Jim

Yes. Much more efficienct than any insurance company. 1.4% overhead compared to 12%+ when including overhead and profit for private insurers. I know - you can find the reports from the insurance companies about the "hidden cost of Medicare". Right CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5004&type=0

Post deleted by Jim

No. Just pay my way efficiently rather than have 200 insurance companies and their corresponding adminstrative overhead and profit, have a single payer system that saves enough money to cover everyone.

Or if you can't take the heat of debate in a democratic society then move to China.

You're correct. Given the resources we have in this country we should be doing a much better job of allocation of medical care. Instead we have a system that guarantees profit over health care. We're tied with what, Bosnia, at 39th on the World Health Organization health rankings?

Not going to happen. The refusal to submit to subpoenas - the strategy is to run out the clock. The Bush lawyers will ensure that this decision is delayed with proceedings until he is gone. Now that you don't hear Bush talk much about victory in Iraq he apparantly is using the same strategy here - run out the clock and hand over the mess to the next administration. It will be nice to have some adult supervision in the White House.

Facts seem to check out well enough in this film. I think it's obvious that the current system is not working well enough - 50 million uninsured and those that are subject to the willy-nilly decsions of the profit motive - that's reassuring.

Scotter's fine is already paid for by his "defense committee" - weathy admirers.

Sure all presidents do this. Put in place a scheme to out a CIA officer as revenge for her husband actually telling the truth in public. Then have the vice president's right hand man lie under to protect the scheme, then pardon him. Now I know Reagan was the best at this, pardoning felons out of his own administration, but I don't remember Clinton doing this.

I thought for sure that Bush would let him sit in jail at least a month or so to make it seem less blatant. Everyone knew he would be rewarded for his silence. It is kinda like the mafia Omerta. Cheney the old mumbling kingpin, Georgie the stupid public face of the operation. I think it has potential for at least a B movie.

Seems rather obvious doesn't it? National health care If you want better coverage buy supplemental just like other industrialized countries.

For years, Presidents had claimed executive privilege on the grounds that there was a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security secrets. The prevailing thought was that a president cannot be forced to share with other branches of government certain conversations, actions, or information if sharing that information could place the United States foreign relations at risk. This "state secrets privilege" was generally accepted. In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Nixon, Nixon's lawyers argued that executive privilege should extend to certain conversations between the president and his aides, even when national security is not at stake. They argued that in order for aides to give good advice and to truly explore various alternatives, they had to be able to be candid. If they were going to issue frank opinions, they had to know that what they said was going to be kept confidential. In the opinion, the Supreme Court conceded that there is indeed a privilege for "confidential executive deliberations" about matters of policy having nothing to do with national security. However, the Court held that this privilege is not absolute but can be overcome if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to the otherwise privileged conversations, as in the case of the Nixon tapes.

While the admistrative branch does have a wide prerogative regarding hiring and firing, what we have heard from Congressional testimony is that attorneys were fired for POLITICAL reasons. That is, because they investigated voter fraud and found no evidence of such, they were fired for not making it into an issue in an election year. Or they were fired for prosecuting corrupt politicians who happened to be Republican. The is no security risk in turning over information these issues. It's a CYA. It raises legitmate concerns about how the Bushies infuse base politics into every action no matter how unconstitutional

Ah the old it's all gray argument. No, Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual affair. The Bushies are refusing to provide information as required under Congressional oversight. Take your pick, unauthorized wiretapping, secret prisions, refusal to allow Congress access to papers they are due. Why all the secrecy and avoiding Congressional oversight? The current issue goes to the basic workings of a democratic government and the balance of powers.

These guys have one goal now: Run out the clock. They know that any court case on the issue will drag on and not be resolved before they leave town, that they can stonewall, and that Congress will not have the balls to actually carry out their Constititional obligations in an election year. So we have an imperialist for the next 18 months. Next up: More scary talk leading up the 911 anniversary just when General Patreous announces that violence is up in Iraq, we're losing ground in most places, there are pockets of progress, and we can't leave now or they will follow us home like a lost dog. Sheesh.

Figuring out an 800,000 acre open space/habitat corridor plan on Vancouver Island, spreadsheet data morass, and trying to plan the next trip up there.

During the debate of the change in bankruptcy law (under the Rep Congress) Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected by the Reps. If you declared bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for medical reasons, which wipes out their credit for 10 years, you had chance to start over without debt. So, naturally, the banks wanted to make it harder to declare bankruptcy by forcing people to file under Chapter 13, only a partial diminution of debt, which is now the case. Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, pointed out in testimony before Congress that the bill assumes everyone is in bankruptcy because they're spendthrifts. "A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased cost of caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at a casino. A person who had a heart attack is treated the same as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall. A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of credit cards with only a vague intent to repay." Note to JayB - true about the disability cases - now you're going to get me worried about disability insurance again.

One of the more striking issues with US health noncare is the number of families that lose everything, even if they have insurance. And now that the banks sucessfully lobbied Congress to turn the screws on bankruptcy law the situatiion is even tighter. Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. • Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness.

I think I need a beer to get into sufficient detail on this.

I'd have to say a big no. I went back to this last year, 18 yrs after first leading it. It can make you think a bit, but isn't that what it's all about? But the logic you mention then when John Bachar turns 60 he'll have to go back to the needles and retro-bolt those 40 ft runouts. Seriously though, I think it stands to your abilities at that time and that is just fine. It's not outrageous.

Who says golf is not a contact sport? http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/26/gator.attack.ap/index.html

Climbed there for 15 yrs. Great place. I'd suggest a guide - for one day they can get you a big bang for the buck. If you had more than one day I'd suggest gunks.com for finding a partner. With only one day a guide, who knows the routes well, can get you a great sampler. My suggestions - Madame G, High Ex, Shockley's Ceiling, High Corner. Best of luck. Start early, beat the heat (mayabe)and thunderstorms.

Sick Seems like costs person would be the number to compare(?)

This may be a step in the right direction - we'll have to wait and see. But currently the amount of people who work for Blue Cross of Mass. is close to the amount of admin staff for the entire Canadian Health Care System. I don't see this effort doing anything much to bring down health care costs with the rest of the industrialized world. It has other economic effects - besides years of making shitty cars US auto makers have had to deal with the cost of health care built into their product, Japan does not.

The U.S. spends 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 8 to 10 percent in most major industrialized nations. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that growth in health spending will continue to outpace GDP over the next 10 years. A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that the U.S. could save enough simply on administrative costs with a single payer national health program to cover all uninsured Americans. In addition, with more the more effective cost-containment mechanisms possible under single payer (negotiated fees, global hospital budgets, capital planning and budgeting), the U.S. Congressional Budget Office found that the U.S. could save $224 billion by 2007. And the big number - about 47 million folks in the US have no health care coverage. We're the only industralized county to lack a universal plan. It would be difficult to argue that the marketplace has been an efficient deliverer of health care. Markets can't solve everything. I know this a shock to some. And for those who want more coverage than a universal plan would offer then they can purchase supplemental insurance. The cost/benefit ratio of the current system is too high on the costs. That's because of the duplicity of all the administration of, what, 100 different insurance companies? Add to that their profit and advertising and it proves to be very inefficient and uneconomical.