Hold on to your hats.

I hate how politicians always start with the lie -- I was son the Appalachian trail, it's all for the good of Alaska -- when they know that the truth will come out by tomorrow morning. Disgusting.

Sorry, a little more -- if she can't govern Alaska because of all the negativity coming her way, how could she possibly be President of the United States? She doesn't think there'll be a little negativity heading her way in that office? Does she think America likes a quitter? Does she think she won't be asked that question every time she steps to a microphone during a campaign? She is toast.And tomorrow we'll find out why.

Thanks for starting this new topic Jill.

I really didnt think she would run for reelection but probably most of us did not expect she would be resigning from office like this.

Maybe all the constant attacks finally got to be too much. It sure would be understandable.

I'm thinking there is much more to the story than is being told. Something feels very strange about this.

I just listened to her speech. It sounds to me that the non stop attacks may have finally taken there toll. It could put a strain on the best of marriages, and she has young children.

I really think she and Todd decided they have had enough. That's my best guess.

tom,
You call the vicious attacks on Sarah Palin and her family "negativity?"

Carla: No, I was using the word negativity the way it's used in the press. Vicious attacks go with high office -- if she can't handle them now, they aren't going to get better if she were president. Every president -- Bush, Obama, whomever -- are constantly the target of vicious attacks. I don't want a leader who can't take the worst their enemies can dish out. With all her sports metaphors, she cuts and runs?

Governor Palin knows the Lord Jesus Christ. Politics do NOT define her, It looks like some posters think she is defined by politics. She has a family. She values that. That is worthy of a lot of attacks from feministas. All the other discussions boards are talking about her by looking thru political glasses. She has such loveable children. They do not need the Letterman of the world exposures. One of the things i think about is her new freedom to speak against aborrtion. Remember she draws more people than Obama can for an audience. We are in the end times. Global warming comes after judgement and not before the rapture of the church.
Again someone that is a member of the bride of Christ and is a bride of a husband can't see things the way the newspapers do.
God will bless her. This is a blessing for her precious family. I could actually see her and her family ener minisry and serving but the world couldn't get their head around that.

Personally, although I'm sad to see the potential 2012 candidate likely out of the running, I have to say good for SP! She's right. Politics is a superficial wasteful bloodsport in our country. From both sides. The Republicans attack the Democrats and the Dems attack the Reps and it's ugly. Really ugly. Heck, we saw parts of how ugly it can get in the nasty attacks the Dems made on their own party in the primaries.

Sarah Palin has a family to care for. She knows she's accountable for her actions in this life. I am very willing to believe that she felt like the position she was putting her family in was a bad one.

Good for her. I hope she effects the changes she wants on her terms.

MaryRose -- and others -- were you born yesterday? Do you now know that this is how it always works -- first it's "I'm leaving for personal reasons" or "spend time with my family" or whatever -- and then we find out about the hookers or the payoffs? NOBODY resigns unless something was going to force them to if they didn't get there first.

I just read something saying she resigned because the ethics complaints against her were becoming so costly. Don't know if that's true or not,but it would make sense.

Sarah Palin has resigned, but she will be called upon sometime in the future to serve again. God speed, Sarah.

Tom- I feel so sorry for you, drowning in your cynicism like that! I have a strong feeling you will be eating your bitter words.

To All:
There are other paths to pursue other than President for Sarah Palin. She is extremely smart and above all else, she is saturated in prayer by strong intercessors, and a woman of prayer herself.

Wait for the final word and stop speculating. It amounts to gossip and leads to unnecessary negativity. We hate what the press does to SP, but we risk doing the same thing with wild speculation.

Sarah is strong and will do whatever God asks her to do. As Christians, our job is to pray for her.

I have wondered for some time if this country really deserved someone as honest as Sarah Palin. Now, it looks like I have my answer. We don't.

This marks a new low in American politics: run a decent person out of office by making nasty attacks on their children. Those uber liberals who say that such nasty attacks are just "normal politics" should be ready for someone to start attacking Obama's kids, and see how they like it then.

Sarah, you'll be missed as my Gov! I'm just worried about who's taking office now....there are a lot of bad apples up here just waiting to jump into that position.

The woman has fantastic personal values. She can hardly string a sentence together in public unless the speech was pre-scripted. For all the frontier ethic her state basically runs on socialism, with huge cash payments from the government -- so where's the conservative there? She forced her daughter to go through a huge public charade with a young man who had gotten her pregnant but in whom she had no enduring romantic interest. President? Really?

Just read that Doug Kmiec has been chosen as Ambassador to Malta - a very Catholic country and extremely prolife.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1254.html

It's unbelievable how Obama just keeps sticking it to Catholics the world over. May God punish him for his affrontry and mockery of Catholic beliefs.
Let's hope the Maltese give Kmiec a good thrashing and put him on the first plane back home.

She can hardly string a sentence together in public unless the speech was pre-scripted.

LOL. PBHO takes the teleprompter everywhere. Talk about prescripting. LOLOL.

Malta? That's actually kind of funny. Maybe they'll teach Kmiec a thing or two about the Catholic Church...

I have it on good authority that Sarah Palin will announce tomorrow that she is running for President of the United States.

Go Sarah....where do I sign up.

yaaaaaaaaay time to party, as a Alaskan im glad shes gone, she did nothing for Alaska and its time for her to go.
i dont mind a women being GOV or PREZ but this one needs to crawl back under her rock.

"yaaaaaaaaay time to party, as a Alaskan im glad shes gone, she did nothing for Alaska and its time for her to go.
i dont mind a women being GOV or PREZ but this one needs to crawl back under her rock.

Posted by: a real AK resident at July 3, 2009 8:21 PM"

Uh, I think her rock is Jesus Christ.

Is that the rock you're referring to?

If Palin considers politics "bloodsport," is she really planning to jump from the frying pan into the fire by running for president?

LOL who cares? She's a loser.

I have it on good authority that Sarah Palin will announce tomorrow that she is running for President of the United States.

Go Sarah....where do I sign up.
Posted by: HisMan at July 3, 2009 8:11 PM

Much as I love and admire her as a person, I hope it's not true. Barry is going to leave a HUGE, HUGE mess behind, and it's going to be an enormous job to clean up his mess. He's done so much damage in six months so cant imagine what four years is going to look like.

Anyway sorry but I just don't believe she is the person to do this. I believe firmly she has a big role to play, but not as President.

My choice would be Jim DeMint although he said on Glenn Beck's show he wouldnt run.... however minds can be changed.

Jim is a great Christian man and solid conservative. In fact he's labeled the most conservative senator. That label suits me fine.

I also think the personal and unrelenting attacks on Sarah and her CHILDREN have probably taken a big toll. She's had a very difficult time. And amazingly.... she and Todd owe $500,000 in legal bills.

She's a great person and great role model for other women. I just don't see her as PResident.

Joanne:

And do not women always clean up the messes that men leave?

Go Sarah go!

Fed Up 7:28PM

You took the words right out of my mouth. I would even bet Sarah knows what 'secret" means unlike Biden who told where the now no longer secret secret bunker for the VP is.

Seriously HisMan.... if she does have Presidential ambitions then this was one dumb move.

You think quitting like this for no apparent reason is something her oppontents won't use against her? Of course they will.... and I'm talking about Republicans here.

If being governor of Alaska was too stressful how about President of the United States?

Of course we don't know for sure why she resigned today but for sure if she tries to run for President this will be an issue. And it should be.

No after today I dont think I would even want to see her as a running mate any more.

She'd make a great health secretary in a future Republican administration. She would be 1000 times better than Sebelius.

LOL who cares? She's a loser.
Posted by: reality at July 3, 2009 9:20 PM

You should know a loser when you see one, after all you love Obama.

Come on Reality,

You just don't like a PL woman who truly lives her convictions. Wouldn't it have been great if she had aborted her DS child and had her daughter abort her child so that you could pound your chest in self righteous indignation over her hypocrisy?

the real Ak resident, way to show love for Alaska. . . . .

What struck me most in SP's statement was her mention of the efforts of her opponents since her VP nomination last summer. She referred to something like 15 ethics complaints which were not substantiated but wasted thousands of hours of her staff's time and millions of taxpayer dollars. If her opponents can tie up her staff and waste taxpayer dollars due to the ease of filing complaints, then I can understand her decision. Some will call it altruistic. Some will call it quitting.

JoAnne:

This is pure genius.

She has a reputation of small government and taking on the big boys.

Now she can turn up the heat on Obama as things continue to get worse and she presents herself to the country as an alternative to Obama. In 3-1/2 years, noone will remember that she resigned as AK's Gov. By the way, she left it in good hands.

Palin is Obama's worse nightmare and the Libs know this. Watch their fangs come out now.

Go Sarah Go!!!!!!!!

Alaska has spent so much time, money & wasted our money looking into these silly ethics complaints. The other side has made it near impossible for her to do her job with all these complaints. This IS what they wanted.
Sarah was for Alaska and I think who ever takes her place will not be thinking about Alaska. They'll be busy trying to make this state another Cali! We already don't go to Anchorage because we call it Los Anchorage. This state is fine the way it is, Alaska is the last frontier and others want to come up here and make it just like any other state in the union. Alaska is different and we pride ourselves in this.

Alaska is mostly about helping others, help your neighbor and your neighbor helps you. In this land it is every man for himself but on the other hand we'll give you shirts off our backs if your trustworthy. In Alaska it is all about trust and I trusted Palin.

Palin, I hope you get some time alone away from the media to spend with your awesome family. You've proven to me that your just like any other Alaska mama. Willing to sacrafice yourself for your childrens sakes.

I hope one day Palin will either be running Alaska again or better yet running this country. You CAN do this Sarah!

Alaska has spent so much time, money & wasted our money looking into these silly ethics complaints.

Hi Krystal. I hope the facts and figures about this kind of waste come to light. It's wrong for the politics of personal destruction to play themselves out on the taxpayers' dime and divert excessive staff time from their duty to serve the electorate.

There was a rough draft report and it was saying $350,000.00 (roughly) has been spent on these ethic's complaints and Sarah is in the hole (roughly) $500,00.00;
This is A LOT of money!

Thanks, Krystal. Most of the news I'm hearing focuses on character/family issues with no mention of the state financial issues.

If she does announce, there is no time like the present. Obama and his supporters are true believers in big government, and we need someone to save us from him and his big gov buddies.

The stimulus package was the ultimate big gov program, and it has failed miserably. Another half million jobs lost with no end in sight. After four years of Obama and a record high misery index, the country will yearn for exactly the type of optimism, honesty, and positive attitude that Sarah exudes.

HisMan,

On this point we will have to agree to disagree.

I am 100% pro life, 100% fiscal conservative, and I do NOT want her to run.

And I think it is naive to think that no one will remember this in 3 years. On the contrary, it will be brought up again and again.

A legitimate argument that can be made is if she quit as governor would she quit as President? And it's REPUBLICANS that will go after her on this.

I think at times that the way Barry is messing up the economy and everything else that anyone will be able to beat him in 2012. But then I think it's almost sure that conservatives will be back in power in congress in 2010. If that happens, it's not so sure that Barry will be defeated 2 years later. He can't do as much damage with conservatives in control but I still want to see him defeated.

I thought Barry was a socialist, but realize now that was being too kind. His polices are marxist.

We need a good, strong conservative candidate to take him on. If not someone like DeMint then maybe Romney. I don't totally trust him on the pro life issue though. He claims he made a mistake being pro abort and is now pro life. Entirely possible, and he would not be the first to convert. But at this point, I have more confidence in Romney handling the economy. And I just have to trust him on the pro life issue if, in fact, he should end up the candidate.

Anyway 2012 is a long way away. We don't need anyone to start campaigning now.... first thing is to take back Congress!

Here is some info about the ethics complaints:
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/21/list-ethics-complaints-filed-against-alaska-gov-pa/

Here is info about the moolah she owes from these ethics complaints:
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/mar/21/palin-legal-fees-more-half-million/

Blog Owner who needs to approve my comments: I included some links from my local newspaper to explain better the debt issue of Palin. The state (and her) have spent a lot of money on all these ethics complaints and I have a HUGE feeling that this maybe why she is resigning.

"I have it on good authority that Sarah Palin will announce tomorrow that she is running for President of the United States." HisMan

I sure hope so!

I rather agree with Joanne. I don't think Sarah Palin is the right person for president after Obama. I think the US will need a man with a strong moral character and a man of faith. I also think that man will need to have a lot of experience in government. As much as I love Sarah Palin, I quite frankly don't think she's smart enough for the job. I think she would be easily manipulated.

I don't think the recession will be gone in 4 years time. I think it will be worse. We don't have the population behind the baby boomers to sustain the economy we are use to. Therefore we don't have the producers nor the consumers. I don't think Palin will be person to deal with this, not to mention Iran, Putin and North Korea (which may be nothing but a mushroom cloud by then).

tom:

Vicious attacks go with high office

Unless you're adored and protected by a slobbering media! And don't let that slobbering media catch you characterizing them as "vicious". Freudian slip?

And she is governing - in an altruistic manner. She is the one protecting a state from the attacks aimed at herself... so it can move forward. Those doing the attacking could care less if they take along a state in their end of eliminating one person they hold as sooo important that they must also stomp on innocent babies as their means - but hey what else is new to these types you so easily excuse! What a man!

She isn't the narcissistic copy of "the one" who is willing to even crucify an entire nation to his own failed evil ideological aims...and her values are true.

She doesn't consider herself above the welfare of those she serves...and wouldn't waste their money and efforts. Meanwhile the nation still watches for all those jobs to be created - while Alaska, due to her decisions, seems to be doing better than most! A good legacy. Better than leaving a bleeding Marxist contribution to the third world collection of nations living in fear of their own "ones".

Oh please. Marxist. Really. I'm a liberal atheist pro-lifer so of course we are going to disagree on this. Republicans seem to never find a war they don't love, constantly oppose the idea of health care for everybody, think torture is a good way to run foreign policy and talk endlessly about being against abortion but never actually do anything about overturning Roe v. Wade because if that happened soooo many people would just plain stop voting for the enrichment of the Halliburton corporation. As we have two parties neither of whom seem to be interested in putting a stop to abortion, I'll choose the one that opposes torture and supports health care for ALL. Listen to Sarah Palin's entire rambling incoherent quittin' speech and tell me if there is a brain there. Then read any two pages of Dreams From My Father -- Obama's first book. Just read it standing up in a bookstore if you don't want to spend the money on it. No brain vs. brain: I'll take the latter.

Tom,

At least Sarah Palin knows how to run a budget and a state. I wouldn't trust Obama running the local convenience store.

Also, Obama goes nowhere without his teleprompter. I'll take a hardworking American (Sarah Palin) over a good bullshi**er(Obama) anyday.

She quit. Do you not see that? How American is that? And it's no huge job running a budget when you've got thousands of dollars in subsidy checks to send every man, woman and child in the state every year. And she supports the torture of prisoners. How pro-life is that? And did I mention that she quit? Please, listen to her entire speech, available on any news outlet. Mentally unwell, or just dumb?

"She quit. Do you not see that?"

haven't you viscous liberals had enough? with attacking her children and family.

Look at this post from a blogger at Huffington post:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/03/huffposter-palin-will-run-12-more-retardation-platform

Tom: I wish only that everyon HAD read "Dreams From My Father." What they would have seen is a very conflicted young man, in my mind not someone I would want leading my country. I suspect a lot of people would agree, if they were to actually read the book.

As for Sarah's so called incoherence, say what you may, the lady connects. I recall how vicious many people were when Ronald Reagan ran for president. They made great sport of him being a "B" movie actor--Bedtime for Bonzo--and all of that. He went on to be what even the lib media had to admit, the "great communicator." Sarah could surpirse a lot of people in the same way.

The fact is there are many people (especially libs) who despise someone who has a simple goodness about them. Liberals think anyone worth anything has to be a complex sophisticate. If they appear common they are not up to the task, i.e. their inherent dislike of Sarah. Of course, she is pro-life too, which earns extra negativity towards her.

May God bless America--Happy Fourth!

Krystal, thank you for those links.

Oh please. Marxist. Really.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
PBHO was a member of the neo-marxist New Party in the 1990s.

Krystal, thanks for those links. I made a post responding to you and to Tom but it didn't get approved because it had a link.

Oh please. Marxist.

In the 1990s PBHO belonged to a neomarxist political party called the New Party. You can find archived party newsletters and a photo of him with fellow party members if you do a web search.

She quit. Do you not see that? How American is that? And it's no huge job running a budget when you've got thousands of dollars in subsidy checks to send every man, woman and child in the state every year. And she supports the torture of prisoners. How pro-life is that? And did I mention that she quit? Please, listen to her entire speech, available on any news outlet. Mentally unwell, or just dumb?

Posted by: tom at July 4, 2009 9:52 AM
______________________________________________
No problem Fed Up, we have LOTS of Palin articles up here as you could imagine. Go to newsminer.com and search 'Palin'...you'll get a lot more info from this newspaper than what the media is feeding you in the lower 48.

Tom, Alaska has money but not as much as you think. The charter fishing companies take the fish from our bays and sell them down in the lower 48 and hardly any of the money goes back into Alaska. The gold miners from Canada come here to prospect, they find gold and sell the gold out of Alaska (usually out of the country)....hardly any of that money goes back into Alaska. Alaska was smart when BP started drilling in the North Slope (Prudhoe Bay) and told this oil company that they need to pay Alaska back for the land they are using. So this money comes back to the state.
Also Alaska doesn't give money to every man, woman & child here. You must live here for a year (jan 1st through Dec. 31st), have had a Alaska DL for that whole time, you must show proof that you intend to stay in Alaska for the rest of your life, they want you to register to vote or change your voting location for that whole time you've been here, they want you to contribute to a local charity or organization, you need to show moving records to the state to prove that you've moved your things up here, they'll also ask for your buying or rental history during that first year here in Alaska.
See she doesn't just give up money, we must contribute to Alaska to get this money. Which is fine for me! These funds often times helps us Alaska off set our heating fuel costs because there is no competetion here in Alaska for gas/fuel. So our gas/fuel is usually $1.00 or more higher priced than your costs in the lower 48.
Ex. the price of regular unleaded gas here in Fairbanks is $2.97 in North Pole (which is 10 miles south of Fairbanks) the price is $3.27
Wouldn't you just love to fill up your car at this price?

AK Krystal--

Thanks for the AK data. Good to know that stuff.

Jerry:

It's acceptance of and openness about conflict and complexity that makes a great leader. Oversimplification taken to its extreme gets you bad stuff -- Hitler in one direction, Stalin in the other.

Tom: It is a bit premature to put Sarah in the company of despots, don't you think? Please name something she has said that makes her so scary to libs.

Oversimplification to one person is plain talk to another. Although most people are not at the point of anointing her as the next president, we could do far worse than her if it came to that.

At least with Sarah, you get what you see. Obama, on the other hand, ran on a center/left platform but has mistakenly taken his victory as a mandate to lead from the far left fringe. With his abuse of the auto industry and the appointment of nearly two dozen czars and talk about pay limits and nationalized health care, I believe the mantle of national socialism fits Obama far better than Sarah.

Hi, Tom

I always like meeting pro-life advocates of different spiritual beliefs. :)

Is it due to science that you became pro-life? Or just the knowledge that it is, in general, a violation of both women's and children's rights?

:)

Jerry: Why are you against national health care? Seems to me central to a pro-life agenda. Can't come anywhere near understanding anybody's opposition to it. Truly. Have you ever lived in Canada or France or England? I've lived in all three. Don't believe anything you've heard about the evils of a society committing itself to caring for ALL of its families.

Vannah: Thanks for asking that question. I guess the answer is that to me, you don't have to believe in God to know that it's wrong to kill your wife or your next door neighbor of the guy at the 7-11, and how can that possibly not extend to children? My problem with much anti-abortion advocacy is that it's too partisan and denominational. The laws and actions of this country aren't going to change until the movement cuts itself free from religious and political rhetoric and goes totally universal.

P.S. to Jerry:

Every time I hear aw-shucks-I'm-just-a-straight-talkin'-American-I-don't-know-nuthin'-bout-all-that-fancy-big-city-stuff or you-small-town-folks-are-the-real-America I panic, and with reason: she is not personally a fascist, but that is is the language of fascims. And that is exactly what Sarah has said, in many different ways of saying it.

Tom, 8:20PM

Well then perhaps you can explain to me why a Canadian politician flew to California for treatment for advanced breast cancer if she could have obtained the same quality care in her own country.
Also, do low and middle income Canadian women have this same option?

Also, why wasn't Natasha Richardson helicoptered out of the Canadian ski resort to a facility equipped to handle her needs as soon as she began showing symptoms of an intracranial bleed? I understand all American ski resorts have helicopter evacuation for medical emergencies.

I dont' know about Natasha Richardson. I know about all my grandparents, uncles and cousins in Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg, people whose income stretches from minimum wage to considerable wealth, and they all boast about how great their health care has been. The wealthy ones winter in Florida and if something happens medically they fly home and brave the snow to deal with it. I've personally had a medical emergency in the UK and was staggered by how quick, efficient and entirely free my treatment was -- even as a foreigner. (That was some years ago, don't know if I'd get that now.)

Do you think the system works now? When poor people have to choose between medicine and food, and rely on emergency rooms for basic care? Really?

JYW 9:55PM

I understand she was seeking care for advanced breast cancer.
Why did she fly to California then? Why not just stay in Canada if the care is so top notch?
I'm aware she was a member of one of Canada's wealthiest families that's why I ask if low and middle income Canadian women have this same option?

Tom 9:57PM

Funny, but I've seen people here in the US of various income levels receive the best medical care as well, often times "free" i.e. taxpayer expense. The only thing "free" ever means Tom is someone else is footing the bill.
That Canadians would fly home for care is hardly surprising given we would all prefer to be near our own homes in the event of hospitalization.

No system is perfect and even the ones in Canada, England, and France have their flaws. I understand France has gone broke. Also, you have to consider that people do not always take responsiblity for their health. They can afford cigarettes, booze, drugs, dogs, and tattoos but can't pay their light bill or shell out for a doctor visit.
For the most part there is assistance for those in need. Hospitals arrange payment plans. Doctors offer their services on a sliding scale or for free.
Yes people have catastrophic medical expenses like they have catastrophic legal expenses, financial loss, and other disasters.

JYW,

The woman is a politician OK? I was just pointing this out. So you acknowledge her wealth would enable her to have have access to care that the average Canadian likely would not. Thank you.
Too many people are under the false impression that nationalized health care is the great equalizer.
BTW post breast cancer reconstruction is usually covered by insurance or medical assistance here in the US and is routinely performed. I've seen it done on low and middle income women in my community.

No announcement today, HisMan. What do your 'sources' say now?

"Funny, but I've seen people here in the US of various income levels receive the best medical care as well, often times "free" i.e. taxpayer expense."

To be fair, in a single-payer system a lot of costs are cut simply in terms of paperwork and the availability of care at all levels means that people are getting treatment for things early. The 'free' ER visit at the taxpayers expense could thus be avoided by visiting the primary care physician or clinics for more minor injuries and illnesses that uninsured people aren't prepared to pay for.
I don't support a single-payer system (for other reasons) but it does avoid those problems and actually saves money over our current system.

JYW,

You're only making assumptions. She wanted treatment for advanced breast cancer which would involve considerably more than cosmetic surgery.
Its also possible she could not access the treatment she needed in Canada or may have to wait too long to get it.

I didn't tell it the "other way". I said she was a politician which she was. What's the difference. Its obvious she had the means to get health care other Canadians may not have access to.

Universal health care ensures everyone to a certain level of health care? So I've heard.

JYW 11:08PM

I'm glad we agree that both systems have their failings, which they do, and there is no one end all, be all solution.

Good Morning PIP, 2:08am

Its been my sad experience that gov't involvement in health care only results in more expense, waste, inefficiency, and yes paperwork. Kind of what happens when the gov't involves itself in much of anything.

People can visit primary physicians now PIP but many simply do not take the personal responsibility to do so. Just as people do not take the personal responsibility of managing their money, their lives, or much of anything.
I have posted about the MD who offered free prenatal care services to pregnant women in a low income community. Not one woman came in. The MD was particulary concerned about the fact most of these women smoke, drank, abused drugs, and were obese and diabetic, but said he certainly couldn't drag the women in off the street and force them to receive care.
The people I would see in ER figured they were getting "free" care, that's why they came in. I can't count the times I was told Insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare were paying for it.
I'm talking about bringing all five kids into the ER at midnite for head colds. Why not see their doctor? Well, we're leaving for vacation in the morning". You have no idea how infuriating this was PIP, and it happened time and again, people showing up in the ER for the most trivial of reasons. Sometimes only a call to the family doctor was necessary but heck, the ER was "free".
Then there was the abuse of the "free" rescue squad but don't get me started on that.

Also, when insurance companies, hospitals and physicians must compete, you have the best means of containing costs.

So you acknowledge her wealth would enable her to have have access to care that the average Canadian likely would not.

I think her wealth allowed Stronach to consider other treatment options outside of Canada that less wealthy Canadians could not. She could have gotten someone to do the surgery in Canada but chose a specialist whom she learned of who was expert in this area. I think both the US and Canadian health care systems have their problems which is why perhaps a mix of the best of both systems might work.

JYW, 8:07am

Really? There are doctors in our town who do this all the time. In fact I saw a woman the other day who would eventually have the procedure done.
Her decision had nothing to do with the quality of care in Canada? Right. Keep in mind JYW that she is a politician. What else do you expect her to say??
One must wonder if more than a few Canadian women weren't just a little resentful of this situation.

My point was never about her wealth or politics, it was whether or not she could get the care she needed in Canada, which apparently she couldn't, or maybe she would have had to wait too long. Her cancer was advanced, so the mastectomy and reconstruction likely also included chemotherapy or other cancer treatment.
I hope she had a full recovery.

Hi Angel,

My point exactly. So "universal" health care isn't so universal after all. The wealthy still have options the average person does not have.
Some things never change.

If she could have gotten someone in Canada to do the procedure than why not? It would have been a better political move, that's for sure. Angel, would you fly to another country to get the exact treatment you can get in your own hometown? We have surgeons in my midwestern city that do this procedure routinely. Why would I fly to California for it?
I also strongly suspect she had more done than a mastectomy and reconstruction, especially if the cancer was advanced.

I understand leaders and the wealthy in other countries with "universal" health care often do the same thing. Castro will fly in Spanish doctors to care for him while his citizens go to fly infested hospitals with overflowing toilets and broken windows.

Government involvement in health care so far has been nothing more than a boondoggle, creating inefficieny, expense, and paperwork, not to mention the abuse "free" health care generates among those who think they can get something for nothing. Sorry, but I've seen this for years. Human nature is what it is.
Free market competition among hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, and other surgeons is the best way to maintain standards and cut costs.

JYW 8:54am

Sure the Canadian system is just fine for a woman who can well afford to fly elsewhere for the care SHE needs and wants. Whatever, she was a wealthy politician, OK?

No JYW, I don't need a better example. You need universal health care supporting politicians who put their money where their mouths are. Good luck.

JYW,

Look I don't begrudge the lady the care she got or anyone else for that matter. If she wants to fly to California or anywhere else, go girl. My point is the rich will still have options the middle and lower income people will not. There is nothing "universal" about health care under any system, just as there is nothing "universal" about legal representation.
I'm just surprised that the woman, if she could have had access to any doctor in Canada, and the procedure is performed by Canadian doctors, flew to California. Heck in my midwestern town our docs do a great job with this procedure and any woman who wants it can get it, so yes ordinary Americans do have access to this procedure by doctors well qualified to perform it.

JYW,

Tell me about vanity. Our plastic surgeons aren't going hungry and this ain't Beverly Hills. Somehow people can have the money to pay for facelifts, breast implants, tummy tucks etc but squawk if they have to pay for a yearly checkup. Never ceases to amaze me. BTW our plastic surgeons will also sew up the face of a drug abuser involved in a knife fight who shows up in the ER in the dead of nite as well. I've assisted plenty of times.
A large public hospital from my hometown, which treats mostly the indigent, is well known as the place to go for stab and bullet wounds to the heart. Great success rate and top notch surgeons and hospital staff.
Health care is available to those who need it, whatever their circumstances.
Sometimes people are simply not responsible enough to see to their own health care or live lives that are conducive to healthy living.

Like I said I don't begrudge the lady her surgery, just don't understand why she wouldn't have it in her own country if the service is there. Like it or not, double standards exist under both systems.
BTW, go to Mayo Clinic sometime and see where other wealthy people from around the world go for their care. I wonder why??

Mary I think the point is though that Canada's health care system is "universal", meaning that everyone has access to a certain level of care which does include some procedures and does not include others (circumcision being one example).
Drugs are not included unless one works for a company that has a drug benefit plan.

Of course one of the problems with Canada's system is that many doctors who are trained in Canada leave to work in the US. This is particularly true of specialists including oncologists. I believe there might even be a cap on how much doctors can earn under various provincial health care programs but I'm not sure.

The point is however, that the rich will always have more options than the poor whether it be for housing or for health care.
I still believe the rich should help to pay for those who cannot afford to pay or those who struggle in this life and through no fault of their own become ill.

When society use to be predominantly Christian, this work was done very cheaply by the brothers and sisters of various Catholic/Christian organizations who ran hospitals, hospices, and orphanages and who trained nurses.

JYW,

You have it turned around. I asked why the wealthy from around the world are coming here for their care? Its got everything to do with the quality of health care they know they will receive, not to make anyone rich. I'm sure they can find better, and certainly more enjoyable ways to spend their money.
True that those with money to spend can get the best care here, but I have pointed out that those with not so much or no money to spend will get the best care as well.

I don't argue the system is perfect. If only such an animal existed. I argue that free market competition keep prices down and quality up and the less the gov't interferes the better.

Angel 1:33PM

Certainly the rich will always be able to pay for the best in everything, be it healthcare, lawyers, college education or whatever. Some things simply never change.

That's news to me that Canadian specialists leave to work in the US. I find that quite interesting.
I wonder why that would be.

The rich do help pay for those in need. Charitable donations, donations to hospitals, their taxes which fund medicaid and public hospitals, not to mention how you and I help with our taxes and higher hospital bills because of those who couldn't or simply wouldn't pay.

True about the Catholic and other religious groups who built hospitals, hospices, orphanages, and asylums to name a few. I understand it was Catholic sisters who were the first to treat the mentally ill humanely and take them in off the streets. Our so called "deinstitutionalization" an absolute social disaster starting in the 1950s which shut down asylums, only succeeded in putting these poor souls back on the street. I don't have a source about the nuns and the mentally ill so if I'm wrong someone don't hesitate to correct me, I just heard this.
I know if a hospital had to be opened or an orphanage established, the bishop had only to call upon an order of nuns and it got done!

I think the problems began when the gov't began interfering with medicaid and medicare, (the poor were being cared for, the hospital I mentioned in my hometown has been in existence for decades) and with third pary payers the insurance companies. Hospitals could not charge what they do without insurance companies

JYW,

I have to completely disagree with you that those with little or no money and no insurance get better health care in Canada. I've been in the medical area almost 40 years and have seen first hand the health care experienced by people from all areas of American society.

One example I gave was the topnotch care that has been given to the poor for decades in my hometown, which is a large urban area. A hospital with an excellent reputation.

I wasn't being facetious about the Canadian specialists. I seriously wondered why they come here.

This post was originally about a politician? I thought it was about a wealthy woman.

JYW,

My mistake, I thought you were referring to our discussion about the wealthy Canadian politician.

Tom: I am against nationalized health care for many reasons, but primarily because the potential for systemic abuse.

Also, we are a nation of suckers. A slickster coming at us with a trio of choices behind three curtains makes us believe that any of the choices is better than what we already have, and that it will be simpler and cheaper too. But they will not let you actually see the details (remember: the devil is in the details), and will be pressing you to make your decision quickly. This is exactly what is going on right now in the so called "debate."

Buyer beware! Try taking on the federal government if you have a beef with a decision some bureaucrat made regarding a decision they made on denying care to someone you love, like maybe a child or your spouse. As it is right now, your odds of prevailing in such a dispute are much better when dealing with a private provider. When we get Big Brother Care it will be like trying to change the course of a battleship in a narrow stream. We have been over this already on this blog, and it is a good thing that we keep re-examining it.

By systemic abuse I mean when the federal government controls our health care delivery it would result in price controls, wage controls, and rationing. It will be a nightmare. People with political connections will bypass the system and get in front of the line. The rich will still get around the systems also. The biggest loser will be us, meaning the vast majority of Americans who at least at this point have a semblance of control of their health care coverage and carriers.

Under Big Brother Care needed drugs will often be in short supply and sometimes unavailable because some bureaucrat deemed them too expensive. Price squeezes will be forevermore at the forefront of care delivery bottlenecks, as they are now in countries with socialized health care. Those needing life giving procedures will be put on a list, and sometimes be denied because of some other condition they have or because of their age.

Under Big Brother Care the motivations and possibilities for achieving efficiencies will essentially be nil. All cost structures will be strictly budget oriented, meaning if they have the money they will do something (no doubt at great cost to the taxpayer). If they don't have the money, oh well. With a zillion other government priorities, this will just have to do.

The primary cost savings now in private enterprise is innovation. During the past 15-20 years, great strides have been taken in the private health care system to trim costs and deliver savings. I was a part of these efforts, and they work. The rate of increase in health costs has declined. On the other hand, innovation is met with derision and skepticism in bureaucracies, meaning if it is not the idea of the head honcho, forget it. Conformity and going with flow is the norm for most bureaucrats--not so much because they choose that route, but because it is the only route.

Meanwhile, under Big Brother Care, costs will continue to rise, and quality of service decline. We will rue the day that we chose Big Brother Care. What is left of our private system will be put in a squeeze because they will be competing with the treasury of the United States government. Private health care as we now know it will be forced out.

Finally, it has not been talked about, but the REAL problem is not with the cost of health care, as much as it is in the ability of the users to pay. We cannot have less purchasing power and expect to continue with the same or better lifestyles. Our health care debate is really a subset of our declining income debate, but with Obamanomics ruining our private enterprise system, I do not look for a robust economy to life us out of those doldrums.

Mary: Great comments all along!

hat's news to me that Canadian specialists leave to work in the US. I find that quite interesting.
I wonder why that would be.

Because they can earn far more in the open US system than they can in the capped earnings in Canada. In a word: greed.
But not all specialists leave Canada and many specialists who went to the US return to Canada because they get sick of the intense desire to earn money and the lack of concern for patients.

Truth is, those with little or no money or no insurance coverage would be getting better health care in Canada, not here Mary.

I can say that a homeless person off the street will be treated at a hospital in Canada. Would the same happen in the US? Or would he be turned away?

Angel,

Absolutely the homeless person would be treated. In the course of my career I've cared for homeless, poor, drug and alcohol addicted, convicted murderers, child abusers, child molesters, drunk drivers who's dead victims were in the next room, and violent, deranged people.
People get the care they need in this country.

Also I am of the belief that most doctors I work with care very much about their patients.

Jerry,

Thank you.

Angel 6:46PM

Keep in mind an uncaring attitude by a doctor can mean patients seeking care elsewhere. My doctor treats me in a condescending or unprofessional manner then I have several other options in town.

JYW,

Primary care is available for people of all income levels who want it. As I pointed out in previous posts, there are people who do not take the responsibility of getting primary care. The women who would not take advantage of free prenatal care being one such example.
I also pointed out people went to emergency rooms for convenience and because it was "free".

Also, free health screening is offered by hospitals, clinics, pharamcies, and doctor's offices. You can check your own blood pressure in many pharmacies.

Too many people take NO personal responsiblity for their health.

"Too many people take NO personal responsiblity for their health."

Mary,

I hear you. A relative of mine works as a doctor in an inner city clinic built specifically to provide health care for the poor. No one comes. The medical staff has to practically drag the neighborhood residents through the doors because they don't trust doctors. To those who think the poor are under served, should we create "health police" to get this people into the clinic or what?

Hi Janet,

Thank you for an excellent post. I'm surprised at the number of educated intelligent people I know who see no correlation between their morbid obesity and myriad of health problems.
A couple of our friends have money for cigarettes, pot, booze, tattoos, and dogs but can't pay their light bill and by the way, get all the medical care they need.

You can't force health care on people who didn't give enough of a damn to be responsible for their own health.

The fact is we have very good outreach to the poor in many areas. There are some 3700 community health centers providing medical care to 15 million people on a sliding scale basis. It would be far less expensive and expansive to provide for greater coverage of these health centers than to upset the entire health care infrastructure.

It just seems so evident that companies and people want to dump their health care costs onto the government.

Hi Jerry,

I think people are looking for something for nothing. They don't realize the only thing "free" means is someone else is footing the bill. You would not believe the abuse of "free" health care I have witnessed. At one time the rescue squad was free in our city. The abuse of it became so bad the city had to start charging people.

For that matter why don't we nationalize the legal profession? Certainly people have gone broke paying legal bills. There isn't always fairness and equity. People can't always obtain the attorney they would truly want to represent them. The rich can afford the very best attorneys. Its not fair my spouse has a better divorce attorney than I do.

Kind of sounds like the arguments we hear for nationalized medicine.

Good point, Mary. If the nationalization of industries was so great, how come it has never worked anywhere for anything?

Another point in this debate is what happens to those who have sacrificed their wages over the years in order to provide for their retirement years. Instead of negotiating for higher wages they responsibly elected to set aside monies to pay for their health care for when they would have fixed incomes.

Now here comes Obama saying that those people had it all wrong. Health care is a right that everyone should have. It should be available for everyone irregardless of their circumstances, even if they spend their money foolishly and do not take care of themselves.

Mary @ 7:51 Great point RE legal fees and lawyers.

One of my many concerns regarding nationalized health care is the very real possiblility that, once private insurance is forced out, it will effectively kill innovation in treatment. Just as the innovative entreprenurial spirit is essential to capitalism working, cutting edge research is fundamental to providing better care. Do you suppose the opportunity to participate in that might have something to do with Canadian specialists coming to work in the US? What does this have to do with the abortion debate? Remember this story? http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/new_protocol_fo.html

If a pregnant woman with cancer only has one opinion, or can count on the second opinion matching the first under nationalized care, she could feasibly be forced to decide between aborting or having no treatment at all. What of mid-wives and home births? CNMs who do home births have back up hospitals in the event of a development of an emergency with one or both of their patients. I foresee them being squeezed out in a nationalized system. Expectant mothers face losing a lot of their options with socialized medicine, and healthcare as a whole suffers.

"The fact is we have very good outreach to the poor in many areas. There are some 3700 community health centers providing medical care to 15 million people on a sliding scale basis. It would be far less expensive and expansive to provide for greater coverage of these health centers than to upset the entire health care infrastructure."

Thank you for that, Jerry. I agree. We just don't have the money right now for a new system. It's like AIG executives asking for the installation of a new company-wide computer system as the company is going under. When's Obama going to figure out he has to leave healthcare alone? Giving across the board tax cuts so people have real cash in their pockets instead of hypothetical healthcare might be better.

I'm curious about who has the REAL data on who's uninsured in this country. When you factor out illegal aliens (should they be covered?), the "tweeners", and others who choose not to buy it, I think very few people are destitute without health care.

* * * *
"For that matter why don't we nationalize the legal profession? Certainly people have gone broke paying legal bills. There isn't always fairness and equity. People can't always obtain the attorney they would truly want to represent them. The rich can afford the very best attorneys. Its not fair my spouse has a better divorce attorney than I do."

Mary,
Great analogy. If you look at the inefficiency of our court system, you can already see how much time is wasted in the courts where cases can go on for years.... Wait, the government IS lawyers. Do we want them governing their own? Courts.. government.. healthcare... Yikes. What about medical malpractice tort reform? I think tort reform would reduce medical insurance costs for everyone. It would put limits on the greed out of the hands of plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Correction to Janet, last line @ 11:45AM

"It would put limits on greed - out of the hands of plaintiffs and their lawyers."

Jerry,

Your thoughts simply don't match the reality of national health care as I have experienced it in Britain, Canada and France. I think you're thinking more of Cuba, where I have also experienced it, and where everything about the country, health care included, is a nightmare -- because the government is non-representative, despotic and corrupt to the depths of its DNA, with all the good health care going to the party apparatchiks.

Wow, Sarah sure can generate buzz, can't she? And it isn't just here: On HotAir, one of the bloggers made a big pronouncement that Sarah was finished, and it generated more than 3200 comments!

Which brings up a question we should all ask ourselves: Is the Elected Office Title itself bigger than the person who is holding it? If the Title is bigger, then nearly all holding that title would never seek higher and better. Then again, that explains most Congressmen:)

But since Sarah can obviously generate international attention by her actions, it's fairly obvious that she has outgrown being Governor of Alaska. All I will say is this: She's doing the citizens of AK a big FAVOR by stepping down and handing it off to her successor. Those AK citizens can now have a governor who can better focus on their needs without the glare of the limelight.

For Sarah, though, she and her benefactors (and she has financial benefactors, make no mistake about it) are embarking on what could be one of the biggest political gambles in US History. That's not only something that should be respected; it makes me want to be a part of it!

Hi Brad,

Concerning Sarah, have you ever seen a politician's family so viciously attacked as hers?
I'm convinced that what enraged feminists and their leftist allies was that this was a woman who lived her PL convictions. She didn't abort her DS child or discreetly have her daughter aborted. How they would have loved to pound their chests in self righteous indignation over her "hypocrisy" if she had!

Did anyone ever question how Obama can be both president and still be a parent?

Did anyone question Obama's glaring lack of qualifications of any kind while wringing their hands in "concern" over Sarah's "lack" of qualifications.

The list of double standards and glaring hypocrisy goes on.

I hope Sarah will run in 2010.

Oh-Oh. Typo. I meant 2012

Tom: Every time I have to go to renew my driver's license (thankfully only once every 8 years or so), I see big gov bureaucracy in action. No offense to the workers there, they are drones in a system that creates and perpetuates inefficiencies and redundancies. If we want national health care, get ready to be treated as a number and be herded around like a bunch of cows.

As for Canada's system, it is very well documented that certain drugs and procedures are simply not made available because of their costs. Thousands of people have come from Canada to the U.S. to get needed procedures. We would not have that safety valve if we were to adopt Canada's system. If it were my loved one in need of a procedure, I want the VERY BEST, NOW!!

Janet: Thanks for the comment. I know that the Dems are licking their chops trying to score big time with certain constituency groups. They see giving health care to these groups as a way to curry favor and gain votes.

Brad,

She said as much, in essence, during the press conference. Apparently, it is costing Alaska and her a lot of money to constantly have to fight of vicious personal attacks.

I hope she recoups some of those losses.

Gotta respect a woman who won't let herself be defined by politics!

Actually, Jerry, your driver's license reference is out of date, at least here in California. The process has become extraordinarily efficient. I did mine on line this year -- entire process was done in about two clicks, period. And if you have to go into the DMV, it's all by appointment within 15 minute blocks and you never wait more than about two minutes.

It's well documented that in the United States of America, I have a neighbor, right here in the great city of Los Angeles, who can not afford the medications she needs, so she eats less to pay for it. In Montreal, my grandparents worked hard all their lives and when they retired they never had to worry about the cost of a medical need ever again. They always got when the needed right when they needed it. That is a civilized society.

I don't know where you are getting your information from.

Do you believe it is up to everybody to take care of themselves, and we have no obligation as a society to help each other out?

tom,

Your neighbor should check out Wal-mart which has a prescription program for elderly people.

Luckily for the father of my aunt's physical therapist, she knew someone who could pull some strings and bring her father to the US from Canada for cancer treatment. He could not get treatment in Canada for 6-8 months. In the US he was in treatment within a week.

Well then Jerry I guess all the people who suffer, palpably and terribly, under the current medical care system in this country -- people whose HMO's drop them because they're not profit-friendly clients just when they need care the most -- people who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical needs -- people for whom even Wal-Mart prices are too high -- are just whiners and grousers. I guess Americans are just like that. And I guess after all the best approach is "I'm all right, Jack -- you worry about yourself:

Sorry -- last comment addressed to Mary. Forgive me for getting testy. It's an important topic with me and I can not possibly understand, for the life of me, why the people on this site, people for whom the preservation of life is paramount, stand so strongly against making sure care is provided, without question, to everybody.

tom,

I've already told you, people get care. I've told you of the topnotch hospital in my hometown that has served mostly the poor for decades. Who do you think comes in their ER doors? Shootings, stabbings, homeless people, drug and alcohol abusers, you name it. They get the care they need. I worked at the local ER. People got care, whatever their circumstances.
Why did the therapist's father have to come to the US if care in Canada is so humane and we're so terrible? This is the situation we on this site want to avoid, where people have to wait several months for life saving treatment.
The program at wal-mart is like 3 or 4 dollars a prescription, maybe less. Just have your friend check it out.

Again people often use the ER for convenience or because its "free". Some people don't take the initiative to find a personal physician. Janet pointed out that her cousin was a doctor at a clinic for low income people and they refused to come in! They're the ones who will likely show up at the ER somewhere down the line for care.

And yes tom I'm sorry to say, some people are indeed whiners and grousers. Yes there are people who have money for everything else like cigarettes and booze, but will howl if they have to pay for a doctor's visit. Sometimes its just a matter of what one's priorities are.

Wow. Could at least ONE of you anti-people people PLEASE post a link to at least ONE of these supposed studies/data/reports that make it sound like Canada and Europe have such horrible health care systems?

Because every claim the anti-people people put forth just flies in the face of some little thing called....FACTS! (Probably why they don't include them. Only opinions.)

Like the FACT that the health care system in the U.S. is SO BAD, that there is actually something out there called "Medi-tourism." (Of course, Rush never told you about it.)

It's where people from the good ole USofA actually GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES for health care, and mix it in with a vacation.

If you took some time away from the "Let Rush tell me what to think today" routine and actually researched ANYthing, you'd find out how many facts there are out there. You don't HAVE to rely on deception.

(And you people still wonder why people are leaving the R party faster than they're leaving the D party?)

Another FACT, although granted, it's a small sample (see - it's not hard to be honest), is that whenever I have traveled, I have NEVER met even ONE of these scores of Canadians and Europeans and - Martians? - who supposedly come to America because their own health care system is "so terrible." (Boo-hoo. Does Sarah Palin write the daily think point for the Repubs nowadays?)

But I HAVE met several Americans who have traveled to Costa Rica, for one example, to get the health care that they either couldn't get or couldn't afford back in the U.S. And I know of others who have gotten superb health care - at a VERY reasonable price - in Panama.

(And all YOU have to do is research BOTH sides of ANY argument. It's that simple!)

So could some anti-people person PLEASE at least ONCE in your life, back up at least ONE of your spurious claims with at least ONE FACT?

(If you're afraid that exposure to facts will cause your private parts to turn black and fall off, I suggest you go to Costa Rica before posting. There, at least, you'll get quick medical care.)

No wonder we have such health problems in America. These people are making us sick with their absolute refusal (is it out of utter fear?) to examine facts, and think for themselves!

There appears to be about 20% of our population who absolutely refuse to think for themselves. So their only recourse is to repeat the current scare words/phrases.

Like Obama's a Muslim - and they know this for a "fact," because they also deride him for spending 20 years in that awful Christian Church! (If you can't see the idiotic hypocrisy in that position, there may be no help for you.)

Or that FDR was responsible for the Depression. Sorry folks. The Stock Market crashed 3 1/2 years before FDR was inaugurated! LOOK IT UP!

And now the people-haters like Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer call for Osama Bin Laden to attack America!

Tell me again how much you people love America.

Awaiting Facts, will you marry me?

P.S. I'm sure my wife would understand.

AF,

Medi-tourism? How pray tell do supposedly financially strapped people fly to Costa Rica or India for health care? Are you aware these "meditours" also involve people going to S.Africa for plastic surgery and safari vacations?
Maybe people go because they are bargains, not because they have to. Also they can afford to make the trips! These countries want to lure the business and I say go for it.

As for my being "anti-people", please. I've probably worked in the medical area caring for people longer than you've been born.

AF, you're ranting and getting off subject, however I will correct your history. FDR did nothing to get us out of the Depression, WW2 did.
By 1939 unemployment was at 17.2% down somewhat from the peak of 24.9 in 1933, but still remarkably high.
FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau stated in 1939: "We have tried spending money, it does not work. We have just as much unemployment and an enormous debt to boot".
Some economists argue that FDR may well have prolonged the Depression.
Maybe putting all those Japanese American citizens in concentration camps and confiscating their homes and businesses was a big help too.

Costa Rica gives tourists a break on health care (dentistry and plastic surgery are most popular) if they buy a vacation... Wow. Tourism and attracting American retirees is BIG business in CR. I say go for it - more health care available for the rest of us -but you must be willing to accept the risks. Complications may arise. The patient may be forced to extend their "vacation" or return soon for more care.

How, again, does this prove healthcare in the U.S. is soooo BAD?

people for whom even Wal-Mart prices are too high
$4 for generics is too much to expect people to contribute to their own health care?

I have a neighbor, right here in the great city of Los Angeles, who can not afford the medications she needs
Try NeedyMeds.org for medication assistance info and free or low-cost health care clinic listings. Help is out there.

Mary and others,

This is why the pro-life movement is so easy to cast as something hypocritical and on the fringe: because its most vocal supporters never met a war, a tax cut, a profit-based policy or a Republican talking point they didn't like. This is not the politics of life.

tom,

How about just giving an intelligent argument proving us wrong?

It's not argument. It's fact. I've lived and worked in Canada. All four of my grandparents, about ten aunts and uncles and more cousins than I can count live there. All classes from minimum wage to millionaire. Not ONE of them has ever come to the US for treatment. They boast endlessly about their health care there. Next fact: my friend who needs blood care medication that costs hundreds of month can't afford it and has to ration her food. She has sought every kind of help, and has gotten some. But budgets have been slashed across the board and she has gotten all she can get. People get sick int his money and can not get access to medical care. FACTS.

Here's a question: have you ever questioned a dollar spent on defense?

Tom, if your friend is a legal resident, have her check to see if her med is on the list at togetherrxaccess.com It won't be free, but she can save quite a bit using their discount card. Has her physician referred her directly to the pharmaceutical company for assistance?

tom 10:43PM

Great, I'm glad your family is happy with the care they get.
Fact: The father of my aunt's physical therapist had to come to the US so as to get immediate cancer treatment.

Fact: FedUp and I have posted 3 options for your friend to check into concerning her meds.

Fact: People get care. Hospitals make payment arrangements among other options. Often they have to eat the costs. You'd be surprised the people who feel no obligation to pay their hospital bills.

Yes I seriously question what the gov't spends and how it manages money. That's why I don't want it running health care.

The options you mention, or ones like them, have been checked out repeatedly.

Would love your answer to my question -- have you ever questioned a dime spent on guns, tanks and bombers?

tom 8:15am

Yes I have. I'm very happy to see my country with a very strong defense system and military. I do have an issue with the Pentagon purchasing $300.00 toilet seats. Typical gov't waste. Imagine what they would do to health care. They could go to the nearest K-Mart and get them a lot cheaper.

Also, is there a food pantry near your friend? Many churches, communities, and charities such as the Salvation Army provide free or low cost food.

It's not the toilet seats that are the problem, Mary, it's the bombers that KILL HUMAN BEINGS.

"But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Any exceptions in that phrase? Any possibility for wiggle room in that command?

We shouldn't have to rely on soup kitchens. If we can band together blow up families in their houses in faraway places -- tens of thousands Iraqi citizens dead, including children, including unborn ones -- can't we band together to make sure that people don't have to scramble for health care?

I don't know. We're never going to agree on this.

Until the anti-abortion movement is also anti-war nobody's going to listen.

tom,

Its also the bombers that protect us from human beings that want to kill us. If only we lived in an ideal world where it was never necessary to protect ourselves and where everyone loved everyone else. Never happened, never will. I believe it was George Washington who said the best way to preserve the peace is be prepared for war.
You may want peace, a more rambunctious dictator or country may not.

BTW, did you hear Saddam admitted he lied about WMDs to scare Iran and would have used them against the US if he had them?

I'm not talking about soup kitchens. I'm talking about the pantries like the ones we have here in my city where people can shop and pick the food they need. Food is donated by restaurants, hospitals, and grocery stores. The Salvation Army offers daily hot lunches. There's Meals on Wheels for senior cititzens and people confined to their homes for health reasons. Churches collect and distribute food to people in need.

Who says PL people support war? I certainly don't.

Again people aren't scrambling for health care. Its available to those who want it and will take the personal responsibility to get it.

So I guess you take Matthew 5:39 as just kind of a loose suggestion then. I would bet just about anything that, on the other hand, you take Leviticus 18:22 as ironclad and inarguable.

You know, I used to be a pretty religious person, but the 9/11 hijackers, the West Bank settlers and Jim Dobson have made an atheist out of me.

Yes I seriously question what the gov't spends and how it manages money. That's why I don't want it running health care.

Hi Mary. I quite agree. Tom's friend is a case in point. Under o-care, government protocols will require that cheaper meds be dispensed for her care. At least at the present this friend has many options to explore for assistance, although Tom dare not admit that or he loses his talking point, doesn't he?

Tom,

Mary's an agnostic.

"Until the anti-abortion movement is also anti-war nobody's going to listen."

Posted by: tom at July 9, 2009 10:00 AM

Pro-lifers are not Pro-war by definition. Some may be, but it certainly doesn't make the pro-life message any less meaningful, probably more so. How can we refute war if we don't refute abortion?

Hmm. So many Conservatives, so little truth. So many illogical and fallacious responses, so little time.

First of all, many of you seem to think that I was addressing YOU personally. I was not, I was addressing the collective group of [anti-people] people who seem to think that our health care dollars are better spent making a few people very wealthy, than most of us healthy. Those whose attitude is “To hell with the ‘people’ of this country, there’s rich people who need our help.” (LOL!)

In FACT, I never mentioned ANY poster’s name. I did mention Rush, Palin, Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer. Haven’t seen a reply from them yet.

To Tom: Sorry. My wife wouldn’t like that. Neither would the people who insist on imposing their personal religious views on all other people. (About that “freedom…”)

To Mary: Thank you, Mary. You made at least one of my points, because you A) apparently didn’t pay attention to my letter, or B) you inserted your own words/thoughts.

I never claimed that “financially strapped people fly to Costa Rica or India for health care.” (Never mind that I never even mentioned the country of India.)

But that’s EXACTLY the point. Most Americans can’t afford to go to foreign countries to access decent health care. Even worse, [too] many Americans can’t afford to stay HERE and get health care. The point, which you apparently missed, was that the health care in many other countries is BETTER than what the greed-mindset gives us here in America. And generally only those Americans who can afford health care can get it. If you wish to state openly that you do not wish for all Americans to enjoy good health care, then say it. And then explain how that is good for our country.

Why should ANY American - rich, poor, or otherwise - have to travel to a foreign country to get better health care that what is available here? Why shouldn’t Americans get health care - at reasonable prices - in THIS country? (Perhaps because it’s all about wealth, not health?)

This is the greatest country in the world, so why can’t we simply help our most destitute - or even our middle class - when we can spend billions to help other countries wage war?

When a group of people (Conservatives) worship the almighty dollar more than their fellow coutrymen, but can’t think for themselves enough to see that preventative medicine is a whole lot cheaper than [post-problem] treatment (thereby SAVING money), there is something obviously wrong with their thought-process. Mostly that it is short-ended. Get to a comfortable thinking point, and stop all thought processes. (That that end-point is actually the ultimate goal of the people making all the money, of the people telling you what to think, is quite telling in itself. When someone who is making an awful lot of money off of you tells you THIS is where we need to be, and don‘t look over there, flags should go up.)

And right, Mary. People take medi-tourism vacations because they’re bargains, and/or that’s what they want to do while on vacation! I would think most people go on vacation to visit other people and places and/or relax. Not to go get cut open, unless they couldn’t do it near home. (Just what do YOU do on vacation, Mary?)

And a safari? Of course, lots of people want to ride on the back of an elephant or camel, or even bounce around in a Land Cruiser, after they have had surgery. (Ever had major surgery, Mary? Movement is not usually something we consider “fun.”)

You also state: “These countries want to lure the business and I say go for it.” Thanks, again, for proving another of my points. To you anti-people people, health care nowadays has little if anything to do with making as many people as possible healthy. (Evidenced by the fact that most of our health care comes in the form of follow-up care, not preventative care.)

No, nowadays (in America, at least) it’s all about making a few people wealthy. (I guess you conveniently ignore that the average salary - sans benefits - for the CEOs of Health Insurers is $14,000,000 a year. And that‘s just the CEOs. How overpaid are the CFOs, COOs, CIOs, etc.?)

As for your having “worked in the medical area caring for people longer than you've been born,” Sorry. I doubt that.

First, lets review the medical “experience” of being “born.” Well, I couldn’t tell time back then, but from what I remember my mother telling me, it only took a few hours, including labor. So I was “born” for a total of maybe four hours. Gee. I’ve actually been a patient, many times, for more than four hours. (More than four days on occasion.) And I’m guessing you were in the field longer than four hours.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you meant “longer than you've been alive.” Well, congratulations. You must have been working in the medical field for over 50 years. And sorry if my writings sounded like that of a teenager, or however long you’ve been in the medical field. (Doing what, may we ask?)

Could you please enlighten us on how, based solely upon my writings, you came to a decision on my age? (And again, Thanks for proving another of my points. You just made an invalid conclusion, based on information that YOU DO NOT POSSESS: my age.)

And I, too, worked in the medical industry (at a hospital), and was appalled at the way decisions were made based not on the health benefits to be realized, but on the money to be saved. And yet “wasting money” was never an issue when it came to bonuses and raises for the top dogs; buying expensive - and rarely used - equipment for their offices; etc. (I could go on, but that would need it’s own thread.) Could you perhaps enjoy the current situation so much because you are one of those who make great profits at the expense of the health of others?)

And my comments now are directed towards you, not because I care to bring you (or anyone else) personally into the discussion, but because YOU brought yourself in. I never specifically identified you (or anyone else specifically) as “anti-people.” (But rather I addressed the collective group of people who seem dead-set against fixing the problems shared by so many. So many OTHERS, that is.)

But, by virtue of your umbrage, you have placed yourself in the “group” I was addressing. (Thanks for the help. AGAIN! Couldn‘t have done it without you!)

I don’t know how long you’ve worked in the medical field. (As if that somehow automatically makes you a “people person,” or “caring.” ANOTHER fallacious statement. How many bad Doctors or Nurses are out there? There is absolutely no direct, identifiable relationship: Working in medical field and “caring.” Most in the field DO care, but it is not a given.)

But if you want to play games, and if I were allowed to use the same [invalid] criteria you use, I could just as easily say to you: “Please. I’ve probably been paying attention longer than you've been [alive].” For I possess the same exact amount of info re your age as you had for mine. NONE.

And I’ve been paying attention to politics for well over 35 years. Heck, I’ve been watching C-SPAN regularly for over 28 years. (Virtually daily for most of that time.) So, using your [brand of] logic, my statement is every bit as valid - or invalid - as your statement regarding years in med. field vs. my age. (See. If we use bad logic, we BOTH look dumb.)

Or, we could go on to debate what our definition of your term “caring for people” REALLY means to each of us. (That might actually be more revealing than anything else.)

re FDR: First and foremost: I DID NOT STATE THAT FDR GOT US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION! (Thanks again - you just proved another point. Facts really do annoy the anti-people people! So make things up as you go. Like all the Canadians and Europeans that are coming here for med care.)

No, instead I merely pointed out the LIE that FDR was responsible for a depression that began 3 ½ years before his inauguration. (Here. I’ll make it about as easy as I can, and actually do the arithmetic for you: Stock Market crashed October, 1929. FDR inaugurated March, 1933. That’s 3 years, 5+ months.)

That a Democratic President would have a hard time fixing problems ignored and/or created by Republicans shouldn’t surprise anyone. If FDR & the depression isn’t a good enough example, look at some of today’s examples. “No,” “No,” and “No.” Even when Obama continues Bush’s policies, like closing Gitmo - on Bush’s OWN SCHEDULE! - he gets trashed by Republicans. Objectivity, anyone? Honesty, SOMEone?

And 24.9% unemployment, down to 17.2%. Well, for anti-people people, a 7.7% drop in unemployment would likely mean nothing. (It’s not a depression unless YOU lose YOUR job, right?) If FDR had brought the U.R. down to 7%, it still would not have been good enough. After all, 5% is considered "normal."

But extrapolate that 7.7% [of newly hired] over the entire workforce, and what is that? 7.7 million people? (I’m guessing. Someone else can research the exact figures in the 1930s. I’m basing it on an estimated 100,000,000 person work force. But even if only a 10,000,000 workforce, that‘s still 770,000 PEOPLE who found work.)

And, what might the unemployment rate have been, had FDR done NOTHING? Of course, we can’t tell, so we can’t make an HONEST assessment of how things turned out - EITHER WAY - now can we? EXCEPT to say that “Unemployment dropped by 7.7%.” (What a shame!)

Based on the AVAILABLE FACTS, however, and considering where things were heading, it is NOT unreasonable to say that “Had FDR done NOTHING, things would very likely have CONTINUED to get worse.”

Using inductive reasoning, we can draw a conclusion that is an ASSESSMENT from known statistics, and the trend at the time. (Things were at the time continuing to get worse.) We CANNOT, however, draw a conclusion claiming a CERTAINTY. Such is the nature of inductive reasoning.

Things weren’t getting any BETTER before FDR did SOMEthing. Things were getting worse. Stay in a boat going downstream, and you will continue to go downstream. SOMEthing must change for you to go upstream.

And, WWII finished the job (as wars conveniently do), but at what expense? Again, the anti-people peoples’ solution involves war, death, sickness, profiteering… As long as THEIR kid’s not being drafted… (Can you say “Cheney got five deferments…”?)

And, suddenly someone’s TREASURY SECRETARY is the final arbiter of truth? (LOL!)

Okay, then by your "rules," we can turn to Bush’s first Treasury Secretary (name escapes me, wrote a book), one of the earliest to leave his administration. Can we believe everything that HE said about the problems in GWB’s Admin? Funny, I remember him being dragged across the coals for his revelations. For putting his loyalty toward his country FIRST, not loyalty to any particular administration. (What a concept!)

Furthermore, and perhaps the most revealing, YOUR OWN STATEMENTS present a contradiction in your argument. (You DID proofread what you wrote, didn’t you? Never mind. Stupid question.)

You stated “By 1939 unemployment was at 17.2% down somewhat from the peak of 24.9 in 1933...” Then you state that FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau stated - in 1939: "We have tried spending money, it does not work. We have just as much unemployment and an enormous debt to boot".

“…just as much unemployment (in 1939)…” So, Mary. Which is it? In 1939, by your numbers, unemployment fell from 24.9 to 17.2%. That’s a 7.7% drop. Then you write that Morganthau stated - in 1939 - that “We have just as much unemployment…”

So which is it? By 1939, did unemployment fall by 7.7%, or did we have “just as much unemployment?” Plain and simple, that is a major discrepancy. Was Morganthau (perhaps another Republican mole in a Democratic Administration?) lying, mistaken, or making up his numbers? Are YOU? You can’t both be right - the numbers conflict - unless you’ve got some magical formula you won’t share with us. But you CAN both be wrong.

Point being, you use an argument that doesn’t even stand up on it’s own merits! One need not do ANY research, or even much thinking. No inductive reasoning required, this fails even the very simplest of criteria - deductive reasoning. Two statements that openly conflict with each other, attempting to arrive at a logical conclusion. Sorry. False premises do false conclusions make. (You cannot legitimately argue that "4+3=5+1", just because some people say "5+1=7".)

And "Some economists argue that FDR may well have prolonged the Depression." Hmm. And economists are always right, and they always agree, don’t they. That’s because economics is an exact science, isn’t it.

Assuming they ARE correct, just how did "some" of these economists claim FDR prolonged it? (And PLEASE - if you write nothing else, please answer this.)

By not getting us into war sooner? Is that why Bush and Cheney rushed us into the war with Iraq? Because it was going to save our economy?

And no, I don’t believe the Iraq War was all about oil. Oil was just a smoke screen to distract us from the REAL looting of the BIG bucks - the looting of the American Treasury by the Military Industrial Complex.

(And before anyone tries to flame me re M.I.C., I suggest you research who first warned us about the M.I.C. It will likely AMAZE you. (No, it wasn’t some pinko-Commie.) I’ll get you started with a clue. The speech came January 17, 1961. (Now - go do your homework!)

We were warned by a man who was arguably in a better position to know about this than ANY person alive at the time, if not in all of history. And when you find out who it was, read the speech, and think long and hard about it. A most prescient speech.)

And, finally, as a pro-people person, I don’t think the Japanese-American internment was: right; Constitutional; legal, or; moral. (See - we can agree on something!) But I never mentioned J-A internment. A red herring, perhaps?

See, this is EXACTLY the problem with the Conservative mind-set. I mention NOTHING re J-A internment. I mention NOTHING that FDR did this or that. I merely pointed out a FACT, that some people are LYING about FDR and the depression. And suddenly, the entire argument is skewed by people pulling in issues about FDR that, not only did I not mention, but I also happen to agree with! (So how strong are those points now? How valid?)

Funny how no one addressed the LIE about FDR & the Depression. Only presented tangential points that didn’t even have ANYthing to do with FDR and the start of the Depression.

And to Janet: Is this a preferred pattern? Pull statements out of nowhere? (I’m being polite.)

“…IF they buy a vacation.” (My emphasis.) Well, I guess that’s YOUR OPINION, because I never stated anything of the sort. I know of no conditions (as opposed to here in the U.S.) on the medical care given there. (Probably the mistake you make is in assuming that the people I personally spoke with are the ones on the medi-tourism trips. They were not. They were individuals traveling on their own, to a country that has health care for all of their people - and visitors. By contrast, here in America we can’t even get health care for all off our people, never mind being generous enough to care for our [legal] visitors.

The other person cited was in Panama on a non-medical-related trip, who had sudden cause for medical attention. Interesting, that person was also so brain-washed by the MSM in the U.S. that he thought he was in trouble. Once he was taken care of - for under $8.00! - he was so impressed that he actually forgot to apply for his 10% Senior discount! (What’s the discount Seniors get in the U.S.?)

(Another glaring example of the differences between our health care and that of “Socialized” medicine - In those countries, you go for medical care and the first question is: “What’s wrong?” In America, the first question is: “Do you have insurance?”)

Janet, the medi-tourism, a separate but related point, was brought up to emphasize that there is a great discrepancy in what we are TOLD and what the REALITY of the world is. (Once you prove this to yourself, the next question you ask yourself should be: "Why are these people lying to me? What do they have to gain?")

You are told our health care is great, that “Socialized“ medicine is terrible. The reality is that people from America - those that can afford it, anyway - travel to OTHER countries to get the health care they cannot afford or cannot get here. (And those that cannot are at the mercy of the anti-people people, who don’t want good health care for all Americans.)

These are two separate things: Medi-tourism; and many Americans going to other countries on their own, because they can't get medical care in the U.S. that won’t bankrupt them. Those that do take the medi-tourism trips are just a portion of those who seek medical care outside the U.S. (In many cases, it comes down to a decision: "$10,000 for a trip to Central America, or $200,000 for the same care here?" Other times it's $200,000 for treatment, or nothing.")

Guess you also don’t know about all of the medical-caused bankruptcies in this countries. Or don't care. (Oh, Rush doesn’t mention them, either?)

Medical expenses are the cause of around a third of all U.S. bankruptcies, but it’s okay, it didn’t happen to YOU, so it’s not a problem, right?

(And I won’t go into detail about how one of the VERY FIRST THINGS the Bush Admin. did upon getting into office was to make it harder for the PEOPLE of the U.S. to file for bankruptcy. But when the fat cats file, they can’t be helped fast enough!)

And never mind that our politicians, our service personnel, and our retirees get “Socialized” government-run health care. That the VA hospitals have some problems is a matter of HOW they are run. Not that they EXIST.

Finally, Janet, you ask “How, again, does this prove healthcare in the U.S. is soooo BAD?” Well, two things:

1) I never claimed that this alone “proved” the health care is “soooo BAD.” It is, however, just one more example of evidence supporting that point. That to get good health care, many Americans go elsewhere for care. (As opposed to the arguments - still unsupported - that Canadians and Europeans are coming HERE for their health care.)

After all, if the health care here IS so good, why would ANYone have to go elsewhere for it? It would be much cheaper, safer, and healthier to stay home, get cared for, and THEN go on a vacation AFTER surgery, to relax and recuperate. Is that too confusing?

2) To state that the health care system in the U.S. is bad, does not mean that it is the worst. There are better, there are worse. But that there are so many “better,” and so close to home, in countries nowhere near as wealthy as ours, is quite telling.

Now look, everyone. I’m not supporting Democrats. I voted against Obama. (But for different reasons than most.) In the past, I voted against Clinton, and against Gore. And I did not vote for one single Democrat in 2008. (Why not just vote for Republicans?)

(And I DID vote, as opposed to those who don’t even bother to vote, who then claim “I didn’t vote for him/her!” Of course not. These people didn’t bother to vote for ANYone. These are perhaps the lowest of Americans. Our cemeteries are too full of men & women who gave their lives - and not always willingly - so we could have the right to vote. To not vote, is to me, about the greatest insult anyone could pay to those who gave their lives for the freedom some willingly fail to exercise.)

Rather, I look at individual arguments and positions. If they are logical, reasonable, and result in benefit for our country specifically, or the world in general, I’m all for them. If they are full of lies, fallacies, and distortions, I take them to task. (That’s my position. Plain, simple, and straight-forward. If you find fault with a position like that, then convince me any other position is better for our country.)

And that is also why most Republicans I talk with think I’m a Democrat, and most Democrats think I’m a Republican. As soon as I disagree with them on any one point, I suddenly become “the other guy.” Sorry. It’s country first.)

As a Liberal (same word root as “Liberty,” mind you), I take Democrats to task for their ill-thought out positions on gun control, illegal immigration, “political correctness” (which turned most of them into wimps, afraid to call a President a liar, even when he outright lies), and bi-lingual education, among other things.

But the list of Republican positions which are baseless are too numerous to list here. Besides, just think of the wacky responses I’d get from the shoot-from-the-lip crowd for pointing out things like the FACT that our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) were - politically - Liberal!

(Yes, many were fiscally and socially conservative, but politically, they were Liberals.)

After all, who did we fight against? We fought the Tories. The Tories, who were the “Loyalists.” The Tories, who were - and remain today - the “CONSERVATIVES!”

The Tories, true to the definition of conservatism (look it up, dammit!), RESISTED the CHANGE from an aristocratic monarchy to something called democracy. (A.K.A. "Government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE.") Our Patriots (from whom I am directly and proudly descended), fought and died for an idea so revolutionary, so PROGRESSIVE, that it was almost unthinkable at the time. So progressive, it had NEVER before been done in history.

Furthermore, there seems to be a mentality (if you can call it that) among Conservatives that “As long as I, PERSONALLY don’t have a problem, then it’s not a problem for my country. Only when I or someone I PERSONALLY care for has a problem, is it an issue worth addressing.”

I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree. IMHO, Americans help Americans. People help people.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than when Conservatives push policies that preclude others from benefits, if they don’t benefit them as well.

(No one on the Left says that you, who prefer paying health premiums to profit-driven insurers, can’t keep those policies. Go right ahead. But those on the Right seem hell-bent on preventing others from having a choice in the matter. Just because you want to subsidize mega-million salaries, shouldn’t give you the right to prevent others from seeking a more reasonable, economically sensible, and productive solution. (Gee. If those CEO salaries were “only” $2 million a year, each of those insurers could provide AT LEAST another $12,000,000 of ACTUAL BENEFITS to the PEOPLE! (And that’s not counting CFO, COO, etc. salaries.) WOW! What a stupid concept. No wonder you’re against it!)

The bottom line is, everyone has the right to their opinion, right or wrong. But those who REFUSE to think and debate logically, reasonable, and HONESTLY do NOT have the “right” to [continue to] screw up our country (or our fellow countrymen) just because you want to believe in nonsense. Continue to use fallacious arguments, invalid reasoning, and made-up facts. Just don’t expect the rest of the country (the world?) to continue to just shrug our shoulders and let your bad decisions ruin the country. (Maybe that’s why the reasonable ones are leaving the R party for Libertarian party and others?)

Whatever your party, whatever your political leanings, you do yourself, your arguments, and your country a great disservice when you refuse to think rationally.

After all, America needs at LEAST two political parties, lest any one party run havoc over the country. (See “Spineless Democrats capitulate to Bush.”)

I WANT a strong opposition party to the clueless Democrats. If it has to be Republicans, or some other party, so be it, but let them be reasonable, rational, and sane. Otherwise, they continue to lose membership, Democrats get stronger, and we are all in big trouble!

I am not picking on “Conservatives“ or “Republicans.” (Nor am I picking on Democrats when I pick apart their poor logic.) I am picking on the invalid arguments themselves. That Conservatives seem to be the ones most often pushing bad reasoning is not my fault. It is the reason they are “highlighted” most often here. If Republicans/Conservatives used facts, logic, and reasonable arguments, I would spend my time attacking the stupid things the Democrats do. If BOTH parties used facts, logic, and reasonable arguments, we would actually be coming up with logical and reasonable solutions to our problems. Is that too much to ask? (Gulp!)

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Where are all the responses to my final question, re Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer calling for Osama Bin Laden to attack America. Asking for their supporters to tell us, again, how much you love our country? Scat got your tongues?

Well, Awaiting Facts, as somebody who has voted Republican as often as you have voted Democrat, I gotta say, I'm impressed with your reasoning and your vehemence, and I will never again be quite so sure I know what to expect from somebody from The Other Side.

Tom:

Why, thank you. I merely have the intensity of a good parent wanting the best for their child. (Like teaching them strong reasoning skills, so they can protect themselves from rhetoric and fallacious arguments. Helps them avoid being ripped off by scam artists, abusers, crooked salespersons, and politicians. Wait a minute - is that redundant?)

Or, the intensity of my ancestors, fighting for an awesome future for us all. And THAT must be protected, from "all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I will never believe our Founders put it all on the line so that future generations could relinquish their right to independent thought. It is in honor of their sacrifices that we must look [at the man] behind the curtain.

And pardon my ignorance, Tom, but what do you mean by somebody from "The Other Side?"

By other side I only meant somebody who voted Republican in the last few presidential elections. I'm often guilty of making oversimplified assumptions about the thinking of the opposition, so it's great for me to hear such solid un-fuzzy reasoning from somebody who didn't vote the way I did.

Uh, if you mean you think I voted Republican in the past few, I didn't do that either.

An interesting side point. In 2000 I voted for the only candidate that I heard address some of the very problems that resulted in 9/11 - a year later. (He also addressed many other problems, and was the most reasonable of candidates. That he had little chance of winning is fodder for another thread.) The candidate was John Hagelin.

I confess to two things: once again making facile assumptions, and being unaware of John Hagelin. I've checked him out and he seems very cool. Thanks for my daily education.