Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

A big fat UH OH

Web Link

What do you all have to say about this? Pretty Friggin Scary is all I have to say. And most of you thought Bush was bad! Oh y'all aint seen nothing yet!


Scary, that all Americans would have health care????

Scary, yeah, that all Americans should have health care, bank care, car care, BART care, pet care, and every other kind of care.

In a perfect world, everyone would also have big homes with the perfect white picket fence to go along with it.Sorry, if this goes through, we loose our private option...what do you say about that? I could loose all my benefits.

Have you been reading between the lines or are you still in Obama La La land????

In a perfect world, everyone would also have big homes with the perfect white picket fence to go along with it.Sorry, if this goes through, we loose our private option...what do you say about that? I could loose all my benefits.

Have you been reading between the lines or are you still in Obama La La land????


What would be a better world? A world that only select people would have health care, bank care, car care, BART care, pet care, and every other kind of care.............or a world where all people would have equal care....it's not scary, it's a possibility?

Imagine if your loved one was stuck in the other uncaring world??

Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Just stop.

Web Link


The only caring world is not of this world...look at the countries around you and how people are killed because of their faith.

I am not for Universal Healthcare, because I like my benefits and YES I think we should help those who need help, but the answer cannot be Free. Everything the GOVT gets involved in, it screws up and I should have the RIGHT to my private option. No sense in reasoning with those who choose to be fed lies.

Couples will be limited to two children. After that pregnant women will be required to have abortions.

Cancer patients over the age of 65 will be euthanized.

You will be limited to one MRI, one X-Ray and one prescription per year.

People who change their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat will be given a one-time 50% reduction in their premiums.

You will be required to see Canadian doctors.

I am sure there is more that Obama is hiding from us. ;>)

Gee, it seems to have worked in Europe for the past 50 years. It seems to me no one is belly-aching over there? Right now, we are paying for the uninsured people anyway. Who do you think pays for all the people who go to the emergency room and have no health insurance? Our taxes. Why aren't the countries that have single payer health insurance not demanding for anything other than what they have? Why??? Because single-payer works.

Single payer systems can work; I enjoyed great health care in a European single payer system for 27 years before moving to the United States.

It is a myth that the American Health Care system is that great and efficient; the US spends significantly more per capita than many European countries where everybody is insured and receives service while many people in the US are not insured, under-insured or financially ruined by the cost of health care. OECD data clearly suggests that the US is lacking behind many of the European countries when it comes to length of hospital stays, infant mortality, number of visits to doctors and hospitals. The US has significantly less practicing physicians than pretty much all of the European single-payer systems. The US has significantly less acute care hospital beds than all European countries and does not rank much better than Mexico in OECD studies. The US does better in terms of wait times but has a substantially higher rates from natural deaths than most of the European countries. Most of those countries also have a higher life expectancy. Interestingly enough the US ranks high when it comes to deaths from medical errors, which might be due to the higher number of procedures. The US also has the third highest infant mortality rate amongst the OECD countries, following right after Turkey and Mexico.

Where the US stands out is in early adoption of technology and number of procedures as well as the extremely high cost due to high compensation for medical personnel, high prescription drug cost at one of the highest consumption in pharmaceuticals in the world. Also, the intensity of treatment drives up the cost, with for example significantly more nurses being assigned to a patient than in other countries.

While I am generally very conservative fiscally and absolutely no fan of Obama(I despise him actually), it bothers me to listen to Conservatives who completely misrepresent the reality of European health care. What I heard about the pending health care reform scares me too, it seems too radical but it's time to take the blinders off and take stock of the American health care system. I have to say I have seen better.

People who are against universal health care usually think their own payor for it will be there forever. Remember that unless you are retired and are in medicare or some other welfare type program you are a job loss away from having no health insurance. If you have anything wrong with you at all, and I mean anything, it is impossible to get affordable health care on your own because of preexisting conditions. I hope that all the politicians are on the same health care plan that we finally end up with.

The statement in the editorial is factual.

All private health insurance plans will be limited to current enrolees.

Change jobs?

You belong to Obamacare.

Leave school and get your first job?

You belong to Obama care.

Immigtate to this country?

You belong to Obamacare.


You belong to Obamacare.

Deal with it.

You are the property of the state.

European 'style' health care?

Works wonderfully.

Unless you are in the UK and need kidney dialysis on or after your sixty fifth birthday.

You get a smile, a pat on the shoulder, a shake of the head.

Dialysis is rationed.

You don't get it.

You die.

Clinics along the Canada-US border are full of private-pay Canadians for joint replacements, bypass surgeries, cancer therapies. even wound care. (Cancer treatment for a Provincial Minister recently....let's hear the Socialist spin machine tackle that one!)


There are no clinics on the Canadian side of that border for Americans fleeing our horrible, in-equitable, unaffordable health care system.

Ever wonder why?

The best that the Equity of Misery crowd can come up with is, "Don't listen to Rush Limbaugh".


The United States of America has dirty air, polluted water, a contaminated food supply, and a broken medical care system.

And every year the average American has to live a longer and longer life to suffer the the end effects of corporate greed!

The exodus to Europe and Canada grows exponentially!

The Horror. The Horror!


Mr. Bones:

Concisely put, and all this uproar over just one page of an 1100 page bill........Is it no wonder that we must put this train of government usurpation on the "fast-track"?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Becky: An ever growing number of people share your concerns. Obama is only doing what he said he was going to do but SO many people got caught up in the Obama-mania and didn't really listen to what he was saying. Now they are finding they don't like what he is doing. I think he and his cohorts realize that they have to get the stuff shoved down our throats before the next election because they are going to lose their control of the Congress and then it is going to be more difficult to impose their dictatorship of the proletariat on the rest of us. All the indignant attacks here are just symptomatic of the true believers for whom anything Obama does is the word of God.

The fiscal deficit was 2.0% of GDP two years ago.

Today it is 13%.

The government cannot and should not spend this kind of money. Not now, probably not ever. Just doesn't make any sense - fiscal, political or common.

Some sort of move to get closer to universal coverage by states and cities - that is the will of the voters.

Single-payer nationwide health care? Not even close to what is needed or what would work.

Medicare is already $50 TRILLION underfunded. That experiment already failed. Why another?

VA works great, Medicare keeps our seniors healthy and while it has problems is better than the private health insurance industry. The failed experiment is private health insurance. The countries that have nationalized health care have left us in the dust with the quality and cost of care they receive, and they have coverage for all. 45 million uninsured Americans and the majority of personal bankruptcies coming from health related issues is unconscionable. The fact the health insurance companies cancel people when they get sick for bogus pre-existing conditions is criminal.

Single-payer is the best system and the only one that will truly solve our health care woes. All the propaganda and fear put out by the opponents of such a system is simply an effort the keep the money flowing up the system at the expense of the rate payers who get less bang for their buck than every other industrialized country in the world, with worse results.

Just the facts.

All these people against Obama's plan must have their own health care plan paid for, obviously, by someone else.... the government, their employer, their spouse, etc. You are in for a rude awakening if you think the market place will have an affordabe plan for you now if there is s job loss.I used to be on my spouses'retirement health plan until they raised the fee for me to $565 per month. His retirement plan started out with free health benefits for him and me and it gradually went up every year until I was unaffordable on it, and I have no health issues to ring up the tab at all. Some present jobs with health benefits cannot be physically done by people in their 50's or 60's so they have to change jobs and good luck finding health benefits at that age.

With the new plan:

1) Everybody's health care will be down graded. Everybody includes people who can afford the best and people who can't afford anything.

2) Everybody's health care costs will increase substantially. This time, everybody does not include people who pay nothing. They will simply get less.

This is no secret. These facts are well known. Doesn't seem to matter.

You have health insurance. Good for you. Fifty million people in this country do not. What should be done about that? Let them eat cake?

During the French revolution when Marie Antoinette was told the peasants had no food she famously said, "Let them eat cake!"

Single-payer is the worst system and the only one that will truly make our health care woes worse. All the propaganda and fear put out by the proponents of such a system is simply an effort the keep the money flowing up the system at the expense of the rate payers who get less bang for their buck than every other industrialized country in the world, with worse results.

Just the facts. They work against you.

Why put the Federal government in charge of anything else when they have shown repeated that they cannot be trusted with the programs they already run?

I like cake.

Too bad most doctors and the entire industrialized world are against you on this one, Brian. Reason is, you are wrong.

Plain and simple.

Again, the VA and Medicare perform BETTER than private health insurance. The largest pool is the cheapest pool. That means a national health care plan with the government paying the bills and all of us chipping in for the expense. Works in every other western country with better results than here.

Single payer, you couldn't have said it any better. Great response, and as far as Russ goes, you crack me up once again!

If Medicare is $50 TRILLION underfunded, how is it working "BETTER" than anything? I have a feeling a few pre-schoolers could come up with a better system.

Please explain (in detail, of course). If the Federal government cannot run that system, how will they run another?

The enthusiasm diplayed for the federal government's coercive attempt to nationalize our bodies, is quite puzzling, wasn't that what all the fuss was about over Roe v. Wade?

It's not OK to regulate a woman's body, yet perfectly acceptable to use the coercive, jackboot tactics of the federal government to regulate all our bodies?

Better hurry up with the Chicago/Huey Long thuggery style of governing and get this one rammed through Congress before America wakes up..........Tick Tock!

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Part of the reason Medicare is now running such large deficits is becasue of Bush's Medicare Part D giveaway to the pharmicutical companies. Step one to fixing Medicare is fixing that mess, which entails rewriting it and cutting out private insurers. That part has added over $16 Trillion to your figure of $50 Trillion. Without this giveaway to the pharmecutical companies, this figure could be cut in half.

Other savings to Medicare would come by fixing inefficiencies, up to 30 percent of health care costs could be saved without compromising health outcomes.

Among the most frequently cited inefficiencies in Medicare are:

• We spend a substantial amount on high-cost, low-value treatments.

• Patients obtain too little of certain types of care that are effective and of high value.

• Patients frequently do not receive care in the most cost-effective setting.

• There is extensive variation in the quality of care provided to patients.

• There are many preventable medical errors that lead to worse outcomes and higher costs.

• Our system is complex, and we have high administrative costs.

Single Payer over the long term would actually save the country money. Having a government run system would cut out the 20% overhead that insurance companies and health care provider have to waste navigating our current cumbersome mess. Providers would remain private with the only difference being they would not have to chase insurance companies all day and thus would be more efficient and could focus on quality care.

Single Payer:

Putting aside for the moment the valid discussion of monetary costs, can we discuss the principles guiding this government policy?

Throughout this bill are eradications of my sovereignty as an individual, as this bill will regulate everything I choose to do under the guise of the Welfare or Commerce Clause, or for that matter, any expoundment decreed by Congress or the Executive.

This bill also eradicates the sovereignty of my state. How you ask? In the words of Thomas Jefferson, by "consolidation" of state powers.........an antithesis of the Tenth Amendment.

Therefore, I ask: If it is not OK to regulate a woman's body, why is it perfectly acceptable to regulate all our bodies, on a national basis nonetheless?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

How does it regulate your body?

I'm confused. How is the government going to regulate all of our bodies?

The nay sayers to a single payer plan are the same types years ago who turned thumbs down on social security and medicare, but they are more than willing to participate when they themselves need it. We are all going to have to pay something... that's a given. It is unconscionable to have 50 million people in this country with no health insurance. Federal govt workers, the VA, medicare all have single payer right now. If the govt can run the IRS, it can collect health premiums also.

The Vets Admin is great. Don't know about other VA clinics hospitals but the Palo Alto VA has been great to me. Been with them over 2 years & have no complaints. Since i lost all the Doctor's on the coast.Biggest hassle is getting there over our lovely 92. Its 24 miles from my house & takes 35-40 minutes if 92 doesn't shaft me.

People who do not have medical insurance do not go without medical care in this country now unless 1) they can afford the care but would rather go without than pay for it; or 2) They can or cannot afford it and just don't bother to go get it.

The government is going to regulate your body by ruling, through uncaring, incompetent government employees enjoying the fruits of patronage, when, where, how and by whom your body can be treated when in need.

The system can be improved. For example, major medical insurance can be brought back for young people in good health. Health insurance plans do not have to include coverage for counseling or sex changes. The system is not going to be improved, it is going to be dismantled. The best system of medical care in the world avaible to a large and diverse population is going to be destroyed and replaced with a horribly inadequate system at greatly increased cost.

Old people will be hurt the most. They need more expensive care - worked all their lives to assure they would get it when needed. They are not going to get it. They will be given an aspirin and told to wait - and wait - and wait -until they die waiting. Who will benefit? Not medical care providers - they can get ready for simpler lifestyles. Government will grow. Politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers will benefit. But - hey - the party wants it, so why not. Be honest. That is really what this is all about, isn't it? Politics. The Party. It is so sad.

There are so many misstatement and flat out propaganda in Misanthrope's comments it just boggles the mind where this garbage comes from?

Single Payer:

Looks like the consequences to the Constitution and the rule of law does not bother your conscience, so let's go to the nationalized regulation of your body.

The House Ways & Means Committee have a Discussion Draft. Start reading about page 800 until you finish. Pay particular attention to the duties and charges of the:

"United States Preventive Services Task Force", jackboots with white-coats and stethoscopes.

If that fails to convince you that you are no longer a sovereign individual, go right to page 826 to see how the relationship with your doctor will now be managed by the parasites in Washington DC. The title itself is Orwellian:

Title IV: Quality and Surveillance

Part D - of Title IV - Implementation of Best Practices in the Delivery of Health Care

Which will be overseen by the Director of the Agency for Health Research who shall:


(1)Prioritization of Quality Improvement Activities

"The Director shall identify, prioritize, and develop quality improvement activities, including clinical, managerial, and health care delivery best care practices....."

This legislation criminalizes my Liberty, because I will not have my health & well-being micromanaged from afar.......so, after reading the bill you want to insist with this unlawful power grab and private sector destruction, we will part as enemies...........

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Single Payer:

For clarity of context:

regulate - v.t.- to make regular; put in good order; adjust by rule. Webster, 1934.

regulate - v.t.- 1.)to control, direct, or govern according to a rule, principle, or system. Webster, 1958.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


I agree that single payer works (I too lived in Europe).

In fact, the German Algemeine Krankenkasse exist since 1880!!!

Here's what does not work:

In America, if you are sick, the insurance company KICKS YOU OUT!!!

It is an outrage! How can be anything worse than this?

Also, why do we need 12,000 different insurance companies? Why is medicine a profit generating business? Why not the Army?

Bottom line: we live in a first world country with third world health care. Thanks for listening...

"The best system of medical care in the world avaible to a large and diverse population is going to be destroyed and replaced with a horribly inadequate system at greatly increased cost."

Baloney. You measure the overall quality of health care by the health of a population. As Susan points out above, the U.S. lies toward the bottom of developed countries in many measures. And has for several decades now.

In addition to 47 million plus uninsured in the U.S. are at least that many more who are underinsured, whose coverage has big holes in it for many kinds of care, especially expensive procedures. If you see the people signing up for VA care, for example, you will find many in this underinsured category. Yes, the VA in Palo Alto *rocks* if you are a veteran who is not above the income gap. Swallow your pride and go there if you are a veteran on the coastside and unable to afford the care you need. The care compares very favorably with any of the private hospitals on the midpeninsula. Of course, this does not help the majority who are not veterans or who live a long way from the nearest VA facility.

"Old people will be hurt the most. They need more expensive care - worked all their lives to assure they would get it when needed. They are not going to get it."

The above could only have been written with little direct experience with Medicare. Older people who cannot afford Medicare Part B, private supplementary insurance (about $300 per month), and, if they have high drug costs, the hole in the badly-contrived Medicare Part D, are hurting. But most older people are doing fairly well with Medicare. Hang out with older people, and you will find the trick for many is attaining Medicare age. Far better than younger people who are uninsured or underinsured for both minor and major needs.

No one denies Medicare and MediCal are badly-funded, bureaucratically-mismanaged, political volleyballs. But those who don't want typical government corruption and inefficiencies in their health care system should have been working to create an efficient, affordable private system and not one that only serves the upper middle class, the wealthy, and a diminishing minority of workers who have good coverage as part of their job benefits. General health care in the U.S. has been broken for many years and has been getting worse as the population grows and the income gap widens.

For political reasons, the health care reform currently being debated in Congress is being jammed together far too quickly. It is said that no reform will be possible if the effort goes on into next year, a congressional election year. Some of the blame for this rush falls to those who object to any sort of reform--they push hard for minor private interests (anyone who knows about the pharmaceutical and medical lobbies knows this has little to do with personal "freedom") so the effort needed to get anything done is more polarized and political than it should be. It is going to be a mess. But the mess probably will be better for our overall population than what we have now. Take the corporate interests and partisan politics out of it, and something much better and less costly would be possible with time to craft a system with the cost efficiencies other countries have been able to achieve.

NP, I agree 100%. It is not going to be very good relative to the fact that the dems have the President, and complete control of both Houses.

As Ralph Nader says: there's no excuse for the dems this time around. They could have gone for single payer and just do it!

Now Pitching: I know something about Medicare. You can believe that or not. The cost of the health care reform project are now projected at over a trillion dollars. Thats a trillion - over a trillion. It was reported today that the President has said that 2/3 of the cost of the program can be realized from the elimination of unnecessary Medicare costs. Please - what do you believe that is going to do to Medicare. I have a pretty good idea - it is going to do to old people what I said it is going to do. It is not me that is turning his back on reality - it is you in the service of ideology.


This legislation does not fix MediCare nor MediCaid, it creates brand new bureaucracies whose purpose is to "level the playing field".

For a better understanding of what this "level playing field" looks like, read pages 85 - 105 of the House Ways & Means Draft.

The CBO has admitted that its estimates cannot reflect all the related costs to implement, therefore, as per every government projection, multiply it by four......your Trillion dollar cost estimate is looking abit paltry.

Lastly, Sally C. Pipes decimates the fallacy of 47 million un-insured Americans with her book, "Top Ten Myths of American Health Care".

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

>>The CBO has admitted that its estimates cannot reflect all the related costs to implement<<

Just to toss a little reality into this...The CBO is precluded, by prior law, from including in its analysis certain items that would, according to the Obama Administration, *lower" the cost of the plans.

I know these are pesky little details...raise costs, lower costs, up, down, black, white...what do details matter when you are Defending Liberty.


Dear Darin:

When your done with your snidely snippets, you may want to read the bill for yourself. There are no savings.....none. Furthermore, the "details" you think you know, aren't there, because Congress itself does not know, it is still being crafted.

No worries on that one mate, Pelosi will be sure to bring out a 300 page amendment on the day of the vote (that will not be read by Democrats, yet, affirmatively voted)........there's your Obama transparency for ya laddy.

Lastly, in your "detailed" smarmism of my Liberty, you may find the "details" of why one must put up a vigorous "defense" of Liberty and have a jealous regard for your inalienable Rights, so that you may analyze why the lack in this regard.

P.S.- The truth on Page 15 that IBD & Limbaugh exposed is what, a falsehood, cost savings, or an attack on Liberty?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

>>P.S.- The truth on Page 15 that IBD & Limbaugh exposed is what, a falsehood, cost savings, or an attack on Liberty?<<

An out-of-context misinterpretation. Something that happens a lot around here.


Dear Darin:

Perhaps, in the interest of eliminating the "out of context misinterpretation" in your own mind, you should read the first 20 pages of the House Ways & Means Committee Discussion Draft of this bill, so that this attack on Liberty (page 15) can be properly "interpreted" for what it is, the hubris of an executive and Congress who believe they know what's best for the hoi polloi.

Think again....

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


For some clarity of context:

"A lot" is a plot of land, as per my HMB High school English teacher, Mrs. Lash. May God rest her soul.

Yours in Libery, JD - the Federalist

JD: I knew Mrs. Lash quite well....when did you graduate? We probably know each other.


The class of '78 is great! Theme song: "We are the Champions"

Football, Wrestling, and Cross Country - we rocked.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

I was working there at that time....


Interesting. Without sidetracking this thread too much, and in consideration of your anonymity, may I venture a query or two so that my Harry Bosch-like mind can do some deducement?

Administration, faculty, maintenance, or a coach?

My first guess, Joe Cat?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

I am honored that you thought I was Joe Cat; he was absolutely tops.

Who was your picture next to in the yearbook of your senior year? We will find out a way to know who we are; after all, we are allies in this struggle against left winged lunacy that is in the process of destroying our great country. Unfortunately we are rather outnumbered but a few good men can make a difference.

This luv fest of loon balls is really cute.


I'll have a look-see, if I can find it.....many moons ago.......Cat was the man....

I'll get back at ya......glad ya got my six.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Dear Circle J: I am sure that is what you and your fellow loon balls do when you get together. Have fun and bring the Kleenex.


May perhaps there be a 'd' in your initials?

M or F?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Maybe and "F".....


Who'da thunk? Name the coffee shop, I'm there.

We better get back to thrashin' Darin afore we are indicted as hi-jackers.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Keep an eye out for them Homeland Security types at the drop......heh, heh

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


I am so relieved there are people like JD & Concerned Democrat. Finally, some reason!!!!

Becky: I have watched you trying to inject some reason,logic and love of country into discussions/debates with the likes of Nipper, Imoan, Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck (the Looney Tunes crowd). et al. and that is like trying to put the square peg in the round hole. Keep it up, eventually they may be thrown from their donkeys and a voice from Heaven will call out to them and they will see the light.

Wemoan & Becky:

Time to network like the ACORN agitators before us. I'll get y'all started with a wonderful documentary on the usurpations of the Coastal Commission, "Sins of Commission".

Raman's - Thursday - 6PM - and being the chauvinist gentleman I am, coffee's on me.

Where did he move his shop?......I don't get out much.....too busy makin' my mortgage payment.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

He is in that little mall right next to Ocean Shore Company; his place is the one on the far left alongside Lewis Foster Drive.

Darin, why is it necessary to RUSH this thing through Congress? If it's a good bill then it will survive close scrutiny, wouldn't you think? Why such a tearing hurry to jam this down our throats?

We're still reeling from B. H. Obama's so-called stimulous plan and will be for years to come. How can we also at this time afford good health care for every American PLUS the 30 million illegals he's trying to legalize? Don't you think this might attract more foreigners wanting to feed at the trough? Their extended families will insist on being "reunified"... of course here in the US, not in their own country of Mexico or Guatemala etc. Funny how that happens.

Obama knows all this and wants to force us into socialism now while we're still down and out. What a GD traitor.

>>Darin, why is it necessary to RUSH this thing through Congress?<<

I guess just simple tactics. People have been dreaming/planning/hoping for universal health care for a generation or two now. It's been a topic of intense study and scrutiny for decades.

If it is finally within reach why let the chance slip away? (After all, calls for slowing it down, for more study, etc are just tactical moves in and of themselves--opponents want time to derail it, not to study it in a scholarly fashion.)


What's the rush? - great commentary and good questions...but "they" don't want to answer those questions because the answer isn't pretty.

I do believe that the American people have begun to wake up and realize what they have done; it's not too late and if we can delay the disaster until the 2010 elections we can dodge the bullet and save this great country, our economic system, our place in the world and our way of life.

Give me one good reason why it is our responsibility to destroy our national economy to provide health care for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority of these 40,000,000 "Americans" who are uninsured are illegals. The only way we could call them "Americans" is if we use the term as the Europeans do...meaning a person from the New World. Is Mexico, with its great petroleum wealth, going to pitch in....hell no! Mexico doesn't give its people anything; it prefers to keep them poor and take as much as possible away from them. That is very unfortunate and a disgrace but we already have too many things on our own plate that preclude our bailing them out of something Mexico could do for itself.

Correction Darin, SOME people "have been dreaming/planning/hoping for universal health care for a generation" - People like social utopians or politicians dreaming of name-in-the-headlines glory, but not the struggling middle America. And certainly not the wealthy, who provide us with jobs and pay 85% of tax monies.

"It's been a topic of intense study and scrutiny for decades." Yes and it hasn't been passed because of that so why now? It wasn't passed in all the years the Democrats held both Congrees and the Presidency because it's not sound financially and doesn't mesh with American ideas of freedom and responsibility.

I think average Americans want their insurance portable, to not be denied for existing conditions, to hold costs in check, and to have lower cost options for when they're young or unemployed. I don't think Average Americans want to be bled dry for avery Tomas, Ricardo or Harrietta (?) who decides to break the law to come here for freebies.

How can you possibly think now is a good time to go into massive hock when we're in the worst financial time in 80 years? Obama is being an opportunist trying to get his naive way and not looking out for the best interests of Americans.

Wemoan, what do you think it will take for people to finally vote out their own lousy Congressmen and Senators? They have the lowest approval rating ((15% or similar) yet they keep getting sent back to office. I cannot understand it.

What's the truth? - there are people out there who are what my father called "yellow dog Democrats" - they would vote for a yellow dog if the Democrat party nominated it. While Obama was campaigning and saying what he was going to do, they didn't listen the impact of his program on the country because they were too caught up in the idea that he was the party's choice and they vote the party ticket and the party line. There are others who I firmly believe seek the destruction of this country and an end to its powerful role in the world. By passing this "health care" bill, they will effectively destroy our economic system and that is the key to our power and influence in the world. There are others who harbor such terrible class hatred and envy that they want these measures to pass so the wealthy will be taxed into poverty.

I deleted one that was off the topic. Thank you.

For those who think Medicare is a good model, I can tell you that my wife who is on the program gets tops 15 minutes for an appointment with her doc. That's efficiency! On the other hand, I have a doc who does not accept any insurance plan but when I go to see him I get at least a half hour appointment with a good discussion. Even though I pay plenty for this service, under no circumstances will I willingly give up the doctor I have. My doc has also said that he will leave practice if he is forced to accept any insurance. He refuses to run an assembly line practice in the name of "efficiency."

Leave the current system alone and allow free choice. It seems that the so called reform is aimed at destroying good medical practice for the great majority of people who are satisfied with what they have. As for those who cannot afford reasonable insurance or health care, there have to be better ways to solve the problems without screwing over the majority.

>>they were too caught up in the idea that he was the party's choice and they vote the party ticket and the party line. There are others who I firmly believe seek the destruction of this country and an end to its powerful role in the world.<<

Clay didn't like the earlier version of my comment...

The post by wemoan puts all opposition to his views into one of two camps.

1) Those who are mislead or foolish.

2) Those who actively seek (for reasons that are not clear) the destruction of the country.

This is a common pattern--we see it in national politics and in our local politics--the inability to see that the opposition has a legitimate point of view, genuinely held. The idea that there is only one truth and only you hold it. The others are essentially fools or evil.

Time to reflect?



The opinion I hold is based on the experiences of a fairly long life. This is nothing invented; I know, for example, a very intelligent man who has quite conservative attitudes and he votes Democrat party line. One day I pointed out to him that his views don't match what the party stands for in this era. What happened was that his parents had suffered through the Great Depression and LOVED Franklin Roosevelt; this is very normal when you have been suffering and you see that your salvation seemed to have been brought about by the Democrat party's candidate. This attitude was handed off to the son and he just voted the straight ticket. He is not stupid; it is just a case of conditioning and it is easier than trying to think and evaluate all the data. There are others with whom I have worked who were closet communists and they went as far as to admit it to me. They harbored feelings that were very much against this country and its systems and I know that if their votes can hurt capitalism, they vote that way. I have reflected plenty on this subject and I am only telling you what I have seen. Prove to me that I am wrong; if you were able to do that I would happily change my opinion. Go for it.

Darin, you still haven't answered how Americans can afford such crushing debt for universal health coverage while being overrun with poor, illiterate illegal aliens and their families. There's no logic.

When you hear the word "Universal" you get the idea that the Democrats would in fact invite the entire freaking Universe to our hospitals.

Analogy time: Ya know, when an airline flight attendant reviews safety procedures prior to takeoff, there's a reason why you're supposed to put on your own oxygen mask first: you can't help someone if you get yourself in the same bad condition. Why is Obama trying to make us as weak as the average or less country? We won't be able to help anybody if we're broke. The pie is finite, folks.

>>it is just a case of conditioning and it is easier than trying to think and evaluate all the data. There are others with whom I have worked who were closet communists and they went as far as to admit it to me. They harbored feelings that were very much against this country and its systems and I know that if their votes can hurt capitalism, they vote that way.<<

I'm not sure what to say, I guess. In my life I have found a few radicals, a few drones, and lots and lots of people trying to do the right thing, even when they disagree on what the right thing is...

I would worry that by labeling opponents as as "conditioned" or "communists" you relieve yourself of the hard work of subjecting your own views to hard self-scrutiny. How can you see things from their point of view--how can you try to understand their position--when you view them in such low disregard?


wemoan - you see the truth. Two men that I know and admire - who are good friends of each other - who are well educated and are quite sucessful - who are two of the most intelligent men I have ever known - go to the polls every November and cancel out each other's vote. One a Berkely grad - the other a Stanford grad - both had professors in Government 101 who preached that the candidates are less important than the parties. They both bought it. They both, from time to time, vote for candidates they wouldn't have in their homes - because, in their minds, it is the party that is important. In fact, no government can ever be any better than the governers. They will never understand that obvious truth. They will both go through life from their first vote at the age of 21 to their death effectively disenfranchised. They always go to cast ballots in November, but they don't vote in any meaningful sense. They merely press the buttons they are programed to push.


Although this is not my topic, I object to your attempt to waylay the discussion from page 15 of Obama's health care bill into a subtle indictment that those of us who insist on our inalienable Rights, are wantonly and arbitrarily labeling others who disagree. Can't have that now, can we?

I believe I can safely say that you are firmly in Obama's camp and an ardent supporter of his blatant disregard of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. I have demonstrated quite thoroughly my repugnance and rejection for this behavior. This behavior is a perfect illustration of Marx's philosophy, however, I am reluctant to label him a Marxist because I believe he really does not have a governing philosophy other than whatever it takes to seize and wield power, yessirree, the most dangerous leader of all, the egoist.

With that said, I must put you in the camp of Marx, whatever flavor does not offend, whether it be statist, communist, socialist, fascist, or the catch-all progressive; until proven otherwise.

So when you imply that no matter the damage wrought to the Constitution by ObamaCare with your declaration: "If it is finally within reach why let the chance slip away?"; my interest for "understanding" is nil and none. I value my Liberty much more than security and/or safety, I can take care of me and my own, thank you very much.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD said

“I believe I can safely say that you are firmly in Obama's camp and an ardent supporter of his blatant disregard of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. I have demonstrated quite thoroughly my repugnance and rejection for this behavior. This behavior is a perfect illustration of Marx's philosophy.”

Not only can’t you get the Bill of Rights correct, but you have no concept of the more fundamental innate understanding about empathy that most humans are born with. You do not live in the “present” but rather in the false realm of immersing yourself in the study of nonsense by people you feel inferior to in the hopes of puffing up your own image.

Try thinking and feeling for your self, see other humans as a mirror of yourself and not something to fear and loath.

Miss Goldilocks:

Another fine attempt to make this about me, not working, try again. However, a fine tirade of empathy you demonstrate Missy.

Once you get past your conclusory statements, I welcome a demonstration for my "incorrect" intrepretation of the Bill of Rights, or for that matter, a defense of your philosophy, Marxism.

And for the record, I have no "empathy" for those who seek the power of government to tell me what is best for me and to dictate the parameters of my relationship with my doctor.

Save the venom for yourself and your kind, I am not the one looking to tell you what is best for you, from afar and hiding behind the power of the federal government no less.........may want to look in the "mirror" yourself for the log lodged in your eye.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

My empathy evaporates the moment my toes are stepped on.

Sounds like the motorcycle riders who go without a helmet and are the first ones in the govt funded hospitals when they have an accident and no insurance.

"Sounds like," who or what are you talking about? It sounds like knee-jerk pointless slam but go ahead and explain.

JD - Raman is closed by 6:00 - maybe Coffee Company (alongside the white bridge on Main St., in that mall next to the Thai restaurant)? I will be in the area to the right of the door by 6:00.


I'll be there (song from the past?) with yearbook in hand for a debrief, gots to be sure you're not a poser, or even better, a mole from Homeland..........heh, heh

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

You will probably recognize me. As to Homeland...they are on our side because we love our country and are doing all we can to preserve and protect it from its enemies and detractors from within as well as without.

Good evening:

Obama's Health Care Reform has now been re-named by him. It is now an Insurance Reform Bill. And don't forget, "it is not socialism".

HR3200, hereafter ObamaCare, gets worse the more one reads.

In the first 200 pages you will find:

The government choosing your doctor and mandating treatment procedures, yet sheds all responsibility for this micromanaging by leaving the malpractice liability on the shoulders of the doctor.

The IRS is the billing & collection agency whose new authority mandates a National ID Card for all your health care needs. Enforcement of fines/penalties on hospitals, doctors, and individuals who opt out, will also be part of the IRS's new authority.

ALL your health care records will be in a national database. Still not alarmed or outraged?

Doctors will be restricted to what properties they can own, and on and on............And there is still 800 or so more pages of this sovereignty decimation.

Obama and his Democrats are not out to save the environment with "Cap & Trade", nor are they after reforming health care with ObamaCare. What we have here is a power mad majority in Congress and an executive bent on "Re-making America" into some form of a socialist utopia or worse..........Not on my watch

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

I'm really touched that in the middle of rolling around the idea of improved health care in the U.S., the little dung beetles stopped waving their puny flags long enough to make a coffee shop date. Will love blossom? Stay tuned.

Neigh(as in whinny, Get It?)borhood Nipper:

Whilst your flexing your sophistry, show us Talkabouters the specifics in HR3200 that address medical malpractice tort reform, or the reform of Medicaid which is bankrupting the states.

As you know that I know, you will not comply with said query because all you will find in this legislation is the creation of a huge new bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to "level the playing field". Hence, the need for President Obama to ram this through Congress on the "fast-track".

Better hurry up and call Congress to express your desire of subservience to the annoited one............Tick Tock!

In Liberty, JD - the "healthily improved" Federalist

I"m talking about the types who don't want any type of regulation of the health care industry, presumably because they think they have a good health care plan for themselves, but are left flat footed when their plan blows up in their faces, due to job loss, company going bankrupt or just plain changing the rules on them so that they are no longer insurable. Then what? Then they find they are on the very same govt plan that they railed against.

Speaking of "dung beetles"...the infamous Nipper has once again appeared. It seems that we hit on this topic before, Nip, and we saw a certain similarity YOU had with the Scarab. You should go back to your tomb in Egypt; at least there you were revered. Scatophagy isn't very popular in this society; it is seen as something similar to being a Marxist...and you are there on both counts. Mazeltov!


Query: If the government grants you a "Right" of health care, a non-inalienable Right, does it not bother y'all that they will also take that Right away on a whim?

Query: Are you seniorly Talkabouters prepared to accept the life and death pronouncements issued by the bureaucrats of ObamaCare?

Query: Do your new Rights fall under positive or negative law?

Query: Why will Congress not give up their health care plan, and why is Congress's health care plan run by private sector entities which is paid for with your tax dollars (the money YOU earned).

5 days before the election, Barak Obama promised y'all that he would "totally transform America". Is this socialist utopia your want or his?

Michelle Obama also promised y'all that "Barak will never allow you to go back to the life you know".

Can we say, hubris? That would be an affirmative, Sergeant Major.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, when you start dealing in reality, then we "TalkAbouters" will answer your querries.

Until then, continue in your delusions.

Not OK:

Not looking for answers there laddie, can we say rhetorical?.......That would be an affirmative, Sergeant Major.......And when you take your party blinders off, the Democrat's "delusions" of power are there in black & white in HR3200. Give it a look see and rebut any or all of my claims.........Hint, this thread is not about me, take a gander at page 15 of HR3200........hard to square that one with Liberty now, tis it not?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

After all the havoc we endured under the eight Bush years, how could anyone do a whole lot worse? The job losses, the wars, the mortgage meltdown, the recession all began under his watch, all because people put their faith in him as a businessman who knew how to run a business, when every thing he had touched before he ran into the ground, even his baseball team and oil drilling company.

Obama has yet to prove himself and his plans, but he has only been at it for six months, and I'm willing to give him a chance. I really don't think he is in it for the money as Bush was for himself and his millionairre friends, who he always put first with their tax breaks, as a payback for bankrolling his run for the presidency both times. etc.

And where was JD's misinformed, unitelligible, disjointed ranting then?

The home mortgage meltdown was the beginning of the major economic crisis in this country...how did this start? Under the regime of Bill Clinton, the banks were ordered by the Fed to issue loans to people who would not normally qualify. The purpose of this was to give people from minority groups and/or people of lesser means to have the American dream of owning their own home. One cannot blame the buyers for this but many times they really didn't understand what they were getting into. Many times they didn't speak English so very well and didn't understand the terms. Many times they would accept a variable interest loan and fully expect to sell the property before the rates went up, making a profit on the sale of the house and taking their equity to buy something else. Then, when the market turned down and they could not sell the property, they were stuck with the higher rates that they couldn't afford to pay. This was not Bush's fault, it was done under Clinton albeit with very good intentions. So many of you, were the sky to begin to fall, would try to blame Bush. Get over it.

Standard right-wing talking point, which isn't the actual or cause of the financial crisis.

Try again, weeboy.


No worries......the ad hominems, parroting, everything is Bush's fault.......will not waylay this Patriot from exposing the ugly truth of their annoited one and his health care scam........yeah right, give peace a chance........free Tibet!

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

So if it was Clinton's fault, why didn't Bush do anything in his eight years in office to stop it? Wasn't he the great deregulator, the one who thought the markets should be left alone to right themselves? Didn't he have his party's majority in Congress for most of his administration to do his bidding? Next you'll blame the Iraq invasion on Clinton too.

Lamentably, "comrades", I can do nothing more than tell you the truth. Now, what you want to try to do with the truth is your problem.

Check the historical record and you will see the accuracy of my statements. Is this another "inconvenient truth"? It happens to be "whether you like it or not". You see, I speak "your" language.

"The home mortgage meltdown was the beginning of the major economic crisis in this country...how did this start? Under the regime of Bill Clinton, the banks were ordered by the Fed to issue loans to people who would not normally qualify."

Another with ADD-like messages. As with the Beachwood fiasco, the origins of the mortgage financing mess go back to far before the agenda-driven knee-jerk badmouthers acknowledge and are infinitely more complex than they are capable of admitting--if they could remember what it is that they should admit.

Dear Nipper - Oh great Seer and Wizard of the West....impress us with your knowledge. You have been typically verbose but the content is NOTHING, as is your norm. Please, illuminate our darkened brains with the light of your immense wisdom. Explain how what I have said is incorrect; we are waiting with bated breath. Speak up now or remain forever silent or, better yet, betake thyself to a nunnery where you would deservedly be placed under the ban of silence and the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience...all of which would be a blessed service to this world.

My fellow Talkabouters:

When confronted with the realities of the language (page 15) in HR3200 (ObamaCare), the supporters of President Obama resort to name calling and blaming President Bush for the hubris of their leader.

Just last night we had the President of these United States telling another whopper and blaming President Bush for his self-made woes in addition to his race-baiting anti-police rhetoric. Presidential?........That would be a negative, Sergeant Major.

For the record: President Bush left President Obama with a $450-480 billion dollar deficit (depends who tallies) of which President Obama voted affirmatively for as a Senator.........hmmm, how's that work? Would this be having it both ways?

That would be an affirmative, Sergeant Major.

Me, oh my, these Democrats are bitter in defeat and victory.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD - their victory is a defeat for we Americans who are productive, hard working, independent and successful. They don't like people like that because they "have too much" and they have to "level the playing field".

The terms "us" and "them" are so counterproductive and childish. It is about "US", the American people and what is good for the majority of Americans. There is something called the "commons" or the "common good". I respect those who attempt to address the issues and challenges facing this country with the interests of the American people in mind. Many, however, view the world through the lens of what is good for "me". This selfish and short sighted view is something that has always stood in the way of progress. Progress is always made in the end and those that stand in the was of progress are always viewed, in the end, as being on the wrong side of history.

It is progress to try to destroy the wealthy in the "interest" of helping the poor? The majority of Americans are hard-working, productive and independent people; most of the changes Washington is trying to impose on us do not benefit "US" and are not for the "common good". What has happened is we have developed a whole "class" of people who are used to getting the government handout and the rest of society is held hostage by the fear of what they would do if that handout were to be taken away.

You really do live in a constant state of hyped-up irrational fear, don't you?

Must be tough to live in such a scary world filled with some ever changing boogey man who is perpetually coming after you.

I truly feel for you.

No, my dear friend, I think you worry more about what we think than we would ever fear you. Effete liberals are not, in themselves, anything to fear at all.

Then why the apocalyptic rhetoric?

It is not you, per se; it is some of the ideology that you espouse and that the people were seeming to support and that would have been the demise of this country as we have known it. The good news is that it appears that people are coming out of the coma of Obamamania and have opened their eyes to the reality of what some of these programs would do. Understand, I rather like Obama, personally. He has tremendous charisma and a nice, young family; he can talk and his manner is appealing. Obama is only trying to do what he said he was going to do...he has not lied or misled anybody. What happened is that people got so caught up in the persona of Obama and didn't really focus on what his plan was; now they are and it is not going to fly...except with a few.


You've been busy.

Now we have a resident progressive (Always Different), with a new tactic of distraction in an attempt to waylay the discussion from the specific language in HR3200 (ObamaCare) that attacks Liberty and nationalizes the regulation of everyone's body enforced by the coercive power of the federal government. What's that you ask?

A defense of Liberty is now a "selfish" mindset, yet his zealotry to have the federal government tell us what is best for us and dictate the parameters of our relationship with our doctors, is what? Benevolence, arrogance, or hubris?.......The Sergeant Major would have all three be apropos.

Let's review the tactics of these subversives in their avoidance of the specifics of ObamaCare, shall we?

Blame George Bush, selfishness, the feminized notion of class envy, puerile name calling, and of course the mantra of the proletariat, for the "common good".........Care to add to the list?....heh, heh

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

"The home mortgage meltdown was the beginning of the major economic crisis in this country...how did this start? Under the regime of Bill Clinton, the banks were ordered by the Fed to issue loans to people who would not normally qualify." ----- TRUE ----- Although the word "ordered" is too strong. Pressured is better.

"So if it was Clinton's fault, why didn't Bush do anything in his eight years in office to stop it?" ----- FAIR QUESTION ----- The truth is, President Bush bought into the horrible plan. I don't understand why people can't see that politicians are politicians. Too many believe, for some reason, that OUR politicians are good ones - its those OTHER guys that are messed up.

"the origins of the mortgage financing mess --- are infinitely more complex -----" NO! It is really quite simple - see Par. 1 above.

Nothing has been said here of the inclusion in the proposed health care legislation of a MANDATE - REQUIRING - end of life counseling periodically, and more often when someone (???) decides that YOUR life is actually winding down. End of life counseling might be a good thing for some in some circumstances. There is a kind of person who eschews independence and likes to act on the advice of others. But, it is not for everybody. When it is required by law - when Americans are required by law to present themselves for indoctrination - Americans will no longer be free people.

So start saving your money now if you think it is worth while to preserve yourself in a vegetative state, but don't expect to do it on the taxpayers' dime.

To observer: Agreed.

The Democrats and President Obama are still at it. In their desperation to ram HR3200 down our throats before the public learns the extent of their loss of sovereignty, they allege that they are eliminating a couple of the more onerous mandates.

Obama can't quite eloquize away the worsening financial details the CBO has made known so it was time to drag the director of the CBO up to the White House for a "Daly-style" accounting. Chicago thuggery at its finest. Separation of powers seems to be a pesky Constitional requirement that must be put aside for Obama's need for "fast-track". But its not about him.

The posers of objectivity, the major media outlets, have upped their reporting of bad health news in their water carrying for the Democrats. Yep, an obesity problem is nearing epidemic levels and those dangerous food ads targeting children must be stopped.

One must consider why the CDC & Surgeon General changed the parameters of the body fat ratio awhile back to favor an outcome of more obesity; as we digest this news that there is an epidemic of fat people.

One must also consider why the major media outlets are keeping alive the race-baiting of professor Gates and Obama's subsequent fanning of this flame and his insistence that the officer in question was acting as unreasonable as professor Gates. Waylay and overwhelm, an Alinsky tactic perfected by the man from Chicago.

It's not about health care folks, it's all about the nationalization of your body and the creation of a huge new bureaucracy with the IRS and its new authority as its enforcer. Jackboots in white coats wearing stethoscopes.

If you read the bill for yourself, you will not be able to rebut any or all of my statements, nor Misanthrope's.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

The American people want and need affordable health care with accessability for all.

The Democrats are trying to address that need.

The Republicans are willing to do nothing.

Democrats will pass reform, and if it is effective, that will be the death of the Republicans.


Perhaps the Republicans rejection of HR3200 is with the specific language within that does nothing other than create more bureaucrats with the power over one's body.

When your done with your "trying" conclusory statements, perhaps you could offer some specifics from the bill to bolster your argument?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

"It's not about health care folks, it's all about the nationalization of your body and the creation of a huge new bureaucracy with the IRS and its new authority as its enforcer. Jackboots in white coats wearing stethoscopes."

Paranoia strikes deep in the terrible realm of JD's imagination. One wonders if it crept in, or did it just land there with a "plop" after listening to a hate radio broadcast?

If JD ever does say something credible and with perspective, it will be lost in the bog of disrepute in which he wallows.


Your much ado 'bout nothin' is most apparent with your lack of line item specifics to counter my claims, but once again, your glee of despotic government is also most apparent.

In Liberty, JD - the "Incredibly Perspective" Federalist

I have been hearing a lot of pundits and politicians bemoan “socialized medicine” and its supposed inefficiencies and inequities. These horror stories are never accompanied by data, just hearsay and anecdotes from “a friend of a friend” in Canada or the United Kingdom. Rarely have I heard from people who have themselves experienced a universal public health care system. As one of those people, I thought I should speak up.

While living in Finland for three years, I experienced socialized medicine up close and personal. I gave birth to my son there.

Finland’s public health care system is run by a government agency called KELA, and the doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health care workers are government employees. KELA usually covers 100% of the cost of most services at public clinics, with small copayments for prescriptions and hospital stays that are scaled to a patient’s income. Finland also has many private clinics that are available to those who want to use them, where patients pay the extra cost of the private service (KELA will pay up to what the service would cost at a public clinic). When you visit a clinic or hospital you present your KELA card at the reception desk, and if a payment is necessary you can pay at the clinic, or a bill can be sent to your home.

All Finnish citizens and permanent residents are eligible for KELA benefits, as are immigrants on work and political asylum visas. I was eligible for the KELA system because I was in Finland on a work visa, and I paid income and social services taxes from my paychecks. Yes the taxes were high, about 40% of my gross pay. However, it is comparable to my take-home pay here in the US once I factor in my health insurance premiums, deductibles, and copayments, along with my income and social security taxes.

The care that I received in Finland throughout my pregnancy and childbirth, and for the first 9 months of my son’s life, was simply amazing. I saw the same nurse and doctor for monthly pregnancy checks (and later they were my son’s primary medical caregivers); their offices were in the same hallway. Both women knew us by name and by sight, and always remembered what we had discussed for the previous visit. Routine ultrasounds were performed at the maternity hospital; my nurse made each appointment for me and I simply showed up at the hospital for the procedure. When my labor started I headed to the maternity hospital, and the hospital’s nurses and doctors knew exactly who I was, as my medical files were available to them through KELA’s computerized filing system. (Patients must sign a form that allows their medical files to be accessible by other medical facilities, so a patient’s privacy rights are protected.) Every nurse coming on duty reviewed my file before seeing me, and so my discussions with them were focused on what my son and I needed at the moment, not what had been done during the previous shifts. After my emergency Cesarean operation and a four day stay in the hospital, only one bill was waiting for us when we got home, for a total of 260 Euros.

I never had to wait to see a medical professional, nor was any necessary procedure delayed or denied. Every nurse and doctor I saw was caring and knowledgeable, and spent whatever time was necessary to make sure that I received the care I needed.

I have now been living and working back in the US for 6 months, and already I have had problems with my health insurance plan through my employer. I found out the hard way (that is, at the doctor’s office after my son’s vaccination visit) that my son had been arbitrarily dropped from my plan months before, even though I had been paying the premiums for the family plan all along. It took almost a week of phone calls to get him reinstated. All the while, I privately wondered if the two ear infections he had had in the spring had prompted some computer at the health insurance company to calculate that he was “overusing” the system, and automatically drop his coverage.

That may seem like paranoid thinking, but I have seen it all before. In 2001, my mother was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. Instead of focusing her strength and attention on recovering from a double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation, she spent much of her time arguing with the health insurance company and the hospital over bills she had already paid, and routine treatments that should have been covered by her insurance plan. Ultimately she lost her insurance altogether when she lost her job, and she has since been living in remission, uninsured.

When these pundits and politicians go onto national television and spew all sorts of false rhetoric about the evils of socialized medicine, it makes my blood boil. They are doing an incredible disservice to their fellow Americans, both those with and without health insurance. For every anecdote they have about a Canadian waiting six months for necessary open heart surgery, I can find twenty Americans for whom that equally necessary surgery is completely out of reach. Now is the time for an honest assessment about what (if anything) can be salvaged from our current system, and to put a system in place that does what it is supposed to do: provide health care.

Ms. Mayer:

A few questions if you will.

Are you a US citizen? Are we going to discuss Canadian care, English care, or Finnish care? Are you self-employed, or an employee in the private sector, or an employee in the public sector? Can you cite the specific language in HR3200 that takes care of your alleged 20 Americans who need heart surgery yet it "is completely out of reach"?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Give it up, JD. Your pontifications crumble like a tin foil hat in the face of real experiences and real facts.

Great post, Audrey.


Dear Darin:

Tis most revealing that when an examination of the specific language in HR3200 is presented, your reticence is deafening. Yet when a hearsay argument is presented, you cannot get on the nationalized bandwagon of body regulation fast enough.

May I refresh your memory this this Orwellian section of HR3200?:

Title IV: "Quality and Surveillance"

Part D - of Title IV - "Implementation of Best Practices in the Delivery of Health Care"

Which will be overseen by the Director of the Agency for Health Research who shall:


(1)Prioritization of Quality Improvement Activities

"The Director shall identify, prioritize, and develop quality improvement activities, including clinical, managerial, and health care delivery best care practices....."

Nationalizing my medical records, dictating the parameters of my relationship with my doctor, dictating the procedures and standards that my doctor may use, how much he has to charge me...........This will not happen on my watch..........If you want the socialized utopias of France, England, Canada; take a plane or boat ride, but don't come cryin' when you realize what you left behind....... your sovereignty and Liberty.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Be afraid, be veeeeeerrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy afriad.

A few things to consider in your rush to "socialized medicine" that according to the President of the United States, "is not socialism".

80% of England doctors are foreign born.

Electronic health records do not result in less cost.

France does not insure 9% of its population, nor does it grant guest workers like Ms. Mayers the same care as its citizens.

Sally C. Pipes and the Census Bureau show that when one removes those from the tallies of the uninsured who chose not to be uninsured, our percentage of the alleged chronically un-insured matches that of France or lower - right now without ObamaCare and with ObamaCare, this percentage will remain the same for 10 plus years.

Here you go Darin.......jump on that Wikipet and get busy.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

France does offer coverage to any "salaried worker".

Web Link

JD is ripe with misinformation.

JD tells it as it is; there is a difference between watchful and being afraid. To not be watchful is to be careless and that causes one to find oneself in the middle of difficulties you don't really want and that may be very hard to fix. Many of you just have your own agenda, which is Obama's (or, better said, Pelosi's) agenda. It won't make things better for the majority of us. We have a good medical system; why should be throw it away for a bunch of illegals who shouldn't be here anyway? Why should we throw it away for people who choose to be uninsured? Why should we shove ourselves into deeper economic disaster to do something that isn't necessary? Perhaps there should be some separate, less expensive solution for these people who don't have medical coverage, a solution that doesn't disrupt the lives of those of us who are happy with what we have.

Let's debunk JD's misinformed propaganda, shall we:

1. Fiction: 80% of England doctors are foreign born.

Fact: Around 16% of the 1•4 million people who work in the NHS are from a minority ethnic background, including 30% of doctors and nurses, 16% of midwifery and health-visiting staff, and 5-7% of staff in ambulance services.

The Editorial says: "Such diversity has been, and continues to be, essential for providing services not only for the majority white population but also for ethnic minorities, who make up 15% of the population in England. Black and minority ethnic groups will also play a large part in the future of the NHS-around 30% of today's medical students have such a background." Web Link

2. Fiction: Electronic health records do not result in less cost.

Fact: Efficiency savings of Health Information Technology. Efficiency savings result when the same work is performed with fewer resources. If most hospitals and doctors’ offices adopted HIT, the potential efficiency savings for both inpatient and outpatient care could average over $77 billion per year. The largest savings come from reduced hospital stays (a result of increased safety and better scheduling and coordination), reduced nurses’ administrative time, and more efficient drug utilization. Web Link

3. Fiction: France does not insure 9% of its population, nor does it grant guest workers like Ms. Mayers the same care as its citizens.

Fact: "There are no uninsured in France," says Victor Rodwin, a professor of health policy at New York University, who is affiliated with the International Longevity Center. "That's completely unheard of. There is no case of anybody going broke over their health costs. In fact, the system is so designed that for the 3 or 4 or 5 percent of the patients who are the very sickest, those patients are exempt from their co-payments to begin with. There are no deductibles." Web Link

Who is Sally C Pipes? A right-wing idealogue of JD's ilk. A propaganda pusher. No credibility, whatsoever.

JD is a garbage man, spewing forth garbage all day long.

Good evening fans & foes alike:

Heh, heh.......the jackals thought they caught the lion unawares......think again.

Afore we get to the silliness of the vitriol before us, I must say that Ms. Mayers reluctance to debate is suspect and that the avoidance of all debate on the specifics of HR3200 is the mark of the statist.

As we deconstruct the Google/Wikipet research, I'll have y'all know that the claims by me above are backed up by a doctor in England, the Kaiser Foundation Research Division (KFRD), and a board member of the American Hospital Association (AHA).

The "salaried worker" link misses the boat. Although it constains an informative synopsis of France's health care system, it fails to outline the tiered system for legal guest workers and illegal guest workers. This is where you will find the chronically un-insured that even Mr. Rodwin fails to recognize of the NPR link in addition to failing to recognize the difference of care in poorer districts. For empirical data inconvenient to Rodwin & NPR, see above organizations.

The Rand Corp. link is impressive, however, the fancy credentials and techniques are no more than a dressed up estimation. The empirical data of the AHA & KFRD refute their claims showing that the cost savings are neglible due to the cost of labor and technology. Find another argument for your zeal to centralize everyone's health records.

Furthermore, the NPR link relies on the WHO (was not this the outfit that said the Swine Flu was an epidemic but not really?) for its denigration of US health and US health care costs, an organization known for its bias against the US as the Pacific Research Institution demonstrates.

When one takes out the murder rate and traffic deaths in the US, one finds that US longevity is number one. The US is also number 1 in preventive care (part of our higher cost), for an example compare mammogram & pap smear tests. Our alleged high infant mortality rate pushes is due to including all infants vs. not considering those born below a certain weight.

As we close for the evening, those of you not inclined to have your health records centralized and not inclined to have a bureaucrat in Washington DC manage your doctor and regulate your body, consider the following:

What is a "determiner"? A price tag on your life. This "determiner" will be determined by a drone of the government, that is then used by another drone to determine the choices you have for your malady which will be primarily based on cost effectiveness. The older you are, the lower the "determiner". My parents are priceless, are yours?

The dirty little secret of socialized medicine, waiting lists.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Mustn't forget the slander of Sally Pipes and her use of Census Bureau data decimating the 47 million un-insured being bandied about by the zealots before us.

Would the Census Bureau be a "right-wing" ideologue of JD's ilk" now that President Obama has moved its office into the White House and furthering his collection of czars?

In Liberty, JD - the "Pro-Gandhi-ist" Federalist

Another Oop-de-do:

Shall we have the Googlers review the cost of government care vs. private sector care per patient? Alrighty then:

$9,000 for government care versus $7,100 for private sector care. Empirical data from 1970 through today.

Where's the cost problem again? And as an aside, how's the Scottish health care doin'?

And as another aside, review that "salaried worker" link again to review all the mandates and requirements of France's government and then multiply them by the factor of ten for the statutes required for the codification of HR3200.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Good Morning:

Just like the NYTimes, JD must post a correction, unlike them, I'll put it on the front page.

The 9% figure I used for France is wrong. In my haste to inflame, I transposed the US Census figure for the chronically uninsured (9 million or so) into a percentile. The correct percentile is 3-4%.

I'll restate my position, France has 3-4% chronically uninsured just like we do now.

As an aside: 30 years ago there was a statistical probability of 30% that one would die of a heart attack. Today, 6%.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Once again, lots of claims but, in the end, where's the beef? "A board member" whispered in JD's ear and told him something. Sorry, that's not fact, that's opinion.

For example, it is claimed that the AHA's "empirical data" refutes the Rand Corporation's study of cost savings in Health Care. Yet this same AHA was part of a consortium of health organizations which, on June 1, 2009, submitted to the White House a plan for how to achieve cost savings in the US Health Care system.

How can an organization propose a plan to cut health care costs while their "empirical data" shows it can't be done? Maybe their "empirical data" shows them it can be done?

Maybe you would like to share the "empirical data" with the rest of us so we can share in your enlightenment?

JD claims there are 3-4% chronically uninsured in France.

Doctors without borders study estimates that there are 300,000 uninsured in France after reforms made in 2006. Web Link

Based of a population of 61,538,322, that makes the percentage of uninsured in France at less than half of one percent, or .48%.

US ranks 37th Web Link in the world while spending twice as much per capita on health care, and has close to 50 million uninsured, with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage EVERY DAY!!!

Single payer is the only option, which we aren't going to get.

The jackals are now relying on an editorial by a Canadian shilling for Canadian stye reform for France on the basis of an organization (MSF)with great intentions, yet no results......keep Googlin'.....whilst your Googlin', try the AHA & KFRD for some "whisperings".

Furthermore, when the WHO eliminates the bias against the US for their data tallies..........the jackals may have some "credibility".

And for those who like to use financial data eliminating employer costs and taxes to denigrate the cost of US health care, why are people flocking here to get treatment instead of getting treatment in these socialist utopias? Are there no waiting lists in Canada, Australia, England, or France?

Are US citizens fleeing this country for treatment in these socialist utopias?.......That would be a negatory, Sergeant Major.

Where is Ms. Mayers with the specifics from HR3200?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

20,000 people a year are dying from lack of access to health care in this country.

Web Link

The jackals are still at it presenting as fact, a special interest lobbying group of the federal government (I guess lobbyists for the government are good and lobbyists for the private sector are bad, if you be of a "progressive" nature) skewing the data of the Census Bureau to fit their end game - the nationalized regulation of your body and the creation of a huge federal bureaucracy.

May want to peruse Sally C. Pipes decimation of that 47 million un-insured figure prior to the next attempt of your Google researchin'.

Where's the Googlin' for them waiting lists? Where are are the web links for the specific language in HR3200 that don't nationalize the regulation of your body?

I believe were not going to see those, Sergeant Major.

In Liberty, JD - the "Pro-Gandhi-ist" of a Federalist

The link above from the NCHC is hardly a government agency.

Here is who they are:

The National Coalition on Health Care is the nation's largest and most broadly representative alliance working to improve America's health care. The Coalition, which was founded in 1990 and is non-profit and rigorously non-partisan, is comprised of more than 70 organizations, employing or representing about 150 million Americans. Members are united in the belief that we need  and can achieve  better, more affordable health care for all Americans.

The Coalition brings together large and small businesses, the nation's largest labor, consumer, religious and primary care provider groups, and the largest health and pension funds. Distinguished leaders from academia, business, and government have also pledged their support of the Coalition's efforts. The Coalition's Honorary Co-Chairmen are former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter, and its Co-Chairmen are former Governor Robert D. Ray (R-IA) and former Congressman Robert W. Edgar (D-PA). Its President is Henry E. Simmons, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.P.

Here is a link from the New England Journal of Medicine comparing wating times in the US vs Canada for knee-replacement surgery.

The results, 2 weeks wait in the US and 4 weeks in Canada. Satisfaction was the equal in both countries.

Web Link

Here is a nice study showing that health outcomes in Canada are better than the US.

Don't buy into the fear-mongering, becuase it has no basis in reality.

Web Link

Here is a nice study by the CDC comparing Canada vs the US. The most important part of the conclusion is below. Web Link

The greatest differences between the two countries are related to differentials by income in health. While there has been solid evidence for some time of the social gradient in health status in both Canada and the United States,14 this is the first time that we have been able to examine the question of whether there are systematic differences in health status by social position in the two countries. One of the important findings of this survey is that Americans in the poorest income quintile report fair or poor health, obesity and severe mobility impairment more frequently than their Canadian counterparts. At the other end of the income spectrum, there are no systematic differences in the reporting of fair or poor health or mobility impairment among the most affluent households on either side of the border.

A "whispering" from the AHA: Web Link

help me out here as I'm missing something... doesn't this a) show that the AHA is in full support of (specifically, Obama's) health care reform and b) committed to working to reduce the cost of health coverage.

How about a link to a "whispering" that shows otherwise?

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is. Web Link

And how about our Seniors flocking to Canada for cheaper drugs, where the same drugs are half the price? Web Link

So, "got cred", when this travesty you so zealously support is shoved down our throats and it is the disaster expected, are you going to let us know where you live? You would probably find out real fast how long it takes to get treatment.


The jackals will not address the specifics of HR3200 because the language does nothing other than separate people into groups (race, age, gender, orientation) so that the bureaucrats of the federal government can mandate what is best for each 'group', use the IRS to take money from those whose group is disfavorable, dictate the parameters of one's relationship with one's doctor, and destroy the private sectors of insurance & medical practice; all of this to "level the playing field" (pages 85-105 for the context of this level playing field).

It's all in there (HR3200) in black & white, hence, the need of President Obama to tour the country parading forth victims, denigrating doctors, denigrating insurance companies, and using the same scare tactics to frighten our elders into submission which have been used by Democrats for decades when any reform of Social Security was offered.

All for the sole purpose of creating a nation of dependents......

These Googlers are becoming tiresome, they read the summaries or headlines and think they are now the authority, yet all we see is their authoritarian impulses unbound in their haste to impose their will on others..........yeah right, the NCHC is not a "lobbyist".....keep Googlin', your hatred of Liberty and love of dependence grows with each link............the Sergeant Major concurs wholeheartedly.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

This is what we should be debating.

30 pages of simple language.

Web Link

Single Payer for All:

You, Sir, have a bill that I could work with. We would have to make the ID card voluntary only, we'd have to have an option for private care, and do some serious negotiating with Sec. 201 & 211. I could even get over my dislike of its sponsors.

With that said, do you recognize the damage to our Constitution and the rule of law that HR3200 represents and why I am railing so vociferously against its passage?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

I can see where your fears are coming from, yes.

Single Payer for All:

How 'bout that, a progressive and constitutionalist in agreement that fear is a healthy emotion properly applied.

Roadtrip? Now that we're buddies and all, DC here we come.....

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Trumped-up fears are a poor way to motivate anything.

Time to grow up and recognize that your hated HR3200 is just the House's opening volley and that it will be modified, there will be a separate Senate bill, there will then be all kinds of deals and agreements before and as the two bills are reconciled (or not) in a joint committee, and then both House and Senate will need to approve any bill coming out of the joint committee before it is sent to the prez for signature. This is all keeping the legion of health industry lobbyists, who outnumber the number of congresspeople several times over and represent millions of dollars in donations to our representatives and the President, working overtime to make sure their several industries make outlandish profits from whatever is worked out.

None of this has anything to do with socialism or any other social or political philosophy. It is all about use of the corridors of power by certain private interests to make money while appearing to be doing something about the disorganized and overly costly health products and services in the U.S.

If you want to expand to what is actually going on in our government, one of the many areas you will need to add to your skimpy, gullible, simple-minded, political thought processes is broached in sources like www.opensecrets.org. No, it isn't all you need to know, but it's a start for a true believer trying to become aware of the real world.


I want to thank you for the most eloquent puerile name calling piece of sophistry that I've received to date..........your skin is getting thinner and my armor is that much more impenetrable.

The "reality" of utopia that you strive for, yet lack the means and courage to achieve, and the vicarious pleasure you display when despotism and unchecked power are poised to become the norm; shows me, shows my fellow Talkabouters the ugliness of those married to the tenets of Marx.........Hard to hide your love of *bellum omnium in omnia*......may want to talk to the Sergeant Major for this failing.

P.S.- As to the summation between the insults......Duh!.......but then again, the circularity of your intellectualisms reveal the shallowness of character that "letters" cannot dress up.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD - great last phrase. The Nipper always attempts to use his linguistic erudition to conceal the decay of his true thoughts and their impact. There is a Spanish proverb that fits here: "Even though a monkey is dressed in silk, it is still a monkey".


Thanks. Seein' as everyone is want to parrot my creative constructions, thought I'd throw a parrot or two Nipper's way. The difference betwixt us? Nipper's soliloquies emulate Al Gore's prose, my parroting is grounded in the Truth.

I believe there are a few Spanish monkeys runnin' around Talkabout....good one, LOL.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Now JD, be careful: the Spanish Monkey's Union (SMU) might take offense at that comparison. Spanish monkeys are really quite intelligent, logical and truly look out for the best interests of their society; I don't think we can say the same about "some" individuals in question.

You guys got it right! The Nipper and those of his mind set have as their single goal to forward the program being foisted upon us by The Great Commissar and his Czars; they don't really give a damn about the rest of us.

It is like an assortment pack of nuts.

All shapes and sizes.

Looks like the adolescent, swallow-anything philosophy shared by JD and wemoan is moving beyond friendship to the true love stage. Which is a good thing because it keeps the trivial shuttlecock moving back and forth between them out in the back lot and away from interference with adult conversation dealing with real-world topics.


Why the need for denigradation when you have the well demonstrated intellectual wherewithal to 'splain the need for the federal government to only identify an individual as a member of a group as in HR3200?

Perhaps your studies of "Rules for Radicals", or Charles Beard can shed some light on our ignorance?

In Liberty, JD - the "Realistic" Federalist

Good Morning:

I'm still waitin' for Ms. Mayers to answer a few queries and would like to pose another.

If these United States are as rotten as she explicitly implies, why not stay in France and renounce your citizenship?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Nipper: In one posting you put above, you actually speak in a fairly respectful manner, attempting to explain your point of view but you terminate the entry with a bunch of your typical attempts to demean JD"s intelligence, political views and "fears" - in that you completely negated all of your previous verbiage. This doesn't demonstrate much wisdom and political savvy; can you see that? We don't really have to defeat you, you defeat yourself with attitudes and modes of expression that breed antipathy and only serve to strengthen your enemies.

She lived in Finland.

Here is a very simple question:

If the US has the best health care system in the world, and every other industrialised country has some form of single-payer, universal system, then why aren't all these countries abandoning their substandard systems to copy the much superior United States model?

>>She lived in Finland.<<

Finland, France. I'm not sure JD cares. One socialist utopia with 9% uninsured is just like any other socialist utopia with 9% uninsured.

I wonder is JD has ever lived or traveled outside of La Honda?


Single Payer for All:

The individuals living in the other industrialized nations don't have what we have as our birthright as Americans, inalienable Rights......what's left of them.

HR3200 & HR2454 will eliminate by congressional and executive fiat what's left of the Liberty we now enjoy and we will no longer live under the rule of law, but the rule of men at their whimsical worst. The positive law y'all are seeking cannot be found in the US Constitution & Bill of Rights.

You want to surrender your sovereignty, your a plane or boat ride away, so spare us the benevolent sympathetic sales job for your want of despotism and dependence.

I am not the one on this thread advocating the use of coercive federal power, as in the language of HR3200 & HR2454, to dictate to others what is best for them.

With that said, I'm still open to discuss the 30 page bill of your prior posting.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Actually, I would argue that those other countries are more democratic than we are here, with more right, not less.

And you skirted the question. Probably because you know that they wouldn't copy our system because it is substandard.

"Why the need for denigradation when you have the well demonstrated intellectual wherewithal to 'splain the need for the federal government to only identify an individual as a member of a group as in HR3200?"

Why the idiotic assumption I have the positions you arbitrarily assign to me and that I or anyone else need to respond to your vacuous, true-believing, fickle political and social whimsy?

Try learning a bit about the world in which you live, then engage on matters that are not off-the-wall "epic fails."

Single Payer:

Silly me for thinking that you were in want of a reasonable discussion.

Perhaps you did not understand the context of my reply, more simply, this is America, not Europe, nor Canada. Take a road trip, plane ride, or boat ride, then you can experience the dependence that you so crave. The WHO is the "sub-standard" entity here, not these United States.

Or is it the power over others you crave, yet lack the means yourself for this perverse satisfaction, thus, the zealotry being displayed for the federal regulation of everyone's body that HR3200 entails.

Skirt the question, let's ask the Sergeant Major........that would be negatory.

In Liberty, JD - the

Nippy the Nipster:

Not wanting to elaborate on the "epic failures" of your circular intellectualisms to convince others of something you are not?

Alrighty then, how 'bout bouncing an elaboration "off-the-wall" of sovereignty as to why HR3200 does not eliminate an individuals sovereignty (you know, that old-fashioned sentiment that England tried to take from us a couple of hundred years ago)?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, I'm missing your context as I am with Single Payer here, it doesn't appear to me that you are even attempting to address the question, but, instead, are trying to vaguely ignore it. How does "this is america, not europe nor canada" answer the question? For example, Canada is quite able to emulate the US in a number of ways, if our health care system is so much superior to theirs they could easily emulate that too.

The jackals are circling again.....heh, heh

Let's address the context of SingleJackals query, then we can address my context, shall we?

From the gate, y'all have tried every tactic in ACORN's playbook of overwhelm and obfuscation to "skirt" the sovereignty destroying language in HR3200, starting with page 15 of the House Ways & Means Discussion Draft. Y'alls' context has been quite clear from the gate, the sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of America must be broken.

Now y'all expect me to bite on the non-sequitor of the US emulating Canada or Europe, or the circularity of Canada good, the US bad and vice versa..........think again.

Y'all have been following me around Talkabout like the pack animals y'all are, so, if my context is not crystal clear, well then, y'all are at a disadvantage in your want to best me.

This bill, HR3200, is not about reform, it's all about the "Transformation of America" that President Obama boasted of during his campaign. Now he has surrounded himself with the most reprehensible ideologues ever to set foot in the White House. And just like FDR in his quest for "progressive" reform, a compliant Congress. A dangerous combo for Liberty.

Show me the language in this bill that refutes any or all of my claims, otherwise, stand down or take me up on my offer to debate the 30 page bill of SingleJackal's web link.

The Sergeant Major will moderate......

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Settle down, JD. Why are you being so skittish?

Just answer the question:

If the US has the best health care system in the world, and every other industrialised country has some form of single-payer, universal system, then why aren't all these countries abandoning their substandard systems to copy the much superior United States model?


No need to answer, context supplied....... Your playbook is shy a couple of tactics.......try again.......the browbeat method is old hat..........you could try some cuss words or personal attacks so that the Sergeant Major's boss, the Supreme Moderator, Clay, will shut down the thread......try that one for awhile.....

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Just the facts, Jack:

"In 2003, Americans spent an estimated US$5,635 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,003."

Life Expectancy: US (30 out of 195):78.06 Canada (14 out of 195): 80.34

Web Link

For those who are not good with statistics:

More money (186% more) buys less life expectancy (3% less).

In other words: universal health care vs. for-profit health care

So if I understand correctly, the "context" is that the quality of health care is irrelevant, all that matters is that we maintain our liberty.

My, my, the jackals are worked up.

Your moniker asks the question, yet there you go attempting a Twister with the master of Twisters.......

Y'alls' context of reticence for the particulars of HR3200 is most apparent, so, for all your denigrations of America and the non-sequitors of comparison, y'all can not hide your knowledge that this bill is not about health care reform. Y'all are craving the control over others that is within, hence, the rabid attacks on me and my defense of Liberty and this great republic.

As I said earlier, spare us the benevolent sympathetic sales job for your want of despotism and dependence..........y'all may want to put down ACORN's playbook and look into Alinsky's for some new tactics.

Y'all want health care reform, there is a 30 page offer on the table with which we could come to an agreement.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

JD, welcome to the flat-earth society. You strongly believe what few do: that the present US health care system is good and needs to be left alone. All other countries with universal health care are wrong. Pls. don't get sick because your insurance company (one of 14,000) will kick you out!

Lady D - is that what they did to you? It is rather apparent that you need some help. Speak with your rabbi< he can probably suggest a good therapist.

Ms. Arby-Q:

Worn out insults and browbeating are the wrong bait for your trolling. Come on back when you have the particulars of HR3200 that reform vs. transformation that you are so enamored of, otherwise, the Sergeant Major will have none of it.......thank you very much

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Good evening:

A review of what HR3200 is poised to mandate from a brand new federal bureaurcracy that will "transform" health care, destroy the remnants of the Tenth Amendment, and regulate all aspects of one's body and its use.

Centralizes all your health records; all persons must have a National ID Card; dictate the wages, administrative methods, treatment practices, and property ownership of your doctor; authorizes the IRS to collect and enforce all monetary considerations; eliminates all private sector insurance entities.

What is does not do is address the deficits and abuses of MediCare and MediCaid. In short, it creates another federal entitlement that will cost $2 Trillion dollars that we don't have. For those with short term memory loss, compare all government estimates with what their creations cost and you will find them lacking by a factor of ten.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Blow $3 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, no problem, not a peep.

Blow $1 trillion and counting on the needless war in Iraq, no problem, not a peep.

Blow $2.3 trillion a year in health care expenditures and still have 50 million uninsured, and rank 37th in the world for overall health and have 18,000 deaths a year from lack of access and over 1 million bankruptcies, no problem, vociferous defence of the status quo and business as usual.

The current efforts in Washington are far from what is truly needed, but your defence of the status quo is borderline immoral.


The operative before us (SingleJackal) is persistant in his/her reticence on the particulars of HR3200 and his/her use of the latest buzzword from DosKos, Democratic Underground, MoveOn.org, and ACORN....."status quo".........The Sergeant Major is not buying.

What does this show us? Perhaps, how much he/she is desirous of the vicarious pleasure derived from having the federal government control all aspects of everyone's life with the two-fer of the decimation of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights..........The Sergeant Major will have none of it.

And to think that his/her offer to discuss his/her 30 page health care plan was just a ruse for belittlement...........And y'all want people like this in control of your health & well-being?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Good Morning:

HR3200 also puts everyone in a group or variations thereof based on their race, age, gender, and orientation, of which will be the "determiner" for your health care. Another two-fer of eliminating the sovereignty of the individual and furthering the balkanization of America.

Identity politics at its finest.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Good evening:

The Democrats in Congress are showing their colors, again.......yellow (and we're not talkin' the colors of the Gadsen).

All across this great republic, Democrats are shutting down their Town Hall meetings. Was it Eshoo or Pelosi who refuses to address health care and in its stead, insists that the her employers (constituents) limit all queries to "high speed rail". Yep, let's refuse to talk of one government boondoggle and praise another government boondoggle.

And to their rescue, the major media outlets, in congruence with the White House, are offering a cause - the "right wing conspiracy" dreamed up by Hillary and allegedly whipped into a frenzy by Rush (Beck gets honorable mention)............Perhaps, this suggests that once again, the Democrats have not read the bill (HR3200) that they are hawking............Me, oh my, the petulance of the over-reachers is most revealing.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

And the crazies march on.


Perhaps the sensitivity exhibited by you with the name calling is a reflection of your sorrow for the lack of demonstrable power as shown by the Democrats (the power of thuggery is fleeting); would be the "crazy" sentiment here?...........That would an affirmative, Sergeant Major.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium