialists," "elitists" or "leftist asses" like yours truly.

     The current system does not work. Millions of ordinary folks are inadequately insured at best and the number continues to grow. Even those with insurance can't be certain some "pre-exsting condition" won't deny them coverage at a crucial juncture.

     Saying "tough luck" to the have-nots is no way to run a democracy. In fact, it sounds kind of, you know, "elitist."

     Posted by kennyboy at 09/07/2009 @ 03:09am

173. Dear "twillie,"

     Sure, I can vouch for the accuracy of the AMSA study. If you'll read it, you'll discover that it draws data from your favorite source, the World Health Organization.

     In sum, I have drawn data from two sources: the AMSA study, which covered 2003, and the CIA study, which probably covered several years. I assume this about the CIA study because it consists of projections for the year 2009. You can't make projections for a year that is not yet finished unless you draw upon data from several years.

     So I have drawn upon two data sets that prove my point, and you have drawn upon only one very small one that compels me merely to take the edge off my hyperbole. Yes, we edged out Britain in one year, in 2004.

     Care to share any more data from 2004, "twillie"? How did the United States fare in comparison to Germany in that year? Or to France? Or to Sweden? Or to the Netherlands? Or to Canada? Or to Denmark?

     The reason I believe the liberals' interpretation of the correlation between government-paid health care and two leading health indicators is a good one is that ALL the nations that beat us have something in common: They ALL have government-paid health care. If there is ANYTHING ELSE that accounts for their outperforming us so consistently, I'd like to know what it is. Neither you nor any other conservative can or wants to tell me what it is.

     Sure, "sjchermak" made a couple of suggestions. Maybe it's "demographics." He didn't elaborate. Maybe we have a LOT of traffic fatalities compared to all the other countries that beat our pants off in health care. He didn't provide any data.

     Neither did you.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 08:35am

174. JakobFabian,

     I looked this up on Wikpedia, which does refer to the CIA study.

     I did notice that in the past there had been controversy as to how countries reported live births, with the U.S. reporting all births as live births, some other countries did not registers births as such if the infant died within the first 24 hours, etc. Supposedly all countries operate under the same guidelines now, but the controversy has been there.

     This sentence from the article is interesting: "......The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[3] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index......"

     Quality of live is not dependent only on the health care system. You are using in your argument countries that are well developed countries with a modern standard of living and stable governments.

     But what about all the countries below the United States? Surely some or many of them must have socialist health care.

     If one looks at the list one sees that most of the countries above the United States are nations that have had a high standard of living for a long time, many of the Western European nations.

     The notable exception is Cuba, but as a lib you probably think that is due to the health care that Fidel provides his people in that gulag, and that many libs have drooled over for years.

     But again, what about the countries below the U.S. North Korea is way near the bottom, but they must have socialist health care there, certainly the Dear Leader would want nothing else for the workers and the people.

     China is also way below on the list, as are many of the Eastern European nations.

     I maintain you have made a hasty conclusion.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 09:17am

175. JakobFabian,

     Here is an article that discusses the subject at hand:

     The Truth About Health Care and Infant Mortality Lack of access to health care does not explain America's infant mortality rate

     Steve Chapman | August 24, 2009 http://www.reason.com/news/show/135603.html

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 09:19am

176. 'The Soviet system was the one where the Party members have access to the best healthcare. The current US system is quite similar. Maybe we should bring this up more often when people call us Communists.'

     I really don't know what to make of this statement, "moyer." It surely needs some supporting data.

     Even if it should prove true that members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had "access to the best healthcare," you have to consider how many people actually belonged to the party. This makes "twillie's" comment relevant: Didn't everybody in the Soviet Union belong to the Party?

     The truth is: Far from it. In 1987, only 19 million Soviets were Communist Party members. According to the last census in the USSR, there were 286.717 million people living in the USSR in 1988. That means that only about 6.6% of Soviet citizens were Communist Party members.

     A health care system that is excellent, only for 6.6% of the population, is not one that any liberal can love. Of course, it may appeal to some conservatives, who'll tell you to your face that they don't care about distributive justice.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 09:21am

177. 'Your conclusion is blatantly obvious to you, because that is the answer you are looking for to begin with. So you assume that one (life expectancy/infant mortality) must be related to the other (socialist health care).

     You challenge others to come up with a better explanation, as a means of attempting to pass the burden of proof to others, but YOU are the one making the assertion so the burden is upon YOU to prove it.'

     "Sjchermak," during the course of this discussion, I provided TWO sets of data that support my claim, one from the CIA and the other from AMSA.

     You have provided NO data, arguing that I should go and check out all the data out there that support your view, which is that better health care outcomes are caused by "demographics" and lower traffic fatality, but have nothing to do with how health care is paid for. But you have failed to provide the data yourself.

     If you want to demonstrate that I am wrong, here is what you have to do. You have to show that in all countries that outperform us in health care outcomes (infant mortality and life expectancy), the traffic fatality rate is also much lower, enough so that this factor better accounts for the difference. It would especially help if you could find somewhere a country with government-paid health care, but with such a high traffic fatality rate that its health care outcomes are usually worse than ours. This would strongly prove your point.

     There is also that "demographic" thing that you brought up. Again, you have to show me some data. Sure, we're demographically different from Canada, Australia, Japan, and Western Europe. But to prove your point, you have to show what all these regions have in common - OTHER THAN gov't-paid health care - that somehow makes them generally healthier than us.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 09:40am

178. The people in the Soviet Union who had access to the best health care were the "elites". To think about where they rank look up the percent of people who smoke. This is the latest red herring in the conversation. The other countries in the world ahead of us simply care about each other more. Here in the U.S. we will give each other the finger when we have 12 more bucks than the next guy. Why you ask? What is the accepted behavior today. Why is Bill Mcguire a bad guy? He only got $1.4 billion over 5 years from United Health. Ron Reagan and his greed loving disciples have nurtured this thought pattern over the last 30 years. Finally Americans have had enough of looking up the mountain for the money that is coming down. They have finally got the "Lie".Which "think tank" can give you information that supports a conservative position. Why are all of our commercial competitors users of government health care? Are they smarter than us or just less "controlled" by their group of elites. How many countries have great public transportation? All of these "socialist" efforts to"help" their populations must be working. Sounds like it is our time to learn from much older "mature" societies.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 10:08am

179. 'But what about all the countries below the United States? Surely some or many of them must have socialist health care.

     If one looks at the list one sees that most of the countries above the United States are nations that have had a high standard of living for a long time, many of the Western European nations.'

     Yes, "sjchermak." The list also includes Australia and Japan.

     No doubt many poor countries do try to provide government-paid health care, but since they are poor, their health care is not as good as ours. Why does this surprise you?

     It seems to me that if comparably rich countries with government-paid health care usually outperform us, but poorer countries with government-paid health care fail to outperform us, then we can claim with confidence that POVERTY is a bigger factor in health care outcomes than which health care payment plan one chooses, private or public.

     If the United States were a poor country, we would have to ask another question: Do poor countries with gov't paid health care, such as Cuba, achieve better health outcomes than poor countries that have only private health care? I don't know the answer, but I'd be interested to find out!

     But as we both know, and as major economic indicators such as GDP demonstrate, the United States is actually a rather RICH country. Therefore, we can claim with confidence that what works for other rich countries should work for us as well.

     When we try to isolate the effect of one variable, such as how a society pays for health care, we have to factor out other variables with possible health outcomes, such as whether a country is rich or poor. This can be done only imperfectly, but since there are many countries that are comparably rich, we can meaningfully compare health care systems among them.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 10:10am

180. Are you saying the greed of a few should be outweighed by the many? How about this look. Should the states who have National Guard units be the entities protecting the United States? Should the standing military be tasked to protect us. What has a $trillion done to help the US?

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 10:52am

181. JakobFabian,

     You keep telling me what I have to do.

     You are the one who has made a claim that statistics such as infant mortality rates are related to the type of health care system.

     You threw up data and declared your point proven.

     You are the one who made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

     What I did is mention that you have not backed up data with a thorough analysis of that data, or of the entire pool of data available.

     I have pointed out things that could impact stats such as life expectancy and infant mortality, such as traffic accidents.

     What you have misunderstood is that I did not claim that traffic accidents skewed the data negatively for the U.S. numbers.....what I said is that is a factor you need to look at......among many others.

     You are the one who made the original claim.........but you did nothing more than provide data on countries similar to us and draw the conclusion you want to draw to begin with.......

     Have you analyzed all of the data or only the sub-set you think proves your point? Is the data accurate to begin with? You don't know......I pointed out in the Wikipedia article it raises the issue that not all countries have always used the same standard to report infant moralities.

     YOU are the one who made the assertions to begin with.........YOU have only thrown up data but YOU have not proven your case and the burden is on YOU to do so.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 11:05am

182. typo above,

     "infant moralities" up above should be "infant mortalities"

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 11:07am

183. "Sjchermak," you have to defend your opinion as much as I have to defend mine. It's not enough to say that my opinion MAY still be wrong. Any two-year old can say this about ANY opinion, no matter how well-founded.

     You can also say "You started it" all you like, but you won't exempt yourself from responsibility this way. It makes no difference who started our argument. The only difference that matters is whose argument is more well-founded.

     Admittedly, I have provided only a tiny subset of the world's data: two excerpts from two studies. However, you have provided an even tinier subset of data, namely none at all.

     What am I supposed to think of you and your opinion? Am I supposed to assume that your opinion is right, merely because mine MAY be wrong?

     Why don't you assume that your opinion is wrong, merely because mine MAY be right?

     The most that you have accomplished is to bring up the obvious and trivial point that even the largest body of the most compelling data may lead to erroneous conclusions. Even if I agreed that this very trivial point makes all my data worthless - and I have too much respect for data to agree to this - I would still be able to say: Well, then: Apparently, we just don't know a single darned thing about what works and what doesn't. So we MIGHT AS WELL have government-paid health care.

     Heck, if data really don't matter and we can't prove a darned thing, we can't even prove that government-paid health care would cost the rich more money - though I find it highly plausible that it would.

     I didn't only START this argument - I also provided some data. Until you provide some data, you haven't even BEGUN to challenge me, except in the most trivial way.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 12:01pm

184. Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 11:05am

     Sjchermak,

     You need to understand that true leftists in this country are incapable of accepting that the US is other than a failure when it comes to quality of life.

     No amount of data will change this view.

     I've presented the facts on this same argument about infant mortality. They refuse to accept that other countries don't abide by the WHO standards as the US does.

     As far as they are concerned, the US must be bad when it comes to issues like this.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:20pm

185. 'I've presented the facts on this same argument about infant mortality,' said "antisocialist."

     Not in this thread, you haven't. Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't expect me to believe you when you say the data are "out there." Treat me like a Missourian and SHOW ME.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 12:28pm

186. Not in this thread, you haven't. Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't expect me to believe you when you say the data are "out there." Treat me like a Missourian and SHOW ME.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 12:28pm

     I didn't say this thread. I've done it on several other threads in the past year.

     Here's a sample from the Liberal Slate Magazine

     <"The surprising truth about America's infant-mortality rate.

     By Darshak Sanghavi Posted Friday, March 16, 2007

     Comparing infant mortality rates between countries is fraught with uncertainty--after all, it's hard to argue that every country's figures are reliable. But it's still worth asking what more we can do to stop babies from dying. Defined as death before one year of age, infant mortality frequently gets framed in the United States as a problem of insufficient health-care funding.

     However, a closer look reveals the counterintuitive possibility that high infant mortality in the United States might be the unintended side effect of increased spending on medical care.

     According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half.

     Thus-at the risk of oversimplifying--infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.>

     http://www.slate.com/id/2161899?nav=tap3

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:37pm

187. Jakob,

     Here is some more

     <1.But if you really want to understand how deceiving the statistics on infant mortality are, this information on how most countries except the US don't go by the WHO reporting requirements

     According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition.

     Russia and Eastern Bloc countries A UNICEF press release noted: "Under the Soviet era definition ... infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams or measuring less than 35 centimeters are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] CIS countries."

     Switzerland, for instance, doesn't count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.>

     http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:39pm

188. More on different standards for infant mortality

     <As Sally Pipes and others point out, infant mortality is recorded differently in France than it is in the U.S. Here an infant with "any sign of life" that then dies counts as an infant mortality. France adds a viability standard, so the same infant that counts as an "infant mortality" in the U.S. may count as a stillbirth in France. Ronald Baily adds that more infants tend to be born underweight in the U.S. because more teens have children here.>

     http://tinyurl.com/lmrcxb

     The reference links are provided

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:43pm

189. You could not ask for a better stereotype of an elitist lib than you, ficheye. Posted by sjchermak at 09/06/2009 @ 10:25pm

     Sorry. I'm not a 'lib', even though that would provide solace for you; Lord knows that you need some. And nothing that I said in the last post even supports that. I was talking, specifically, about your contention that 'LibzRfreaks2' was a liberal shill.

     You just go ahead on and continue your mission to 'learn those libs' a thing or two.

     What I find most amusing about your posts, in general, is that everyone who does not agree with you is a 'leftist'. I freely admit that some conservatives make some good points at times, but on this specific allegation, at this specific time, you are not.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/07/2009 @ 1:33pm

190. Hey ficheye,

     Nice try...you doth protest too much.

     You are a lib.

     I have seen posts in the past where you engaged in your usual "amusement" about discourse provided by some on this website..........

     And.....isn't it amazing.......the names you listed were all Conservatives!

     If you really were not a lib, you certainly would have found a lib or two on these threads to add to that commentary.

     As far as everybody that doesn't agree with me being a leftist, for the umpteenth zillionth time I will point out (as I have before) that most of the topics at hand on this site, and thus the conversation that ensues in the threads, have a very clear demarcation between what the left thinks on the issue and what the right thinks.

     The vast majority of arguments here are left vs. right arguments on any given issue.

     So of course if I am arguing the Conservative point regarding something then it is only logic and common sense that most if not all who disagree would be leftists.

     Very seldom are there arguments here about non-ideological topics or political topics or topics outside the bounds of national policy.

     We are not arguing what types of food are better or what types of music and songs are better or which sports teams are better than others.

     We are not arguing whether the 6 time winner Pittsburgh Steelers are a better football team and more deserving of the Vince Lombardi (Super Bowl) trophy than the Morons, who unfortunately held the trophy the year before.

     The Steelers are of course a better team and more deserving of the trophy, but if a Morons fan posted in and supported them, I would not say the Morons fan was a leftist......I would just say the Morons fan is wrong.

     (Note: The Morons are the team that some people call "NY Football Giants").

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 2:25pm

191. Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 2:25pm

     Hey, CHERMAK,

     Close to the letter limit again. It doesn't take much to get you going.

     You say ( to paraphrase you) that the vast majority of arguments here are left vs. right arguments on any given issue.

     I think that is a pretty simplistic statement. As far as I'm concerned those lines are blurring, even as we speak. It's you, sj, who needs to simplify it to that point. It's confusing otherwise.

     As far as me being a 'lib'... I'm too annoyed by the spinelessness of many liberals to buy into that camp completely. So you will just have to labor under whatever definition you want to assign me.

     BTW, I don't care for football. The analogy is not appropriate.

     And hey.. have a nice day.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/07/2009 @ 2:46pm

192. ficheye,

     The analogy IS appropriate because it is an example of a subject that has nothing to do with politics or ideology.

     It was not put forth because you necessarily had an interest in the subject.....it was just an example and that example was chosen by me because it is a subject I am interested in.

     Thus your interest or lack thereof in the example I made is irrelevant.

     But there IS a bright spot, because if you don't care for football than that means at least you are not a Morons fan.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 4:38pm

193. antisocialist,

     I have to admit I am wasting my time arguing with JakobFabian regarding Jakob's assertions.

     After all, up above, Jakob did say that if "what works and what doesn't" can't be proven then we might as well have government health care!

     Only a dedicated leftist like Jakob would want that, because people who aren't leftists know that handing over anything other than the bare minimum of what only the government and no one else can do to the government means handing over your personal freedom and liberty.

     I have seen that some of the new proposed requirements, regarding it being required for someone to sign up for health care, etc. would be enforced by the IRS....because it then involves impacts on income and taxes.......

     That is scary beyond belief......except to dedicated leftists here on The Nation.

     Jakob doesn't know that this country has become the economic powerhouse that it has, a country that has done more good for our own people as well as people elsewhere in the world than any other country in human history, because of the personal freedom people have had to carve their own path in life and that leads to success and growth for both the individuals involved but others impacted by their success.

     And Jakob doesn't know that people in this country are constantly and continually serving to help the less fortunate in ways that are far more beneficial than government or leftist "caring" is.

     And Jakob doesn't know that because of the personal freedom people have had in this country we have been able to right the wrongs that have existed here to a much better degree than would have been possible anywhere else.

     But Jakob wants to throw all that away by handing control of his life to the government!

     God help him.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 4:49pm

194. typo,

     When I said above

     ".....and that leads to success and growth for both the individuals involved but others impacted by their success...."

     it should read:

     ".....and that leads to success and growth for both the individuals involved AND ALSO others impacted by their success...."

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 4:52pm

195. Thus-at the risk of oversimplifying--infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.> http://www.slate.com/id/2161899?nav=tap3 Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:37pm

     This does'nt surprise me. As I told Jakob before, he was citing an incomplete data set that had infant mortalities at half the rate that I cited from the WHO study. He ignored me on that.

     Posted by twillie at 09/07/2009 @ 5:16pm

196. 'And Jakob doesn't know that people in this country are constantly and continually serving to help the less fortunate in ways that are far more beneficial than government or leftist "caring" is,' lamented "sjchermak."

     I value and support charity, "sjchermak," but as the data seem to show, charities can't do everything.

     What the data seem to show is that despite the wonderful work of our many private charities, the USA lags behind all countries with government-paid health care - nearly all the time - in two important measures: infant mortality and life expectancy.

     If only the data showed otherwise, I might find some merit in conservatives' objections to government-paid health care, which seem presently to be based purely upon prejudice. But not even the staunchest conservatives who contribute to this thread can show me any data of this kind.

     (Only "twillie" provided some, but not enough to call into question the data that I myself shared, which strongly make my case, and which took me only a few minutes to find.)

     That's where things stand on this Labor Day, 2009. I hope you've had a good one.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 5:24pm

197. Jakob,

     While surfing the internet just now I came across a documentary by Dr. Walter E. Williams that every liberal should watch.

     The subject is the war on poverty and the very negative impact it had on the very people it was supposed to help.

     It offers up positive suggestions as to what should be done instead.

     It does not address the subject of health care..........but it shows that good intentions accompanied by government actions as a vehicle for acting upon those good intentions often backfire.

     Thus, it is easy to conclude that more government involvement in our health care is definitely not the way to go.

     Here is the link to Dr. William's website.

     http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

     Under Items of Interest, click on the link for good intentions.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/07/2009 @ 5:37pm

198. lso, no wage earner paid more than X member of the government.What is the model of Canada for example with its administration.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/07/2009 @ 7:12pm

199. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2009 @ 5:24pm

     Hmmmm.... here's the CHERMAK suggesting a website that he says will strengthen his position, Jakob. I may check it out just to stay informed.

     But he has stated multiple times that he is generally not interested in going to any site that a perceived 'lib' offers as proof of their point.

     The latest issue of Rolling Stone has an article by Matt Taibbi which is remarkably clear on the entire health care debate, leaving no one out( In regards to the original topic). I don't always agree with Matt, but his article is an excellent expose' of the amazing ineptitude of our politicians in general. It's in the magazine... I don't think that you can read it online.

     The ass kissing that CHERMAK has stooped to to invoke the name of God in reference to your debate is a new low for him, but that's to be expected. No worries mate. He's got a shrimp on the barbie.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/07/2009 @ 7:33pm

200. Hoo boy.

     I didn't view the 1985 article by Dr. Williams at http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/.

     When I saw that he was a guest host for the Rush Limbaugh show my interest in being 'fair and balanced' sort of waned. Maybe later.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/07/2009 @ 7:38pm

201. Posted by ficheye at 09/07/2009 @ 7:38pm

     you owe yourself to give him a read.

     <Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

     Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

     Dr. Williams is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader's Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He has authored six books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary "Good Intentions," All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks, and More Liberty Means Less Government.>

     http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 10:11pm

202. Ficheye,

     More on Dr Williams (who I greatly admire)

     <Walter E. Williams, (born 1936 in Philadelphia) is an African-American economist and college professor at George Mason University. He is also a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

     Cartoonist Bruce Tinsley, in his conservative comic strip Mallard Fillmore, launched a campaign to draft Williams for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election.[6] Although Williams initially stated that he wouldn't completely rule out the possibility, he ultimately decided against such a run, and endorsed Ron Paul>

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 10:14pm

203. And this excellent article from 2002 by Dr Williams

     <Rights vs. Wishes

     by Walter Williams (October 27, 2002)

     We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.>

     http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2005

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 10:16pm

204. What the good Doctor forgot along the way is that not all people have the mental and physical capacity to reach his level of achievement. Shame on him for losing his sense of reality of the black experience. His personal success has caused a sort of callousness on his part. Embrace your past and community,don't help to have it polarized. Your "community" is much bigger than you. I am sorry ,anyone who was the guest host of the Rush show is not a spokesman I will hold in high regard simply for that decision.

     Posted by whatizz at 09/08/2009 @ 08:04am

205. Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 12:20pm |

     "You need to understand that true leftists in this country are incapable of accepting that the US is other than a failure when it comes to quality of life."

     You need to understand that true conservatives in this country are incapable of admitting when the US is not living up to its ideals.

     "No amount of data will change this view."

     Funny...from someone who commented on the last data I posted with, "So?"

     "I've presented the facts on this same argument about infant mortality. They refuse to accept that other countries don't abide by the WHO standards as the US does."

     "Abide by"?!....they're ad hoc rules for counting stats not some international treaty (but if you're looking for something to abide by...try the Geneva convention).

     "As far as they are concerned, the US must be bad when it comes to issues like this."

     As far as we're concerned the US isn't doing as well as it claims to be or as well as it should be on several fronts...that isn't anti-American...it's anti-bullshit.

     Are you, Happy, and Rio being un-American and saying, "the US must be bad" when you complain about unemployment statistics?

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/08/2009 @ 08:21am

206. whatizz,

     The "good Doctor" forgot nothing along the way.

     You seem to think that the "sense of reality of the Black experience" requires adherance to leftist policy that harms rather than helps Black people.

     Why do you feel that the way to make the "Black experience" better, as you apparently do, is to apply leftist policy that makes people lifetime wards of the state?

     The leftist policy has very clearly done that, as well as having destroyed public education in the inner cities.

     It is racist to assume that kids do not have the mental and physical capacity to achieve in life, just because they are Black and are growing up in an inner city in a low income family.

     This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

     The "good Doctor" has forgotten nothing.....on the other hand, you would benefit from forgetting what you believe and learning something else, such as the things the "good Doctor" has remembered.

     Posted by sjchermak at 09/08/2009 @ 08:24am

207. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2005 Posted by antisocialist at 09/07/2009 @ 10:16pm

     I will check out both articles when time allows.

     Free society. I lean somewhat towards your views on this misunderstood topic.

     However, I think that the 'free-for all' capitalism of our America has created a subset of our society that procreates and buys things(consumers), something that is necessary to go forward into the mirage of unrestricted growth, and many problems that we now face are a result of that 'philosophy'. There'd be no free market if there weren't millions of people to go there and buy things that others are selling. But they are helplessly subject to the whims of the market and irresponsible financiers, these consumers.

     Then people fall through the cracks, feel unfairly treated by the system, then feel they need to get something from this system which rewards some and punishes others. Then the winners react with animosity while the losers complain. And I feel that it is rightly so. From observation, rarely do high level movers and shakers feel responsible for the disasters that they sometimes create. Like right now. Thus grows the idea among the general populace that they are owed a chunk of this pie.

     It's a catch 22 for many of those people, but, as I said, I will check out both of those articles when time allows.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/08/2009 @ 4:13pm

208. So I checked out Mr. Williams.

     Unfortunately his philosophy seems to be a little biased.

     He seems to leave out one of the other rights that doesn't confer an obligation on another.

     That would be 'opportunity', which isn't freely available to all. In fact his whole 'philosophy',(which neatly serves the self centered interests of the right), seems to assume that everyone is born equal and that you can get what I have if you just work hard enough for it... otherwise you're gonna die and that's what you deserve.

     How self-serving. What a humanitarian. ( Another 'obligation not ascribed to very often by conservatives because it's based on the 'opportunity' thing).

     No. Mr. Williams is smart. But self serving. He sees the 'needs' of others as a fly buzzing around the sanctity of the free market. Die, fly, die.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/09/2009 @ 12:50pm