Jim

Couldn't help the comparison while watching it and thinking about the current waste of lives, money, and world standing.

All that's needed is the black glove worn by John Long.

Building democracy one mercenary at a time. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.fateful.day/index.html This is the direct outfall of Rumsfield and Cheney's idea to minimize the armed forces and have private companies profit from their war. Rather than have the military do many of the nuts and bolts things they used to, maintenance, logistics, food service, and now guarding facilities and people, they have put this out to bid. BW recently won a $800 million contract. So what used to be done by a soldier is now being done by someone making $250k. Now that's efficiency. It also avoids the necessity of building up the armed forces via a draft. If that was done then there would be an uproar from the public, most of which is relatively untouched by the war. One general put it well when asked about the country being at war "The country's not at war, the army is at war. The country is at the mall".

The Games Climbers Play. Good collection of short stories. One of my favorites: The Douche - "oh there's a chance, there's a chance"

There may be some minor variations in pricing but no bargins thats for sure. I saw another John Stossel report on how the poor in this country were really not that poor compared to the poor in Africa or Asia because they had refigerators and their apartments had central heating and such. So I guess if they stopped by food they could afford a minmal health insurance policy. Reminds me of the Reagan motto for solving homelessness - "Just get a house"

My main point was to counter FW's assertion that no one wants universal coverage. Certainly some of the 25 million people w/o health care are doing this by choice, but it's fair to say that a good amount of them have no health coverage because it is too expensive. Yes, you can get a cheap policy that covers a major accident, with a major deductable, but that does nothing for any type of preventive, wellness care like taking your kid in for odds and ends. The current private sector model is not working. Given the evidence of how Medicare and the VA can provide a more efficient delivery system compared to the privately run, profit and advertisement driven model, and with ample success stories in all other industralized countries, I have faith that we could work out a good single payer system. So far the only argument against such a system I've heard is that people just don't trust the government to run it well. Given the track record of the private insurers I say it's time to give it a try.

You must have a smart Dad. On the other hand your Mariners are killing me! I have lost another bet to my east coast sister regarding the Yankees and will be obligated to send a pair of Dungness crabs her way.

This is the worst possible solution. Forcing people to buy somethign from a private company is bullshit. Talk about taking away your freedoms. Tax credits are a boon doggle. EIC is already in place for people who wouldn't be able to afford insurance. The only way for these people to get healthcare is if the tax credits were to pay them significantly more than they paid in the first place. Even then, the financial burden wouldn't be manageable. They wouldn't get that money back until their tax returns were filed. Hillary has sold her soul to the insurance companies. I don't see anything different from the front-runners either. Not because the public doesn't want a change, but because the insurance companies have their thumb on the politicians and they're scared of the media tactics that will be used against them. Here's a recent poll on the issue. Notice a good majority are in favor of univeral health care: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL? Yes 64% No 27% WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS? Providing health insurance for all 65% Keeping health care costs down 31%

Oh Jesus. He's talking about that hack, John Stossel, of ABC. This guy is such a snake oil salesman. On a special about the myth of global warming he interviewed novelist Michael Crichton as a global warming expert. Here's a reveiew of his most recent trash show about medical care: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709160003?f=h_top

Third Pillar of Dana - Sierra

sounds like she is making that choice - not to get the money for this surgery. Yeah, she is "choosing" to suffer a life of disability rather than trot on down to the magic money tree and pick a few $10k bills off the low-hanging branches. If I was in that position I'd find a way to pay for the surgery. Actually, I'd never let myself get into that position in the first place. With our system, even if you have insurance, the only thing you have going over someone else is luck. Wait until you or a relative come down with some odd cancer and you have to fight the insurance company for what you thought you paid for.

So if you can afford the $20k for a operation ok, if not then buck up? The issue is not just with folks that have no insurance, but even with folks who do and the insurance companies are denying their requests for operations just to insure a higher profit. A friend and ex-logger I know outside of Forks had insurance. He hurt himself in a limbing operation. Broken back. Has had to fight tooth and nail to get what is owed him. Eventually had to declare bankrupcy, thank god it was before the recent revisions in bankrupcy law. In general he is not getting proper health care. He doesn't expect to be pampered, just given some basic help. Our health care system is just lame.

Actually took my father-in-law recently to get his medications and a hearing aid. It was a snap and about 25% of the costs through private insurance.

Silly response - yes. Silly question - no. Why not eliminate the private market for food and place it in the hands of the government? The arguments used to justify nationalizing healthcare apply equally well to food. If you want the government to be responsible for paying for, administering, and distributing all goods and services in the healthcare market on the grounds that the private sector is incapable of doing so efficiently, how is it that the same government could not execute the same tasks just as well when it comes to producing and distributing food? Seriously. Because the market is working well with food production - relatively - if you can ignore the subsidies and such. There is no food production shortage. And because of the range of producers the profit margin is relatively low and competition high. With public services it is different. The market just does not do well with addressing health care. We have 25 million that are not covered. The data is there -we're getting scalped via profits, advertisements, and inefficiencies. We provide police service quite well in the public sector, libraries, schools, and emergency services. Other countries are doing health care for much cheaper and with better results, and covering all their citizens. If the food production network was as broken as the health care network you might have a point. But not so.

You mean like providing subsidized water for wetland crops in the CA desert or price guarantees for wheat or cotton, or maybe getting paid to not grow something? Silly question dude.

Well you're being quite clear in your preferences anyway. I'm just willing to give it a go now given the current state of affairs.

Here's a decent general media article that spells it out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19886686/site/newsweek/page/1/

Well if you look at the current statistics it IS evident compared to the market sector that the public sector is more efficient. We have ample evidence that the current market sector is not addressing the needs of 25 million Americans without health care, the costs are outpacing inflation 4 to 1, and we pay more per capita for less health care than all other industrialized countries. Why the preference for supporting the profit-motive companies that are goughing us? Seriously?

"Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said." -----Good thing the invasion idea has worked out so well.

Had a shoulder operation and hernia done together. If they are both relative minor surgeries, ask the doctor, and if they agree go for it. ---Less time under anthesia and shorter healing time. Likely you have some work considerations as well. Best of luck.

I'll have what he is having. Must be the painkillers

Seems to work quite well for all other industrialized countries and the two largest sectors of government health care, the VA and medicare, are far more efficient deliverers of health care than any private sector insurance company. The public sector effeciently provides other resources, emergency care, police, fire protection, schooling. You can spend your money proping up the profit and advertisement sector, or you can actually spend it more efficiently on health care. I haven't read Ms. Clinton's proposal yet - but I bet it is a half step. She has too much money from the insurance companies now to try anything creative.

and who controlled the purse strings under Clinton during those glory years of fiscal constraint (and one must not forget that those budgets had an influx of cash from a huge tax hike)? hmmm? Well having a Rep administration and Congress in charge for the last 6 years seems to have heightened the efficiencies I see.

healthy According to Greenspan the only recent president with any success with the federal budget and economy was Clinton. Given the current state of affairs how could anyone do worse, Rep or Dem. Anyone will look intelligent by default following this two term mess.

I'm not sure where the idea that Republicans = fical conservatives even comes from; they've been breaking the bank since the '60s. Also noted in Greenspan's book is his biggest concern - our debt level and the squeeze it will put on us when things get tight. Excellent fical constraint over the past 6 years guys.