"What's so american about competition?"

Duke wrote: Police and military defense are not socialism in any way...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized

Socialized Medicine: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

(modification of the above):

Socialized Police / Fire: Police or Fire services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation

Socializing a service has nothing to do with the extent at which the services are provided, only that they are administered by the "state" and payed for by "taxes"

DILYSI Dave wrote: It ain't right vs. left. It is DC vs. America.

I'm sorry, you are going to have to explain that.

You are saying that the elected officials of the United States are in direct opposition to "America", the very people that they have to depend on to elect them? Thus motivating them to create something that has the worst possible outcome to those people?!?

And if it is DC vs America, why the hell is half of DC yelling at the other half? Aren't they supposed to be united against "America"!?!?

Snowdoggie wrote:

Duke wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Have you read the fine print on your health insurance policy lately?

I'll wager he has, if he's got the attitude shown by his post.

Guys who write contracts for a living have a name for people who have that attitude and lack the legal knowledge to understand every single word and every possible interpretation of a contract. They call them suckers.

I'm not the one crying because I expect people to pay my bills, so who's the sucker. I don't loose sleep at night worrying about how I'm going to make the payment on what ever junk I bought because I live well under my income level. Who's the sucker now.

SC has medicaid for the poor. A family making around 23k a year is eligible. The children are eligible up to around 50K a year. If you're telling me that a family making over 50K a year can't afford health insurance, I call bull E36 M3. They can't afford it and the new house and car, and cable tv, and dinner out three days a week, but if their priorities are in order, health insurance is available and affordable.

I would love to have an extra $600 a month to spend on toys, but guess what. The big boy in me buys health insurance instead of the new car. It goes back to the personal responsibility, and a lot of people in this country don't have it any more.

Having the country bail out the people who are irresponsible is called enabling. That isn't going to solve the problem, it's just going to make it worse.

Another thing I would like to say that will probably piss off everyone is just because all people are created equal, doesn't mean they stay equal. They have the same rights, but that's it. If the guy down the street can afford the fly to the best hospital for the best care, guess what, he either worked harder or smarter or was just plain lucky and because of his efforts/luck he gets better care. Life sucks sometimes, get over it. Taking his money to pay for the guy who didn't isn't "fair" it's socialism.

This country is supposed to be free. That includes the freedom to succeed or fail, to eat well or starve, to have medical care or not. The choice is yours, and yours alone. You can do anything that you put your mind to.

Every time the government makes a new law or program like health care, they limit you. They don't empower you. They empower themselves. Government health care won't make your life better, only easier for the lazy people.

Don't get pissed off at the rich guy, study him. Can you do what he did and end up in the same place. The GRM owners looked at the magazine world and realized they could do what the big guys were doing, and do it better. My guess is it pays the bills, and they get to play with cars to boot. I looked at the industry I looked at the industry I was in and did the same thing. Try it, you might be surprised.

Life sucks, get over it and move on. Waiting on someone to bail you out makes you a peon, not a person.

In reply to Toyman01:

+1

to bad there aren't more people that feel that way....

course I was born in the 40's so the upbringing tended to emphasize what you are saying.... you weren't "given" anything more than a chance to do for yourself

Duke wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I really don't understand that since there is such an objection to 'socialized medicine' here that we don't have the same objection to 'socialized' police and fire protection. Then you get to decide if these guys are worth what they get paid or not, NOT the government. Hey, like Hess said about 60 year olds who should die if they can't afford a doctor, if you can't afford it, your house should burn down and you should get robbed and beaten to death without assistance from anyone.

Police and military defense are not socialism in any way. Police are there to protect the rights of individual citizens from being violated by criminals. That is the SOLE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE of the executive branch of government. Police are just the government doing its job, not a form of social care. Ditto the military, on an international scale. Fire protection is a _slightly_ greyer area, but not much, and is still not analogous to health care. When your house catches on fire they come and put it out. This also protects your neighbors' property rights so that your house does not light their houses on fire too. Then, when the fire is out, the fire company GOES AWAY. They do not hang around and rebuild your house for you. That's up to you and/or your insurance. In fact, as I've repeated several times, firefighting _began_ as a service provided by private insurance companies to protect their clients! Our local VFC is called Aetna Hose, Hook, and Ladder - you bet your boots it's _that_ Aetna, too: an insurance company protecting its clients (and its own investments). The only way that parallels socialized health care is in the example of someone coming into the ER with a critical issue. They should stabilize you and that's it unless you have some other ability to pay, either personal or insurance. You apparently choose not to believe it, but this is a completely separate issue from routine-maintenance and chronic health care. During a 911 emergency - police, fire, or ambulance - immediate reaction is paramount for successfully resolving the issue. Seconds count and I don't think anyone here who is against socialism would be against publicly funding emergency response. To suggest we are is at best a red herring and an outright lie at worst (just like the media's implication that the only reason people are against socialized health care is because we hate black Democrats). However, if I am an overweight, diabetic smoker (I've known plenty), then why on _Earth_ should the taxpayers be forced to pay for the huge quantity of health care resources I am going to soak up during the course of my lifetime? Why should that be anybody's responsibility but my own?

We are talking about the definition of socialism here, NOT an interpretation of Constitutional law as it relates to law enforcement. If the government takes money from you by force and then provides a service that is socialism whether that service is police protection, fire protection or health care. The only thing you have proven to me is that the US Constitution defines a socialist system of law enforcement under the executive branch.

oldsaw wrote: When policemen and firemen start spending the better part of decade getting an education, amass a six-figure debt while doing so, then have to insure themselves against those they protect, and constantly have to further their education (still out of pocket) - then, perhaps, they should be paid over 200k a year. Until then, ummm, NO!

Cops undergo continual education as the laws "evolve" and regulations change. Cops get sued every day. Cops are responsible for their basic "police" training from their own pocket prior to employment.

So if they received the $200K you speak of maybe they could afford the insurance and additional vocational training they need to protect their few meager assets.

Toyman01 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Duke wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Have you read the fine print on your health insurance policy lately?

I'll wager he has, if he's got the attitude shown by his post.

Guys who write contracts for a living have a name for people who have that attitude and lack the legal knowledge to understand every single word and every possible interpretation of a contract. They call them suckers.

I'm not the one crying because I expect people to pay my bills, so who's the sucker. I don't loose sleep at night worrying about how I'm going to make the payment on what ever junk I bought because I live well under my income level. Who's the sucker now. SC has medicaid for the poor. A family making around 23k a year is eligible. The children are eligible up to around 50K a year. If you're telling me that a family making over 50K a year can't afford health insurance, I call bull E36 M3. They can't afford it and the new house and car, and cable tv, and dinner out three days a week, but if their priorities are in order, health insurance is available and affordable. I would love to have an extra $600 a month to spend on toys, but guess what. The big boy in me buys health insurance instead of the new car. It goes back to the personal responsibility, and a lot of people in this country don't have it any more. Having the country bail out the people who are irresponsible is called enabling. That isn't going to solve the problem, it's just going to make it worse. Another thing I would like to say that will probably piss off everyone is just because all people are created equal, doesn't mean they stay equal. They have the same rights, but that's it. If the guy down the street can afford the fly to the best hospital for the best care, guess what, he either worked harder or smarter or was just plain lucky and because of his efforts/luck he gets better care. Life sucks sometimes, get over it. Taking his money to pay for the guy who didn't isn't "fair" it's socialism. This country is supposed to be free. That includes the freedom to succeed or fail, to eat well or starve, to have medical care or not. The choice is yours, and yours alone. You can do anything that you put your mind to. Every time the government makes a new law or program like health care, they limit you. They don't empower you. They empower themselves. Government health care won't make your life better, only easier for the lazy people. Don't get pissed off at the rich guy, study him. Can you do what he did and end up in the same place. The GRM owners looked at the magazine world and realized they could do what the big guys were doing, and do it better. My guess is it pays the bills, and they get to play with cars to boot. I looked at the industry I looked at the industry I was in and did the same thing. Try it, you might be surprised. Life sucks, get over it and move on. Waiting on someone to bail you out makes you a peon, not a person.

I don't expect anybody to pay my bills. I have been paying my own health insurance for years and I will continue to do so. I just don't like the way the current system is administered. Does that make me poor and disgruntled? My house is small as well and almost payed for and my cars are old and have many miles on them all of them are paid for as well. I have no credit card debt and I live within my means.

As far as not liking rich people, I don't think I mentioned that either. I don't remember telling people here how much money I make a year or how much money I may or may not have inherited from my family or what my investments might be. As far as you know, I might even be rich. You don't know. You are guessing. I never said that my life sucked. I said that our health insurance system sucked. There is a difference. You are the one who is personalizing the issue and attacking me personally. This discussion isn't about my income anyway. It is about health insurance contracts.

As for your personal attack. I am niether as poor or as lazy as you accuse me of being. I got my graduate degree at night while working full time and put in many 18 hour days in the process. I currently work 40 hours plus a week while taking professional development classes at night to upgrade my skills. I am also active in several professional organizations. I am on the board of two non-profit groups and I run a dog rescue group and I get paid for NONE of that work.

And speaking of health insurance contracts, those are written by lawyers who specialize in contracts. Not the guy who handles your divorce, but guys who went to Harvard and Yale and got good grades in contract law and have probably never set foot in a courtroom in their lives. They know more about countracts that you or I do and they are paid to know more. Along side them sit MDs who know every ailment you might possibly want to be covered for and how much it might cost them if you get that coverage. They are the ones writing the fine print in those policies. You are an amateur if you think that you can match wits with those guys and they do think that we are all suckers. You may be happy with your health care now, but when you are struck down by cancer and your family is by your bedside crying and the insurance company turns you down for treatment, you might feel differently.

poopshovel wrote:

Come to think of it, you are imagining things here.

Pot, meet kettle. You suggest that anyone who's opposed to the federal government forcing us to buy health insurance is anti-military, anti-fire-dept., anti-law enforcement, anti-berkeleying-post office, whatever. That's where I generally stop posting in these threads. Lots of stereotyping, deflecting, baby talk, and not much real content or intelligent debate. Have fun with that.

I don't even remember saying that I was in favor of forcing the federal government to buy you anything. Not even a Prius. I just said I don't like the current system and the bill in Congress was suspect as well. I was providing a definition for socialism. I don't remember calling anybody anti-law enforcement, anti-military or anti-Berkley for that matter. Please leave the little plastic British cars out of this argument.

There are obviously people here who disagree with my definition of socialism. I don't think they are stupid. I just disagree with them.

As for stereotyping, I live in Texas, my daddy was born in Arkansas, my granddaddy was born in Texas, I have a car up on jackstands in my driveway and there are a bunch of dogs in my yard. Go ahead and call me a stupid redneck. I dare you.

Snowdoggie wrote: .You may be happy with your health care now, but when you are struck down by cancer and your family is by your bedside crying and the insurance company turns you down for treatment, you might feel differently.

This is the big problem, IMO. We shouldn't make law based on emotions, but it's the basis of what's going on right now.

BTW, American conservative thought thinks the government is necessary for a bunch of things, police and fire protection being two.

Notice I said necessary, not good

jamscal wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: .You may be happy with your health care now, but when you are struck down by cancer and your family is by your bedside crying and the insurance company turns you down for treatment, you might feel differently.

This is the big problem, IMO. We shouldn't make law based on emotions, but it's the basis of what's going on right now. BTW, American conservative thought thinks the government is necessary for a bunch of things, police and fire protection being two. Notice I said necessary, not good

All of those people out marching in the street seem pretty emotional to me. So do some of the people posting in this thread.

Snowdoggie,

I apologize for giving the impression that my post was directed at you personally. That was not my intention. I was merely trying to put my thoughts into words and I don't have that college degree. I sucked at English in high school. Your previous post just made a good jumping off point.

That said, I don't think people deserve products or services they do not pay for even if it kills them. Sorry, that's is how I feel about the situation. Medicaid and Medicare take care of the truly poor in this country. If I get cancer and my insurance finds a loophole to jump through, that falls under life sucks. If the good Lord decides my time is up, so be it.

The system we have isn't perfect. On that point we agree. Having the government take it over would destroy the good in the system. It would trade one set of problems for another worse set of problems. I would rather die broke from cancer than have this country move one step closer to socialism.

Politicians are like my 17yo daughter. If you give them an inch, they will take it all and then some. They have proved time and time again that they can not be trusted to spend money wisely, or set up and run any system in an efficient manner. Anything that gives them more power or funding than they already have is a bad thing. If anything we need to make an effort to take power and money away from them not give them more.

Toyman01 wrote: Snowdoggie, I apologize for giving the impression that my post was directed at you personally. That was not my intention. I was merely trying to put my thoughts into words and I don't have that college degree. I sucked at English in high school. Your previous post just made a good jumping off point. That said, I don't think people deserve products or services they do not pay for even if it kills them. Sorry, that's is how I feel about the situation. Medicaid and Medicare take care of the truly poor in this country. If I get cancer and my insurance finds a loophole to jump through, that falls under life sucks. If the good Lord decides my time is up, so be it. The system we have isn't perfect. On that point we agree. Having the government take it over would destroy the good in the system. It would trade one set of problems for another worse set of problems. I would rather die broke from cancer than have this country move one step closer to socialism. Politicians are like my 17yo daughter. If you give them an inch, they will take it all and then some. They have proved time and time again that they can not be trusted to spend money wisely, or set up and run any system in an efficient manner. Anything that gives them more power or funding than they already have is a bad thing. If anything we need to make an effort to take power and money away from them not give them more.

Toyman, on one main thing you are wrong. Life does not suck. Aspects of life my suck, but life itself does not suck. Maybe you know something I don't because your posts are really long, and people with long posts are usually right.

Joey (a huge lover of life, even when it's crappy)

Toyman01 wrote: If I get cancer and my insurance finds a loophole to jump through, that falls under life sucks.

The sentence above keeps running through my head. I just cannot for the life of me understand it......

you need more pennywise.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LisGiOJguA

Toyman01 wrote: That said, I don't think people deserve products or services they do not pay for even if it kills them. Sorry, that's is how I feel about the situation.

I think this is where we disagree. There are quite a few churches and religious organizations who would disagree with you as well and none of them are government funded. If a guy is lying in the gutter dying, I would try to help them out. Hell. If a dog is lying in the gutter dying, I will and have helped them out. I once spent $1,500 of my own money getting a dog's leg fixed at the Dallas Veteranary Medical Center because I felt sorry for the poor mutt. My rescue group wanted to amputate using a cheaper vet but I got out my checkbook. I was working in telecom at the time and had the money. There were other guys in my office who were buying Porsche Boxters and 4,000 square foot houses in Plano. I chose to spend my money patching up rescued dogs instead. If it wasn't for all this dog rescue stuff I do, I would probably have a much nicer race car in my garage than I do now. I might even have a bigger garage.

That's probably why I take my 78 year old mother to Baylor Medical Center run by the Baptists instead of the privately owned Doctors Hospital down the street. One is accountable only to the stockholders, the other at least tries to be accountable to a higher power.

I never thought I would get all religious in my old age and I still don't run around quoting scripture and calling people I don't know sinners, nor do I want to get into arguments about which denomonation is right and whose God is the real God, and I realize that all of you atheists and objectivests are going to shout me down over this too, but I am honestly beginning to believe that there is some kind of higher power out there that wants us to help out the other guy when he is down. It may be God, Allah, Buddah, Yaweh or just Karma, but it is out there and, no, I can't explain it logically.

The current problem with health care in this country was created via the creation of health insurance. Yeah, I know the grammar in that sentence was crappy, but bear with me.

As noted earlier, doctors used to bill their patients according to their ability to pay. I remember as a kid going to the GP in our area. He made a decent living, but was not that far above the income level of his patients. I'm thinking this was probably the way things were over most of the country. In short, the doctor knew that to raise his prices above what the traffic would bear would probably lead to a much smaller patient pool meaning he couldn't pay his bills.

Then health insurance spread far and wide, and people began to see the health business as a dollar generator. The doctors etc saw this huge pool of cash, said 'I want some of that!' and started jacking up their fees. This led to some people going to medical school with the sole intent of becoming rich. (All you medical pros on the board, hold your fire- you know damn good and well I'm right about that point. I have met more than one medical pro who is like that, although in fairness most are quite the opposite.) Then many people wanted to prolong the lives of their elderly relatives far past the point of that life being lived in a rewarding manner, leading to obscene amounts of money being spent to do no more than prolong suffering. (To me, that is probably the most inhumane fallout from the whole medical insurance fiasco.) Of course the lawyers saw the profit potential as well, creating the med mal gold rush industry.

The hospitals started competing for patients by any means neccessary. They do this (or at least the ones down here do) via things like valet parking and bragging about their architecture among other things which have ZERO to do with patient care. All that stuff has a price which gets lumped into the infamous $4 aspirins. (We are back to that big pool of insurance money again).

So where was the patient in all this? Forced into buying health insurance in case of some huge health disaster because to do otherwise would surely mean financial ruin. The insurance companies worshiped the bottom line above all, leading to denial of preexisting conditions, loopholes for certain expensive cancers, etc. The system fed upon itself, creating the mess we have now.

Once this Pandora's box was opened, there wasn't (and still isn't) much that could be done to close it back up. All I know is this: given the government's 100% proven ability to screw up anything it touches, I am not enamored of them sticking their fingers into this.

What would I do to fix this? Hell, I dunno. As I said, once the box was opened it couldn't be slammed shut again. A 'cost plus X%' scenario might work, but I doubt it. And of course everyone would want that same 'cost plus X%' formula to apply to other industries as well. Like auto repair.

Jensenman wrote: All I know is this: given the government's 100% proven ability to screw up anything it touches, I am not enamored of them sticking their fingers into this.

I do not buy this 100% screwup argument.....

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: All I know is this: given the government's 100% proven ability to screw up anything it touches, I am not enamored of them sticking their fingers into this.

I do not buy this 100% screwup argument.....

I don't think he's saying they screw up 100% of everything, only that their ability to screw something up has been fully proven.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: That said, I don't think people deserve products or services they do not pay for even if it kills them. Sorry, that's is how I feel about the situation.

I think this is where we disagree. There are quite a few churches and religious organizations who would disagree with you as well and none of them are government funded. If a guy is lying in the gutter dying, I would try to help them out. Hell. If a dog is lying in the gutter dying, I will and have helped them out. I once spent $1,500 of my own money getting a dog's leg fixed at the Dallas Veteranary Medical Center because I felt sorry for the poor mutt. My rescue group wanted to amputate using a cheaper vet but I got out my checkbook. I was working in telecom at the time and had the money. There were other guys in my office who were buying Porsche Boxters and 4,000 square foot houses in Plano. I chose to spend my money patching up rescued dogs instead. If it wasn't for all this dog rescue stuff I do, I would probably have a much nicer race car in my garage than I do now. I might even have a bigger garage. That's probably why I take my 78 year old mother to Baylor Medical Center run by the Baptists instead of the privately owned Doctors Hospital down the street. One is accountable only to the stockholders, the other at least tries to be accountable to a higher power. I never thought I would get all religious in my old age and I still don't run around quoting scripture and calling people I don't know sinners, nor do I want to get into arguments about which denomonation is right and whose God is the real God, and I realize that all of you atheists and objectivests are going to shout me down over this too, but I am honestly beginning to believe that there is some kind of higher power out there that wants us to help out the other guy when he is down. It may be God, Allah, Buddah, Yaweh or just Karma, but it is out there and, no, I can't explain it logically.

The difference is charity is a choice, government isn't. I support a local church that has a clinic every week. I used that clinic when I couldn't afford to go to doctors years ago. To repay that I support them now that I can afford to do so.

I agree 100% that the higher power wants us to help others. I also believe he wants us to do it by choice. Not because some government agency makes us.

jamscal wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Jensenman wrote: All I know is this: given the government's 100% proven ability to screw up anything it touches, I am not enamored of them sticking their fingers into this.

I do not buy this 100% screwup argument.....

I don't think he's saying they screw up 100% of everything, only that their ability to screw something up has been fully proven.

see I read it the other way... I think theres a ton of folks out there who think that everything the government does is wrong. I have some who work for me. They think everything I do is wrong, everything everyone else does is wrong, management is stupid, and they have all the right answers. However, they don't want to walk a mile in anyone else's shoes or try to see the problem as a whole. When asked to provide input or help make things better, they won't because it wouldn't make a difference any how...

I'm not trying to accuse Jensenman of this scenario, I've met the man and know thats not the case. Just one of my pet peeves

Snowdoggie wrote: If a guy is lying in the gutter dying, I would try to help them out. Hell. If a dog is lying in the gutter dying, I will and have helped them out. I once spent $1,500 of my own money getting a dog's leg fixed at the Dallas Veteranary Medical Center because I felt sorry for the poor mutt.

And this is admirable. On the other hand, if you robbed your neighbor of his $1500 to pay for it, that would not be admirable. Mandatory health insurance, government healthcare, etc. = robbing your neighbor.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: If a guy is lying in the gutter dying, I would try to help them out. Hell. If a dog is lying in the gutter dying, I will and have helped them out. I once spent $1,500 of my own money getting a dog's leg fixed at the Dallas Veteranary Medical Center because I felt sorry for the poor mutt.

And this is admirable. On the other hand, if you robbed your neighbor of his $1500 to pay for it, that would not be admirable. Mandatory health insurance, government healthcare, etc. = robbing your neighbor.

Instead of robbing.. It could be looked at as everyone doing their part for the common good. Just saying.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is there will always be those who won't pull their weight even though they can.

Somebody tell me what the lower cutoff for the 'public option' is; i.e. at what income level does the gubmint say you can't afford to buy health insurance, the stuff I Google doesn't address the real numbers.(Imagine that.)

It also strikes me as really odd that the gubmint can't run a war but it can run public health care.

"You Mislead" - good article on the deliberate lies told in order to get dumb-masses all in a panic about healthcare:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJmNjY4MjA2ZmNkZWNmZDU2ZmY1NTUwZmMzNmIxMjE=

Duke wrote:

Buzz Killington wrote: reasonable people can certainly disagree on the best solution, but i can't see how a reasonable person could think that the current system is sustainable.

I love how most people (and I'm not singling you out) automatically assume that if you're not for The Second Coming's socialized health care, you MUST think the status quo is working.

i don't believe "most people" think that. what i do believe is that if someone voice opposition to a proposed change, but doesn't offer an alternative proposal, it's not a stretch to conclude that that person is in favor of maintaining the status quo.

i can't speak to what others believe, but having not seen any serious counter proposals, i'm (reasonably, i think) led to the conclusion that at least the loudest opposition voices think the status quo is just dandy.

again:

Buzz Killington wrote: this is a serious subject that deserves serious, measured debate. but there is no constructive feedback coming from the GOP. the problem is that the loudest voices are more concerned with "stopping Obama" than with addressing the problem and crafting a solution. they're preventing a serious conversation from taking place, necessitating the current bullrush approach. i would love to hear some constructive counter ideas, but none appear to be forthcoming.

Dr. Hess wrote: So, Buzz, what you're suggesting is a totally flawed, full on bullE36 M3 plan that is really nothing but a drive to nationalize another 15% of our economy and push us that much closer to a totalatarian government under the cover of "save the geezers" or "save the children," take your pick, is better than doing nothing right now and thinking about this for a little bit? How about addressing the issues I pointed out earlier? Oh, don't want to do that. You can listen to someone that just watches talking heads or someone that has seen it from both sides. Take your pick.

thank you for reinforcing my point about some people preferring hyperbole to serious debate.

Toyman01 wrote: Politicians are like my 17yo daughter. If you give them an inch, they will take it all and then some. They have proved time and time again that they can not be trusted to spend money wisely, or set up and run any system in an efficient manner. Anything that gives them more power or funding than they already have is a bad thing. If anything we need to make an effort to take power and money away from them not give them more.

I know! Look what happened when we let them write a blank check for war!

What? We're on a second country invaded now? How long has the supposedly "Iraq" war gone on?

Jensenman wrote: (I edited Jensenman's post to comment on the part I deemed commedic) Once this Pandora's box was opened, there wasn't (and still isn't) much that could be done to close it back up. All I know is this: given the government's 100% proven ability to screw up anything it touches, I am not enamored of them sticking their fingers into this.

Agree with this too. Look how screwed up all the Armed Forces are. Straight suck. All of them. Backwards, ineffective, and lazy. The Federal government can't run anything right. Right on Jensenman! Our military blows because it's run by the federal gub'ment!

poopshovel wrote: "You Mislead" - good article on the deliberate lies told in order to get dumb-masses all in a panic about healthcare: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJmNjY4MjA2ZmNkZWNmZDU2ZmY1NTUwZmMzNmIxMjE=

The National Review is your unbiased link? Are you going to quote GM on how Ford sucks next? (I'm running out of smiley faces to use in this post)

Just saw Hess's post on the "totalitarian government" aspect of this. I find it a bit ironic that when Bush suspended Habeas Corpus there wasn't an outcry about totalitarian governments then.

• Then = suspension of the Bill of Rights, in part.

• Now = healthcare for our society. A benefit all other industrialized nations enjoy. AHHH! Totalitarian government is at hand!

I just don't get it. We lost the right to trial by jury. No outcry. Now we're talking about helping a majority of our citizen's and the next thing we have are guys goose stepping down the DC mall?

btw - I'm not picking on Hess here like I usually do. I'm asking where does the paranoia come from when we are arguably clawing our way back from losing many civil rights under Bush. This isn't even a civil rights issue. It's a health program much like the vastly popular Medicare/Medicaid that keeps a lot of our grandparents healthy. It's medicare for people under 65.