Lucky...

Quit listening to Hannity, it'll rot your brain. Or teh Cato institute, who thinks FDR tripled taxes when it was in fact Hoover who nearly did so.

except... if you opt out of the government "option" you still have to pay for it. helluvan option... Seems to work for schools and colleges. Plenty of people choose private. ... and if you opt out of private schools, you still have to pay property taxes to make up for what they don't pay ;) And if you don;t have kids your proerty taxes still pay for schools. So it's just a matter of gross, impersonal collectivism and redistribution regardless of whether you use that service. Other option is to go live in the mountains.

Right, I have asked questions before too, they go unanswered. Conservs don't like being pinned down to the truth - just look at Palin under fire with the debates, Couric, etc. That is your garden variety conserv running and refusing.

I will do something conservatives don't; answer questions. Not saying you, but the other side usually refuses questions and answers questions not asked; Plain style. Then we will have the satisfaction of knowing we are now considered a normal industrialized country instead of the bastardized version we now have. We now have rationing of care, so what would be the diff? Truth is, Mr Capitalist, there would be more people eligible for all kinds of care, so there would be more demand, hence the supply would adapt to the demand and expand as well. It would open up jobs and general well-being for most. Point is, WE HAVE RATIONING, SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT WITH THIS QUESTION? Shouldn't it read, "What if we have a different version of rationing?" Virtually every admin has a debt increase, the whoppers have come under presidents with an R next to their name other than of course WWII and other times like that. Then we'll have fewer CEo's maing 10-digit salaries as they trade American health for corporate profit. That is such a general hypothetical question that it's ridiculous to expent anyone to answer. What kind of failure? What area; cost, svs availability, etc? Failure comes in so many flavors with a system this large. Right now we're addressing the failure that HC has already provided: cost overruns, denial, exclusion, etc. So we ARE NOW addressing failures, just because your glasses are rosey and you have HC doesn't mean we all have rosey glassses. Are you asking if it will be repealed in full if it fails? They will probably tweak it as needed. It's so fun to converse with conservatives: HC will pass or fail. What if it has problems that are rectified? Or the previous ones ignoring the gross failure HC has been. So if the plan excludes more than are excluded already, all the millions currently excluded? Then tehy will tweak it but keep in mind, excluding more than 40 mill will be tough, I commend your system for being able to do it as long as they have - good work. And the partial exclusions, people who have catastrophe insurance but cannot go unless it's grave because they don't have coverage for smaller issues. Gee, they have with so many others, why not? BTW, I love your tone, it's as if, I dunno, you want Obama to fail.

This is the point. Nazis try to mitigate the number down to a couple tho, everyone else is happy with their coverage. Truth is I think the underinsured number is quite a bit higher. Yes but the richer ones are better people who deserve more than the poorer ones.

You're making that assumption by comparing only two states? I'd expect better from you. The essence is comparing red states to blue states. We can do this with HC, wages, workplace mortality, standard of living for lower class people, missery factor, and probably many things and find a general trend of things being worse for poor/MC people in red states. Not a real tough concept; quit the denial.

Yes and give those breaks to corporations.

Jun 2007... about the time the Keiki Care program was signed into law. The universal child healthcare program that went bankrupt and was cancelled 7 months into its implementation... Very convincing argument that we should follow liberal states. California and Hawaii... any other grand examples? Right, therefore if we can't fund it, then scrap it. See, we find a way to cover 600B yr + 150B yr for the military and Iraq War, yet we can't find a way to cover everyone medically even with basic coverage. I think that defines the US.

Avoiding obesity and diabetes (type II being very directly linked to the first) would help as well. Those are details for this person not included in the short version. Shouldn't all obese people with diabetes be treated equally? Are you suggesting that it's ethical to let the poor one die while the rich one gets treatment? Or are you saying that all obese people with diabetes shouldn't be treated regardless? After all, it's their own damned fault. Is that what you are saying? I'm saying it was deliberately misleading to talk about the guy getting cancer and not mentioning the risk factors that he contributed to. And as in many cases, he had insurance in the past. If Obama truly wants to reform health care, it should involve an aggressive attack on our lifestyle issues. It's idiotic to think that ignoring most costs while adding new layers of bureaucracy is going to improve matters. As the righties have pointed out, if it's just about insuring the uninsured, add them to the gov plan. Easy to do. So then in your utopian world cessation of smoking, drugs, overeating and other issues would not be covered. You would have to be in certain parameters in order to get health coverage. Sometimes these issues are teh problem and they need attention. I've been the picture of helth my entire life, never smoked, rarely drank, vegetarian, usually worked out, very active, etc. I have some health issues at my age, I guess your prescription that only fatties get sick is just BS.

Avoiding obesity and diabetes (type II being very directly linked to the first) would help as well. Those are details for this person not included in the short version. That's true, only heavy people get sick. Call the AMA everyone, we have the keys to teh universe; don't get fat and live helthy forever. Don't get fat = we don't give a shit about suck people......we get it.

I didnt know you had to be rich to get health insurance...... I feel rich already If you have preexistings you better have some cash.

Riiiiiiiiight, changed meaning different, but not better. Hey, I know, we'll open up med ins accross state lines so the coverage I couldn't afford here will become the coverage I can't afford in all 50. Then we'll pretend all is perfect. Do you think anyone buys the BS rhetoric? Do you think they ever did?

It just makes me laugh that conservatives play off these atrocities with rhetoric instead of facing the truth; they're incompassionate assholes. It would be like Letterman saying: ya I fucked up, it's all true vs. Tiger playing tug the sausage and trying to deceive the media and letting us all draw our ownconclusions. IOW's, the RW are dicks than we all know rather than just admitting to being dickheads. How do you mask incmpassion to that level? And under the guise of smaller government, the party that basically owns 80%+ of teh 12 debt. WHat a joke.

So the answer is more bureaucracy? The answer is the one you like; let scum like this die because IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT HE'S SICK.

Shhhhhhhhh, most Americans are so ethnocentric that they know not only the world, but the entire Milky Way revolves around us; you'll blow away his entire ideological base.

Yes, the Dems worked and waited for years to roll-over to the R's. Do you not understand politics well? And if you are a Dem you still may not get everything passed. Because fascist Ronnie lowered them so much, from 70% to 28% over 6 years that it threw us into at least 1 major recession and caused the debt to climb from 900B to 5.5T before his 2 successors could raise taxes and curb it. Then the guy you voted for and his R congress cut them again and doubled them after FR's tripling of them; that's why. Are you having a Reagan or Bush flashback? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms I know, no respo0nse, I'm so used to the other side (you) just skimming over the tough questions. While you're at it, tell us what you would do, in detail, if you were pres on Jan 20, 09. Taxes, spending, the auto indust, the banks, etc. And tell us what the outcome would be and how we would get there. Again, crickets..... Again, easily 80% of the total debt is attributable to Republican presidents/congress'. Not sure what you're trying to establish by pretending it's otherwise. Not to mention they have a horrible habbit of dropping a POS economy on D's.

Well, Hitler HAD declared war on the USA (Dec 11, 1941) and Germany had previously attacked several US ships, so it's not like there were a whole lot of options. Right, and we held off for years, when now we jump in before there's a problem, creating a problem.

That defines Republicanism. THat defines many Scandinavian countries. Yes, but we stayed out for some time, not justed before there was a problem, creating a problem by those actions. Love how Reagan-style dellusion lives on thru some; China is the new USSR even tho they are our primary banker. Not sure how they've been such an axis of evil. So we're genrous outside our border, whether people want it or not, which is called Imperialism. And we're selfish inside our borders, which is called oppression. No, that is not teh America I want, I want one that respects the world and their boundaries, one that cares for its own internally.

Basically, ironic that the people who swear to defend the COnstitution don't have basic US Const rts themselves.

Exactly - would a reasonable person fell that they are detained at a given point? If yes, then Miranda must be read or statements don't come in unless D testifies. Miranda violations don't give permission for the D to lie, they just ommit statements unless D testifies to the contrary of said illegally obtained statements. Coerced statements cannot come in, even if D lies in testimony. And then there's - inevitable discovery - public safety - good faith to consider as well in relation to statements and the fruit they bear. It really is complex.

Thanks for the headup, I don;t think I could stand looking at her mug long enough to keep picking up the book - I won't be reading it.

You're right - they ARE 20 percenters. 1) Love to see yoiur cite. I saw Gallup, but as usual, it would be too honest for you to provide a website addy. 2) So how is it that everyone is turning cons., yet Obama won what, 350 EV's?

Not my Candidate, She is a quiter...I will Vote Against Obama no matter what, but I seriously doubt Sarha has any chance at all to be that person! She's basically a weak knockoff of Nixon in ways, but she isn't a good diplomat. This thread just ilustrates how much of an idiot she is; she can't even hire good ghost writers.

Pffft. What could possibly happen? Oh I don't know.... a couple of failed nation buiilding exercises..... a ruined economy... the rich getting very much richer as well as a bunch of friends of the administration making LOTS of war profits isn't that what is happening now? Obama paying his supporters with stimulus money. Hypothetically, even if true, the end resultis teh GDP flippng by +10 points is 2 quarters, probably unprecedented. Now let's talk war and oil profiteers and the sector it helps and ultimate result to the economy, GDP, unemp.

Right, desperation is the job of the underdog, not the frontrunners.