Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I on the other hand know nothing about the Russian system. I do know that Russia is not as technologically advanced as either the U.S. or the nations of western Europe...

Snicker. So you know absolutely nothing about the matter at all. The system is just as technologically-advanced as what you find here or in West Europe. Perhaps not as far along as what you'd find in Singapore or Dubai, but right on-par, tech-wise with what you are trying to standardize against. In fact, people I know who've lived there have seen that the Mexican health system has better (in the sense of more modern, with better-trained doctors) tech than the USA; lacking the massive bureaucratic paradigm, they are able to innovate there much more freely and quickly. Cost-wise? totally different story. The US system 'wins' that one hands-down. Plus, not only is it expensive, but you get things like MSRA epidemic here. Like a bonus!

What's more, medical care is only performed by tech in very rare cases. The actual level of care available in Russia puts the American health "industry". A big part of that is most directly attributable to the lack of a closed guild-system there as versus here. But insurance reinforces the monopoly -- it very much comes back to that in any case.

---

I wonder, you talk about them as examples (it so seems to me); do you have any kind of real experience in those non-US health care systems? Ever been treated in a Finnish hospital? Seen a British dentist? Or maybe a friend of yours?
If you haven't, especially given how strong has been the propaganda from all sides these last several years in America, why do you think that what you have heard third-hand reflects the reality of those things you (and I, of course) know nothing about?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The actual level of care available in Russia puts the American health "industry" [to shame].

[Likely finish of a sentence omitted in the original inserted by me.] I seriously doubt that. The level of care available in the U.S. provided one is wealthy and can pay for it is first-rate. We have a high doctor- and nurse-to-population ratio and excellent facilities. That's not where our system breaks down.

I decided to do a little search on Russian health care, since as I said I know nothing about it, and since unlike yourself I do not believe that a personal experience of one tiny portion of a country's health care system which may or may not be typical is the way to gain that knowledge.

Here's one thing I found.

http://www.allianzworldwidecare.com/...care-in-russia

"Since the end of the Soviet Union and the birth of the Russian Federation (1991), the health status of the Russian population has dramatically declined. Rates of tuberculosis, cancer and heart disease are the highest of any industrialised country. Spending on healthcare was approximately 7% of Gross National Product (GNP) in the 1960’s and this was reduced to approximately 3% around the time of the break-up. Military and industrial developments were priorities and thus received the majority of finances.

"In the last decade, life expectancy has fallen from 70 years to 65, with Russian men, in particular, at risk. On average, a Russian man lives 13 years less than his female counterpart (60.4 men, 74.1 women), the widest gender gap in the world and, depending on which part of the country you live, life expectancies can differ by as many as 16 years, according to a World Bank report published in October 2003.

"Between 1996 and 2005, Russia experienced one of the fastest growing HIV/AIDS epidemics in the world. After reaching its highest level in 2001, the annual number of newly diagnosed cases has remained relatively steady. At the end of 2005, there were approximately 350,000 registered cases of HIV/AIDS in Russia.

"Infant mortality rates are also considerably worse that most industrialised countries, with 15.1 per 1,000 of the population being recorded in 2006."

That's not really a very reassuring picture, Justin, nor does it suggest that this is something we ought to be emulating.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[Likely finish of a sentence omitted in the original inserted by me.]

I appreciate that

I seriously doubt that. The level of care available in the U.S. provided one is wealthy and can pay for it is first-rate.

Comparing apples-to-apples, if you have the money to pay for it, you get better care in Russia. And it's much easier for even the non-filthy-rich to pay for it.

We paid for our care -- paid, on the order of 1/10 what we would have paid in the States. Paid costs that are quite affordable for even lower-middle-class in Russia (I know a fair bit about income and expenses in that demographic, since I paid salaries to Russian people).

What's more, we also went through an incident where we got to go through the free-care side of Russian medicine. The rooms aren't pretty; the food sucks ass; and there's not as much staff as maybe you would like. But the job of the minimum-level care is to get a patient out of danger. And they do that just fine. Less well in poor regions than in wealthy ones, to be sure. But that, too, is a feature of any system that encompasses a range of economic environments.

So, apples-to-apples. The best there is as good as, if not better than in some ways, what the best gets in the USA. And cheaper. The lowest cannot really be compared, since in Russia it is absolutely free -- though at a low minimum level, whereas in America in many cases care at all for that level of people simply does not exist. Or if it does exist, it is only in a financially-devastating way.

http://www.allianzworldwidecare.com/healthcare-in-russia

GREAT link. Allow me to continue from right after you left off:

"...Russia has pioneered some of the most specialised fields of medicine in recent times, including laser eye surgery and different developments and breakthroughs in relation to heart surgery..."

So yeah; tech is as good as, if not better than, what you'd find in the States. SPbGU trains cardiologists and pediatricians from all over the world. Moscow's big medical school does (I believe) neurology.

And all for -- let's hear it again -- human-scale costs.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Comparing apples-to-apples, if you have the money to pay for it, you get better care in Russia. And it's much easier for even the non-filthy-rich to pay for it.

Apparently, your first sentence is untrue, or at least the national outcomes look pathetically incompatible with it. Your second sentence, on the other hand, is not unlikely -- that is where our system breaks down.

GREAT link. Allow me to continue from right after you left off:

"...Russia has pioneered some of the most specialised fields of medicine in recent times, including laser eye surgery and different developments and breakthroughs in relation to heart surgery..."

So yeah; tech is as good as, if not better than, what you'd find in the States.

Does not follow, although it does appear that I overstated the tech deficit. Russian health care seems to suffer from other problems, mainly a lack of development and facilities, more than from a lack of technology.

As I said, when you see deplorable public-health statistics such as those in Russia -- even worse than the ones we have here -- that does not suggest to me that their system is one to imitate, certainly not across the board.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Wow, the trance of the Obama is deeper than I thought.

Still waiting for any sort of practical alternative, Deb, as opposed to fuming and ranting.

I'm a pretty cynical guy. I never expected Obama to be a saint. The revelation that he isn't one therefore doesn't especially disturb me. But before I'm prepared to dump the guy, I need to know who or what would replace him. In the real world, alternatives are limited and the ideal is rarely achievable.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...when you see deplorable public-health statistics...

Statistics are a funny thing. Especially for something like medical care -- where what matters on the human level is the experience a person gets. For something like that, statistics are worse than pointless -- they actually encourage confidence based on ignorance.

The parts of Russia where baseline care is very poor ... are very poor. Poor as in, there's nowhere in the USA to even legitimately compare them to. Hence the lack of an apples-to-apples comparison for that bottom-tier. It also rather skews the statistics. Americans who are forced to 'go without' are simply not counted in the quality-of-care stats for the USA -- though they are certainly worse-off than a Russian who is treated in even the most impoverished regional clinic.

But, even in those poor places, a middle-class Russian can get access to (perhaps by having to go to a bigger city or such -- no different than anywhere else out in the boonies) care which is, again, at or above the level available to a middle-class American. In fact, a middle-class Russian is generally able to afford the level of care available in the USA to only the very wealthy (or very-well-insured).

Your inability to see the situation is perfectly understandable. You're guessing off what appears to you to be the best information available to you.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Still waiting for any sort of practical alternative, Deb, as opposed to fuming and ranting.

I'm a pretty cynical guy. I never expected Obama to be a saint. The revelation that he isn't one therefore doesn't especially disturb me. But before I'm prepared to dump the guy, I need to know who or what would replace him. In the real world, alternatives are limited and the ideal is rarely achievable.

Do you think I'm fuming and ranting? I don't. I consider myself passionate about our much needed health care needs of this country.

It is not an ideal that I'm working toward, it is keeping alive the desire to hold our representatives accountable to the people. I don't expect perfection but I do expect our president to follow through with what he says he will do and not surround himself with Wall Street advisors and negotiate with high paid lobbyists behind closed doors.

My goal is to show our president as the wizard who sits behind the curtain with his hand on the lever of the smoke and mirrors. Our president, who says one thing about the three of the most important issues that we face today, health care, war, and economic melt down, continually acts in favor of the corporation. Somethings wrong with that picture.

Why would Obama ever have to actually work for the rights of the people, when we act like starving surfs who are grateful for the crumb of bread he threw us?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Do you think I'm fuming and ranting? I don't. I consider myself passionate about our much needed health care needs of this country.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive, and yes, I see what you're doing as fuming and ranting, in that it has no visible practical purpose.

It is not an ideal that I'm working toward, it is keeping alive the desire to hold our representatives accountable to the people. I don't expect perfection but I do expect our president to follow through with what he says he will do and not surround himself with Wall Street advisors and negotiate with high paid lobbyists behind closed doors.

And when he does, what do we do precisely?

My goal is to show our president as the wizard who sits behind the curtain with his hand on the lever of the smoke and mirrors.

And that's exactly where we part company. You are doing nothing useful when you do that. You are rejecting Obama (the basis for the rejection is irrelevant) without providing or even suggesting an alternative.

Again, what do you think should be done, precisely? It seems to me that the alternatives are these:

1) Recognize the achievements that have been made and continue to press for more and better.

2) Attempt to primary Obama in 2012 and replace him with another Democrat.

3) Undercut his reelection in 2012 and toss the election to a Republican, in the hopes that things will become so bad they'll end up better after 2016.

I prefer option 1. I prefer not deceiving ourselves that a small step forward is actually a step back. But if you think that 2 or 3 would be a better idea, that at least would be recommending something, instead of doing nothing constructive at all that I can see.

Why would Obama ever have to actually work for the rights of the people, when we act like starving surfs who are grateful for the crumb of bread he threw us?

The fact that you think that is what is going on, merely because other people do not join you in trampling those crumbs of bread into the mud, is the chief factor behind the irrationality of your position.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Statistics are a funny thing. Especially for something like medical care -- where what matters on the human level is the experience a person gets.

In other words, you don't actually care what public health is like in Russia overall, your own personal experience is the only part of that nation and its hundreds of millions of people that is real to you.

The parts of Russia where baseline care is very poor ... are very poor. Poor as in, there's nowhere in the USA to even legitimately compare them to.

But the statistics I cited did not compare Russia to the USA. They compared Russia to Russia, in two different time periods. I would assume that those poor areas were poor during the Soviet era as well. Would I be right in that assumption? And so their existence cannot account for the decline in public health in Russia since 1991.

Your inability to see the situation is perfectly understandable. You're guessing off what appears to you to be the best information available to you.

Well, adding your account of your own personal experience adds a single data point, which I'm afraid does not change the overall picture significantly at all. Neither would my own experience with health care in Russia if I had it. So I think I can get by just fine, thanks.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive, and yes, I see what you're doing as fuming and ranting, in that it has no visible practical purpose.



And when he does, what do we do precisely?



And that's exactly where we part company. You are doing nothing useful when you do that. You are rejecting Obama (the basis for the rejection is irrelevant) without providing or even suggesting an alternative.

Again, what do you think should be done, precisely? It seems to me that the alternatives are these:

1) Recognize the achievements that have been made and continue to press for more and better.

2) Attempt to primary Obama in 2012 and replace him with another Democrat.

3) Undercut his reelection in 2012 and toss the election to a Republican, in the hopes that things will become so bad they'll end up better after 2016.

I prefer option 1. I prefer not deceiving ourselves that a small step forward is actually a step back. But if you think that 2 or 3 would be a better idea, that at least would be recommending something, instead of doing nothing constructive at all that I can see.



The fact that you think that is what is going on, merely because other people do not join you in trampling those crumbs of bread into the mud, is the chief factor behind the irrationality of your position.

Do you think criticism hurts the candidate? As citizens, we are called to be their conscience. It's our responsibility to hold them accountable. Asking for what we want through calling their office, writing letters and working on and with social movements, that represent our concerns, is a sign of an engaged citizen.

Grassroot movements are the push that encourages change. That's what I plan to continue to do, be a pebble in their shoe.

I think I have said all that I'm willing to say in this conversation. It's becoming redundant.

Originally Posted by Odin

What's next, claimining that us on the "Far Left" are begging for ponies and pink unicorns?

Here is how I see it:

Having been born in 1955 I have met five different generations of old people -- a few Missionaries, Lost (some as young as I am now when I was born, but some that I could have never understood as anything but old), GIs, the Silent (they are all old now), and now my own generation. Yes, Boomers born in 1943 and 1944 really are old.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Show me a political idealist who demands all or nothing and I'll almost always show you someone who has nothing. Pragmatism doesn't always taste good, but it's more likely to ultimately take you to where you want to go.

Grab whatever progress you can while the getting is good. You can always come back for more later.

Thank you, Ziggy. A thousand times, thank you.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Brian,

Hmmm. I thought this was a discussion. My intention is not to argue. I suppose tone and demeanor are lost in cyberspace.

I suggest cutting out the complaints about Obama and simply looking at what the new law does and does not do. I agree that the process of passing it wasn't pretty and I too would have liked more transparency. But I am tired of the "Obamabot" accusations and I would like you to stop them.

It is possible to support the law with a clear head, while still acknowledging that it is just a very small step towards what we want in the long run.

We are not zombies. So please stop with the childish comments.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

We are not zombies...

Now that's highly debatable. But certainly not worth the effort.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Meanwhile - Boomers, please stop playing Peter Pan and admit you're edging into elderhood - NOT, as the latest issue of "Boomer" magazine (Sunday paper insert) would have it, middle age. The ones edging into middle age are Xers.

But I'm not edging into elderhood -- npot yet. I will be the first to admit that I am firmly in midlife. However, if you define elderhood as retirement and mentoring the younger ones -- well, it will be 12-15 years before I retire.

I'm 54. My hair's not even gray, except for a bit around the temples (and that's natural -- I do highlight my hair to make it more interesting, but I don't dye to color gray.)

So please give me a break.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

But I'm not edging into elderhood -- npot yet. I will be the first to admit that I am firmly in midlife. However, if you define elderhood as retirement and mentoring the younger ones -- well, it will be 12-15 years before I retire.

I'm 54. My hair's not even gray, except for a bit around the temples (and that's natural -- I do highlight my hair to make it more interesting, but I don't dye to color gray.)

So please give me a break.

Thanks.

But when a sentence says an entire cohort is "edging into" something, the logical assumption is that they mean the leading edge of the cohort. You're trailing edge, so, no; you're only seven or so years older than the Xers' leading edge.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I suggest cutting out the complaints about Obama and simply looking at what the new law does and does not do. I agree that the process of passing it wasn't pretty and I too would have liked more transparency. But I am tired of the "Obamabot" accusations and I would like you to stop them.

It is possible to support the law with a clear head, while still acknowledging that it is just a very small step towards what we want in the long run.

We are not zombies. So please stop with the childish comments.

If you will notice, I used a wink at the end of my sentence to indicate that I was kidding. I am not one to call names.

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

Yelling at the President is as American as apple pie. It's our god-given right and a natural state of being for us, just like enlisted people griping about officers and line workers bellyaching about management. It should have been put in the Constitution somewhere as a requirement for retaining your citizenship.

But besides that, the big difference between subordinates complaining about their boss and people grumbling about Obama is that the President is supposed to be beholden to the people. Lots of people are forgetting that these days, and they have the strange view that we all have to line up behind the papal bulls of whoever holds that office. That was a serious worry with Bush Jr and the post 9/11 days, but thankfully it looks like Obama will be the one to destroy the notion of the imperial presidency.

It's sad that his greatest contributions, the things he will really be remembered for, will be his failures of leadership and the unintentional good that will eventually come out of them.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It is indeed. But what does that have to do with anything? I'm just sharing my recent realization that the guys who are arguing the hardest for the continuation of our failed paradigm are the very ones who will be soonest to step off the scene. It's sort of a big part of the whole thesis of Generation Theory, innit?

Yes... let's.
link

It sort of implies that in 2008 there were in the neighborhood of 77 million Baby Boomers (1946-1965 birth years). At the same time, there were in the neighborhood of 103 million over-20 non-Boomers. Since then, and going forward from then, no more Boomers are being added. But in, for ex, another three years, according to that link above, the adult non-Boomer population will have added another 21 mil.

So yeah; a rational assessment of the numbers tends to back up pretty well the fact of Boomers' opinions' irrelevance in the coming decades of resolving the Crisis. You all already are a minority. A noisy one, to be sure, and riding on still a fair head of momentum. But that's what keeps the 4T spiraling down for its first half or so.

As it goes, there's no need to 'do [Boomers] in'. They simply don't matter to the resolving of the problems they've left us with. I'm sure you guys will be adequately cared-for (at least as much as we can manage), but in another ten years' time, you're gonna find that your car keys have been quietly taken away and that the adults will be handling things for you. My grandparents enjoyed gardening. For you, I might recommend (ahem.. hint, hint... I could even recommend a great place for you to get your supplies) quilting .

-----

-edit-

I was sorely tempted to join you in the name-calling and personal crap. It is truly deserved. But I paused and during the pause got to thinking -- what would be the point?
See, he's hanging back right now, keeping his eye out for the next opportunity. Unlike some, he's got the luxury of taking one in the ass and then picking himself back up again. He's gonna be around lo-o-ong after you are worm-food. He doesn't have to worry about whether he's actually accomplished anything worthwhile in his mis-spent life, since most of his life is still in front of him.

What a lucky guy that is.

My apologies. I re-read your post and realize that it really wasn't just another typical attack on Boomers; instead, it was your attempt to lay out a fact that Boomers eventually will not be around - initially as a political force and eventually, well, just not around. My response was a little over-the-top as such, and again, my apologies. Bad, playwright, bad!

That being said, I still have a problem with this notion of Xers waiting it out until Boomers leave the field - from both a general perspective and from a more personal one. At the generalize level, from the S&H Theory, 4T's are not only where things come to a head but where they get resolved; 1Ts are the afterglow if conception was successful (hey, care for a smoke? ). Also, according to the Theory, the Idealist plays a central role (e.g. FDR) in the 4T; they fade out in the following 1T. Basically, it's the decisions in the 4T that not only bring it to a head but also lock in what the coming 1T will be. Do you really want to sit around during this 4T while Boomers generally make the calls, and then be forced to work within those confines for the rest of your life? If our 4T decisions are bad, then you may have a not-so-glorious 1T of just picking up the pieces.

On a more personal level, I've seen one too many wait it out until their particular bastards have moved on to make their move. I've never seen that work out well for them. Life is short regardless of your age.

Now, let me get back to my quilts. Got to keep movin before I become worm food!

Originally Posted by independent

Wow, you really do live in a bubble of good news, don't you?

The AP poll asked if people support Obama's handling of healthcare - not the bill itself. When asked in that specific manner, he gets 3 points of favorability: 49 to 46.

The USA Today/Gallup poll that I've heard referenced a dozen times was one of TWO polls USA/Gallup put out on that day. One poll says healthcare is favorable by 3%, the other poll shows 50% of likely voters want the next Congress to repeal it immediately against 45% who don't want it repealed.

Together with the Kaiser poll, these are the three outliers that disagree with the dozens of other recent polls showing double-digit opposition.

Whether it's healthcare bill outright or Obama's handling the polls are trending to favorable, even if some show it still not a majority. Also, of particularly note, is how it breaks down by age group as indicated in the last Gallup poll -

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cha...love-obamacare

Non-Old People Love Obamacare

I think as grandma realizes that she's not going to face the death panel, she keeps her Medicare, and she gets $250 towards her doughnut hole (no jokes here!) this year and more next year, she might not only come around, she might get pissed at the a-holes that tried to scare her.

Originally Posted by independent

Meanwhile, the relative support of insurance money is better for Democrats than it has been since the Republicans were the ones to first introduce InsuranceAid in the early 90s.

But I guess I'm also always amazed how a few million dollars of advertising & a few articles in the right papers can convince Democrats to support Republican policy goals in a way that still lets them feel self-righteously liberal.

Your reference shows the GOP members still slightly ahead of the Dems 50-49 in 2010 and much more so in previous years. The summary for the years measured has the GOP up 63-37. You know as well as I do that the lobbyist have to hedge their bets and not risk completely alienated someone that they hope wouldn't be there because they might be.

As such, if you really want to know where their heart is then look at their "issue money." As I posted, there is no doubt that they are going to be pouring money into anti-HCR. Anyone who remains blind to this can only be doing so as a result of long held world views that while completely false are still obviously very difficult to shed.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah. That's one option, to be sure. But not necessarily the only one. I can see the value in having a minimum level (truly minimum, of course... in the sense of "keep a person alive until they are out of immediate danger") of generally-available medical care. Under the "insurance" system, of course, even that isn't there.

Under 'insurance', for ex, a pedestrian run down in a hit-and-run (for example) is going to get fixed up, and then find bill collectors chasing him for the rest of his life; at a minimum ruining his financial standing for a goodly long time. That's the nature of the "everything the responsibility of the patient" insurance paradigm. Even if the pedestrian is insured, he's still going to be out a huge chunk of change for getting fixed up. Which, again, he may not ever have -- for no fault of his own.

The 'Insurance' paradigm, you see, effectively chokes the concept of charity completely out of the realm of the possible. (Charity, that is, in the general sense of doing to help another just for the sake of helping them, without expectation of recompense.) Doctors -- even organizations of medical practitioners -- tend very strongly towards some degree of charity towards the truly needy. But in the insurance paradigm, such charity simply is not their choice. A bureaucracy exists which fights such things at every step (in fact, which completely removes the question from the hands of the only truly involved parties -- the patient and his doctor).

Insurance, of course, has a place in any medical paradigm. But a small place, relative to the overall task of making people well. But what has happened in the USA with this most recent abomination is an elevating of Insurance to the defining feature of the entire system. Given the fact that in a healthy model, insurance is a rarely-used, purely optional supplement for individuals, the direction the US has moved is pretty clearly the wrong one.

The main question facing "health care" in the USA is not how to get everything paid for; it is rather, why does a fundamentally human-scale good find itself being constantly priced outside the means of all but the tiniest majority of its consumers. The answers to that problem are relatively many -- and encompass both the 'libertarian-friendly' low-cost co-op option as well as any number of more 'socialist' systems (I'm thinking of the system with which we interacted in Russia, since that's one I know pretty well). Which one of those people go with is not really something that matters a whole lot; they all do what the insurance paradigm fights -- put medical care on people-scale.

Wow, this goes even further than that T-bagger in the Nevada Senate primary race that suggested folks could get good medical care by bringing a couple of chickens in to the doctor to barter for an MRI.

Yep, there's the answer folks - you'll get your kids medical care by way of charity.

And you guys wonder why Glibertarians just don't seem to catch a break and get elected.

Originally Posted by Deb C

...
My goal is to show our president as the wizard who sits behind the curtain with his hand on the lever of the smoke and mirrors. Our president, who says one thing about the three of the most important issues that we face today, health care, war, and economic melt down, continually acts in favor of the corporation. Somethings wrong with that picture....

Do you believe that without the Senate filibuster, where a simple 51-vote majority would carry a bill to law, that we wouldn't have something much much better coming out of Congress on just about any issue?

If you don't believe things would be much better, then you really have no clue as to what is going on in the world or what needs to change to make it better.

If you do understand and believe that the Senate filibuster has been the primary obstacle, then why the hell are you blaming Obama?

It is rare that things are this simple, but in this case, of just having something much much better - it really is just this simple.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It is rare that things are this simple, but in this case, of just having something much much better - it really is just this simple.

Yeah, I have to agree, here. When the federal government knows everything about each individual, via controlling our national health care, and has the power to thus control everyone's health, I think it will be a great advantage to the Republican Party when they eventually (as always) finally gain control of the federal government.

Think about it, if the Republican Party controls your health care, they control your life. How cool is that? The Republican Party can then dictate who gets what kind of vital care they may need when and how. This is a beautiful thing for the GOP.

And I can see why the GOP wants to own the health care issue, in this manner, just like the Democrats do.

Regardless who, however, "owns" the issue, it's the Republicans who will make the best use of the federal government's control over each and every one of our health records and care from the minute we're born to the day, they decide, we die. I mean, after all, they are Republicans.

Thank you, Democrats, for granting the Republicans this really awesome power!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep, there's the answer folks - you'll get your kids medical care by way of charity.

Holy crap. It's now confirmed. You are incapable of reading more than three sentences in a row.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If you will notice, I used a wink at the end of my sentence to indicate that I was kidding. I am not one to call names.

I will continue my challenge about the health care law. I guess if you were in the final stages of an auto immune liver disease, you too, might view the bill a lot differently.

Like I have said else where in this forum, Obama is probably a better person than I am and I will give him credit where credit is due. But but it is my job, as a citizen, to hold him accountable when he is not working for the people he was elected to represent.

I'm so sorry about your illness.