Someone needs to shine the light on the junior senator from Illinois and expose him for what he is: a Marxist. There. I said it. Obama is a marxist. While the rhetoric may seem harsh, a look at Obama's healthcare plan reveals Soviet style central planning and bureaucracy.

Let's take a look:

Everything is from Obama's website.

Obama plans to create a new national healthcare plan available to all Americans. The plan is similar to one offered to members of Congress and have guaranteed eligibility and portability. Obama will also provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to purchase private insurance.

If this was the end of Obama's plan it would be noxious for sure, but it gets worse. Beyond creating a massive entitlement, Obama wants to create a new agency whose primary purpose is to put private insurers out of business.

Obama proposes creating a National Health Insurance Exchange. The NHIE is tasked with acting as the government "watch dog" against the private insurance market. From Obama's website:

The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

So the exchange will regulate the manner and cost in which private insurers provide coverage. How will private insurers be able to compete with the government's plan that is giving away care for "free" and guaranteeing access to everyone? The simple answer is that they cannot. Obama's goal is a backdoor to nationalized medicine. He creates the circumstances that make it impossible for private insurers to remain in business so Americans only healthcare alternative is the government sponsored, Soviet style centralized healthcare plan.

Senator Obama is a Marxist.

WTF?!

Are you kidding me?!  "Hello, Big Brother?  Japan is calling, they want to come over for dinner and have a nice long visit."

Apparently, because of the national health care system, which covers the Japanese either through their employers or through a public health system, the government can pass laws like this without much opposition.  Even critics of the law don't call out it's blatant Big Brother attitude, but the fact that it's not necessary.  They say that maybe it would be necessary in a country like the US where there are many Americans who weigh 220 pounds (!) but not Japan.

There are so many things wrong with this bit of news, I almost can't process them all.  The best way I think is to make a list and then see if I can address all of them.

1. Big Brother attitudes
2. National Health Care
3. The slight against US health
4. The seemingly little opposition to this law
5. A trend for the future?

So let's start with #1 (my favorite).  Here's the thing: socialism can be basically equated to Big Brother.  Whether or not you want to admit it, socialism is where a few "experts" decide what is best for the population at large - with healthcare, it is decided for you if a medical treatment is appropriate, and apparently, it is decided how big of a waist you should have.  Socialism takes basic privileges and rights, afforded to you in a democracy, and puts those rights in the hands of someone else because you don't know better or enough to make your own decisions.  It's as if the country is a family, and the government is your parents deciding what you should and should not do because it's "best for you".   It's most certainly where Europe is, and apparently Japan.  Communist China is much more extreme (you know, their law where families can have only one baby?).  Socialism is certainly where the US is headed, especially if Obama wins this year.  But I digress.  The fact of the matter is, soon, we will be told what we can and cannot eat because it's bad for us - oh wait, that's already started too with the banning of Trans Fats.  Whether or not you agree with it, it's still Big Brother.

#2 - Socialist health care.  This one sends shivers down my back.  Here we go.  I'm against socialized medicine.  Why?  Well, I think the US is too big to have a good system for socialized medicine and if you go by state, then you will have mass migrations to the states with better healthcare (ie the wealthier states).  Also, where do you think the money comes from to pay for drug and cancer research?  Hmm?  And where do you think that money would go if we gave everyone "free" healthcare?  Hello. . . common sense is knocking. . . a little reminder - nothing in life is free, we all have to pay for it somehow.  Obviously, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare.  Making it free is just idiotic. 

The third point is this slight against the US.  I wanted to comment on it because it really just highlights how little the rest of the world thinks of Americans.  And how apparently everyone is over 200 lbs.  Don't get me wrong, America is most certainly fat and it is definitely an epidemic.  But really, do people HAVE to call attention to it all the time?  I mean, of course there's a problem, I'll be the first to admit it, but for once, leave Americans out of arguments that have nothing to do with us.

The last two issues can be tied together.  As far as I can tell, there has been little opposition in Japan to this law, but hopefully I'm wrong in thinking that, and maybe it just hasn't been reported.  Either way, other countries could get the idea to do this and soon anywhere with socialized medical care could consider passing a similar law.  The lack of opposition could be seen as support and genius politicians may want to try it out in their countries.  It terrifies me that this may become a new trend in healthcare. 

I'm sorry, but I don't care what kind of healthcare a country has, the government has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell you what to do with your body.  If you want to be 500 lbs, that's your right to do so.  It's extremely selfish, because then someone is going to have to take care of you and your fat, but it's still your right as a person.  I mean, does it go the other way?  Will you be sanctioned for being too thin?  Being too thin can cause as many health problems as obesity.  When does it stop?

Socialized medicine.  This is a good way to kill off senior citizens.
No, really.  True story.  I have a friend with friends from England (land of socialized medicine).  The people from England pay for health insurance in the United States.  Why?  Because in England, with their wonderful socialize medicine, the wife is on a waiting list for hip-replacement surgery.  By her own admission, she would probably die waiting for the surgery.  Under the evil American plan, she is getting her surgery, and will significantly improve her life expectancy as well as her quality of life.  However, if the democrats are pushing for socialized medicine as a way to save money in social security - maybe this is a good idea.

But, what would our tag line be - Democrats: saving Social Security by killing those who need it. 

Be nice to terrorists - and they'll be nice back!
Sorry, but to face down our new enemy we've got to show no weakness at all.  Why is it that our democratic leaders can't see that, or do we just hate "W" more?  Here even McCain doesn't have much on us.  He said he won't use waterboarding to get information to save American lives.  Hell, if I had a terrorist who knew about a nuke in NYC.  He'd go feet first into a wood chipper.  (I know, not original, the terrorists already use this technique.)

Oil
Any presidental candidate who doesn't support INCREASED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION is a panderer - including McCain.  I keep hearing how scarifices must be made.  Well, how 'bout some environmental scarificies?  Just for the short-run, while we're waiting for solar power, wind power and flying cars.

Here's what I want in a candidate: JFK.  Stand up to any aggressor.  Cut taxes to increase investment in America.  AND NOT PANDER TO THE LATEST SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

I nearly choked on my Starbucks when I heard that.  Serves me right for eavesdropping on their conversation, I guess.  Still - the irony.  I mean, how sexist!  Where's the equality ladies?

Yeah, it would be great to have a woman in the white house and not as first lady but as president but I want her to be there because she was "it".  I want her to be there because of where she stands on the issues.  I want her to be there because she can lead this country.  I want her there because she was the best candidate and not because she was the most ambitious.  And right now, the issue is change and I want her to bring change.  When she gets there, I want her to remember where she stood on the issues during her campaign and I want her to do everything in her power to remain faithful to those promises.

Obama and Clinton, in my opinion, have both been pretty close in regards to most issues that they care to elaborate on.  I prefer Hillary's national healthcare plan because it offers a sound solution for small businesses which help our economy.  I prefer Obama's Immigration reform plan which would provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (I don't think anyone should be out there driving without a license and unable to aquire insurance - I don't think it's a fair trade to punish illegal immigrants and at the same time punish law abiding citizens who may end up in an accident with someone that does not have insurance - it also makes sense that this is a good way of knowing exactly who is in our country).

However, there seems to be much going unsaid on Hillary's part.  Take for example Hillary on women.  She states:

"Today, despite the progress women have made, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn -- and women of color earn even less. Hillary is leading the charge in the Senate to strengthen equal pay laws and end pay disparities between men and women. She introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the penalties associated with wage discrimination, to ensure that the federal government sets a higher standard, and to increase oversight of employers. Hillary has also worked to increase access to capital and other support for women-owned businesses."

That's nice.  However, Obama is ahead of the game on this one as he's not only as pro-choice, pro-family, pro-women's rights but he addresses issues that go beyond the laws.  Laws are wonderful but if we as women can not count on the agencies responsible for enforcing those laws, they mean little to us.  Obama states:

Historically, the Civil Rights Division has been the primary protector of the nation’s anti-discrimination laws and has helped transform our nation by leading the fight against racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination. Along with agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the Civil Rights Divisions that have been created within other federal agencies (such as the Department of Education), DOJ’s civil rights arm has helped transform our nation. These agencies have led the fight against racial, ethnic, religious, and gender discrimination – whether it’s on the job, at the polls, in our criminal justice system, or in our educational institutions.

Under the Bush administration, these important offices have experienced a shift in their priorities, and enforcement of various types of traditional civil rights cases has gone down.

􀂾 By the end of 2006, the Civil Rights Division filed only about six Title VII employment cases per year, and very few of them involved racial discrimination. This drop in cases does not coincide with a drop in complaints: the EEOC referred over 3,000 charges of individual discrimination alone to the Division.

􀂾 The number of housing cases filed by the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section has fallen from 53 in 2001 to 31 in 2006. Cases involving discrimination have fallen by 60%. In 2003, DOJ announced that it would no longer file disparate impact cases involving housing discrimination – a sharp break from DOJ’s longstanding and bipartisan policy to aggressively litigate these cases.

􀂾 The voting section filed no discrimination cases on behalf of African American voters between 2001 and 2006. The Bush Administration has only filed three cases under Section 2 overall, and has cut staffing for voting rights cases.

Part of the decline in traditional enforcement priorities is traceable to a shift in DOJ hiring. In 2002, the Bush Administration put political appointees in charge of hiring new attorneys in the Civil Rights Division – departing from the longstanding practice of giving the job to career professionals. Since then, less than half of new hires in the Division’s important Appellate, Employment and Voting Sections have had any prior civil rights experience – and less than a quarter have had any prior experience enforcing the nation’s civil rights laws. The others, according to a Boston Globe analysis, “gained their experience either by defending employers against discrimination lawsuits or by fighting against race-conscious policies.” Barack Obama will reverse these trends and reinvigorate the enforcement activities of these agencies. Read the whole plan at the bottom of this page.

Then, of course, there's social security.  Ali Eteraz asks the question "who's the elitist now" in a post highlighting a Clinton - O'Reilly discussion on social security.  However, it's quite a bit more problematic than that.  It's an issue that Clinton is not willing to address and the question why has to be asked.  Is it perhaps because it would affect her 100% rating by the ARA?  Is it perhaps because it would affect her standing with the middle class?  Bi-partisan-shmartisan - Obama says the same thing but at least he's being honest about considers possible solutions. 

Sometime last summer Clinton was ridiculing Obama's stance on diplomacy .. that he'd talk to leaders of countries who we consider hostile but today her stance on diplomacy is as follows:

We know we need global coalitions to tackle global problems like climate change, poverty, AIDS, and terrorism. And to keep our country safe, we need to start engaging our enemies again. During the Cold War, with missiles pointed at us, we never stopped talking to the Soviet Union. That didn't mean we agreed with them or approved of them. But it did mean we came to understand them -- and that was crucial to confronting the threats they posed.

Her talk on Iraq says one thing, her voting record quite another .. see here.

Fine, we can learn from our mistakes, I believe in that, but we can also learn from the mistakes of others.  Just today we're hearing all about Clinton's gas tax vacation plan, one which is unlikely to have any congressional support and Obama's learned his lesson on this one already.  It may save the average family $28 dollars over the vacation but it could cost 6,000 jobs - it's allready happened in Illinois when he voted in favor of similar legislation.  It looks to me like Clinton is looking to buy votes at the price of $28 at the expense of thousands of people's jobs. 

Well, I can't say I'm proud of the way this campaign of Clinton's is going, that's for sure.  From the Is Obama Muslim crap that was comming from her staffers to the landed in Bosnia under sniper fire to the some things just don't need to be discussed evasiveness to the let me buy your vote tactics - hmmmm .. she's sounding a bit like Bush.  I just hope that if she makes it into the white house as first lady president that she concentrates on the change that we're all waiting for, the change she's promising.

On the up-side if she does make it to the White House - hey - we're going to have a "first man" sitting pretty (hopefully, that's all he'll be doing) in the White House.

The centerpiece of Hillary Clinton's argument for why she should be the next president is intimately linked to the creation of national healthcare. HillaryCare, would require sweeping changes in the current healthcare model and how its delivery.

But less than 24 hours after Clinton's 9 point victory over rival, Barack Obama, in Pennsylvania, Clinton's Democratic surrogates in the Congress have started backing away from the possibility of making national healthcare a reality.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) and Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL) are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

According to Schumer:

“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan.”

And Meek all but rules it out entirely:

“The money is not necessarily there right now.”

It's worth noting that both Schumer and Meeks have voted in favor of every one of George Bush's requests for additional funding for the Iraq war.

Should Hillary Clinton manage to become the next president, by lowering expectations seven months before the general election, Schumer and Meeks are providing Clinton with a "wiggle clause" to not deliver on her central campaign promise of national healthcare to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans in the United States.

I've never been the best looking, the most athletic, the richest or the most eloquent. Occassionaly I've been cool because of what I did for a living, where I lived or who I volunteered for - but those things, like many are fleeting.

I'd like to be cool enough to vote for Obama, but I really can't bring myself to. Really, I can't. He's charming, a great speaker, rallies a crowd and gives hope for something better - but he's also a not too hidden socialist. While I can appreciate some of the premises of socialist thought I don't see the practical outworking of socialist leaning progressivism here in the United States.

While I like the leadership qualities of that Obama may bring, I don't know if I'd like where he'd lead us. Call me a capitalist pig if you'd like, but continuing to take responsibility away from people doesn't seem like the best way to promote a healthy nation.

This isn't really just an Obama or party affiliation problem, Barrack is merely evidence in how we encourage the system to continue to take our resources and "spend them better" than we could.

Bringing education, health care and the like under a central authority will somehow solve all of our problems? Are we that naive? Ask any teacher (and I have asked many) if they'd rather have more money for the school or parents who were responsible and overwhelmingly they'd ask for the latter. Yet, when we talk about improving education the notion that taking responsibility/authority from parents seems to win out.

People complain that health care is too costly, that they can't get the procedures done within our current system and that by centralizing health care these problems will abate. Do we really think so? By handing authority and responsibility to someone else will needs be better met? Will those needs not just be centralized and addressed within a far more dispassionate system?

I know there are real issues with poverty, oppression and disenfranchising. I also know that many are indifferent to these issues and we would rather see unified efforts to combat these problems, but I would rather have a leader who would champion these causes without asking to that the government be the savior.

If we cannot be held responsible to act on our own to nurture, care and support those in our care and around us we become an indifferent society. Already, we ignore so many because "there are programs for that." Ask those who don't qualify for said programs and see if they agree. When we continually take from the citizenry to fund these initiatives we not only take away the power to act locally, but we train generations that they need not care to because their government will act on their behalf.

I don't dislike Obama, but I do dislike the notion that our nation's ills can be solved if only the right progressive President were chosen- such high hopes can only be dashed. If we want to help children, the homeless, the ill, the disenfranchised act toward this each day - don't wait on someone else and don't wait for Novembers.

With the exception of about 2 million permanent civil servants, and the self-employed, Germans who earn below Euro 3,862 gross salary per month in 2004 must join one of the 300 statutory sickness funds. Those above the mandatory insurance threshold may opt out of the state system and buy private insurance instead but many opt to remain in the state system - 10 per cent of the population are voluntarily insured.

German sickness funds are required to be financially self-sufficient and premiums are set as a percentage of income. This percentage varies from fund to fund, with an average of 14 per cent, to fall to 13 per cent under Schroeder reforms. The premiums are deducted from pay packets with employer and employee paying half each.

Since the early 1990s German governments have been trying to increase competition. Insurers can easily be compared on the Internet, and for those without web-access, there are magazines and rankings by independent consumer organisations. The result has been a large-scale shift away from the traditionally dominant funds, although competition is muted compared with America.

People who have seen a large chunk of their pay packet disappear each month make demanding patients and expect both immediacy of treatment and value for money. They 'shop around', go for second opinions, and change doctors frequently. No money changes hands at the point of service. Instead, physicians are reimbursed by sickness funds via their regional physician associations. People who have opted for private insurance, however, generally pay by invoice for treatment received.

The real contrast is not between public and private, but monopoly and competition. Some workplaces make it hard for even well-motivated employees to give of their best, and some make it easy. Can anyone honestly say that the NHS brings out the best in people? Morale is low, recruitment is now reliant on people from overseas, and retention of experienced staff increasingly difficult. We need to learn from other European countries where public sector workers do not have the same ideological hang-ups.

In Germany, hospitals are under diverse ownership, which further encourages competition and constant efforts to raise standards. In 2002 around 54% of hospital beds were in the public sector, about 38% were run by private, non-profit organisations and some 8% were private, for-profit institutions.

If you walk along a typical British high street in search of healthcare professionals you might see an optician, probably a pharmacy, and maybe a dentist, but to see a heart specialist, a dermatologist, an ear, nose and throat specialist, or a paediatrician, not to mention a smattering of GPs, nestled in between Macdonald's, Dixon's and W.H. Smith's would be unusual unless you shop in Harley Street.

Not so in Germany, where queueing up in a hospital outpatient department to see a specialist is largely unknown. First, Germans are free to visit any doctor they like. They may either walk in off the street, or ring for an appointment that will invariably be booked for the same morning or afternoon. Consumers can and do penalise bad service. Our recent study of German consumers commonly produced reactions like this: 'I saw a long queue, so hopped on the tube and went to a different practice'; 'she was rather ill-tempered so I never went back'; 'the facilities were drab, so I went to a different one next to my office'; 'I felt rushed at his practice so didn't go back'.

Second, Germans do not have to see a GP before visiting a private specialist. GPs do act as gatekeepers to German hospitals, but about half of all specialists practice outside the hospitals. German hospitals provide few out-patient services. Instead, there are a large number of independent clinics, invariably with the most sophisticated diagnostic equipment. Most Germans have a favourite GP, although many maintain a relationship with more than one - just in case - but if they need to see a specialist they would not waste time seeing a GP first.

Third, there are plenty of specialists. Germany has 2.3 practising specialists for every 1,000 people, compared with only 1.5 in the UK.

What about the unemployed?

A distinction is made between those who have previously been in work and those who have not. The majority who have previously worked are included in the national insurance system, but instead of the employers paying, the benefits agency pays. For unemployed people who have never worked (about one-third of the unemployed in Germany) provision is made through a social fund (the Sozialamt) which arranges cover directly with doctors or through one of the AOKs (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) the local funds of last resort which cover about one-third of the population.

What problems are there in Germany? The German media is not excited by the subject. There are no patients lying on trolleys in A&E. Germany suffers no real rationing. Yes, problems occur from time to time. Just at the moment, there is a shortage of nurses, and many Germans feel that care is expensive, but serious complaints are few. Nevertheless, reform is in the air. Since January 2004 members of the statutory insurance plan have had to pay 10 euros per quarter to see a GP. The reforms also saw the introduction of charges for non-prescription drugs, and an end to free treatments such as health farm visits and to free taxi rides to hospital. This is expected to allow for a reduction in premiums from an average of 14 to 13 per cent of annual gross wages.

German satisfaction rates in 1996, the latest Eurobarometer survey, showed that the German are far more satisfied with their system than we are with the NHS. About 11 per cent of Germans said they were 'very or fairly dissatisfied', compared with 41% per cent here. And when asked whether their system needed 'fundamental changes' or a 'complete rebuild' 19 per cent of Germans said 'yes', compared with 56 per cent of Britons.

Does the German healthcare system deliver an acceptable standard of care for serious illness to all members of society? Do the poorest in society benefit from a higher standard of healthcare provision than those in the UK? The answer to both of these questions is an emphatic, 'yes'.

What can we learn? In Germany insurance provides a connection between the people who go out to work and earn their keep and the resources available to healthcare providers. Our reliance on taxation makes it impossible for us to judge whether or not we are receiving value for money. The majority of the population who pay their national insurance contributions accept that they must also pay for the poor, but there is no expectation that in order to ensure access for all there must also be public sector monopoly. On the contrary, the Germans have successfully combined consumer choice and access for everyone. It is true that the rich can always buy a premium service. They can and do in the UK. But German policy makers do not waste their time trying to stop some people from ever getting more than anyone else. They focus on ensuring that the standard of care available to the poorest people is acceptably high.

The lessons are that responsible consumer choice means that there must be both consumer payment and competition between providers. Most other countries have long recognised these realities.

For the full study click on the link below (PDF):

• Health Care in France and Germany (2001)

Source: Newsweek, December 17, 2007

Baptist preacher and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee denies knowing about a financial boost he received from the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company back in 1994, when RJR donated $40,000 to a secretive organization called Action America, a front group set up by paid RJR lobbyists J.J. Vigneault and Greg Graves, to foster grassroots opposition to a national health care plan then being advanced by the Clinton Administration. RJR funded Huckabee to fly around the country persuading other evangelicals to oppose the health care plan proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons' plan was to be funded through an additional federal excise tax on cigarettes, which explains cigarette company opposition. Mr. Huckabee, now a Presidential hopeful who is running on morals and ethics, asserts that he was unaware of the donation, but Vigneault claims Huckabee was present at the meeting with the RJR representative where the idea for the Action America was hatched. Vigneault even recalls that Huckabee made the rep step outside to smoke.

And I hate the excuse that I hear for vetoing these sorts of bills and for trying to block a national healthcare system: "It's a step towards communism." Oh, come on! We all know communism doesn't work. We've seen the fall out and aside from a few overly-idealistic college students I think most of us are over it. But a healthy pinch of socialism in certain areas doesn't seem to have done those European nations with longer life spans, better education and job security, and shorter work weeks any harm. And who benefits by having millions of people uninsured? No one. They either get treatment and can't pay for it, go into debt, and drag the economy down with them, get the government or charity to pay for it once the situation becomes acute, which is more expensive than insuring them beforehand, or get no treatment and are unable to work (going on welfare) or die (and allowing that to happen only further weakens the moral fiber of our nation and shreds our credibility).

It's not like we're free from the taint of socialism anyway. What do you think the public school system is? Badly run socialism. Technically, anything that people are compelled to contribute money to for the benefit of all (irregardless of how much they themselves contributed to) is socialism. But we have deemed these form nots only acceptable but necessary to have a healthy, cohesive society. Why not healthcare? I would think that would be the first thing we would want to take care of. When people go to a underdeveloped country or into a crisis situation, they don't start by building roads and raising an army...they start by providing food and medicine to everyone, followed quickly by education. That's is where our priorities should be.

The words of one evangelical Christian republican voter on NPR the other day chilled me- "I'm tired of paying for someone else's child to have breakfast at school everyday." It shows not only a very un-Christianlike lack of compassion, but a lack of forsight. When other people's children starve, it brings us down as a group. And the more children who grow up with out food and medical treatment and a good education, the more sick, uneducated, and probably bitter adults we will have a few years down the road. That's bad for the economy, bad for the crime rate, bad for our intellectual standing in the world, and bad for our national conscience.

It must be something they learn in "How to behave like a celebrity 101"; how to behave like a jerk. He attacked Courtney Scott, a student intern working as a reporter for the Savannah Morning News, with the above sentence in response to a simple question. Williams is promoting Partnership for Prescriptive Assistance's Help is Here Express, which claims to have helped 4.5 million people get their prescriptions for free or close to that. Williams is their spokesman, who suffers from MS. He asked her if she suffered from any disease, and she answered "no".

The question that ticked him off, was

"Do you think pharmaceutical companies would be discouraged from research and development if their profits were restricted?"

He responded angrily with:

"I'm here as a patient advocate talking about the fact that medications available today are saving people's lives, that's what saving mine and after that, this interview is done."

Then he snapped his fingers, said "thanks" and terminated the interview.

Afterwards, Scott and two of her colleagues went into the Westin to do a story on gingerbread houses that were exhibited there. Montel approached them with his body guard, still incensed. Getting into Courtney's face, pointing his finger, he said:

'Don't look at me like that. Do you know who I am? I'm a big star, and I can look you up, find where you live and blow you up.'"

At that point he was pointing his finger at all of them. He may have overreacted, but you will seldom see someone turn around and do what he's done to 'fix' things.

Williams released a statement offering an apology and an invitation to his television program.

"I am really saddened by the incident that took place yesterday after such a glorious visit to Savannah to help patients in need. A series of unrelated personal events, including the highs and lows of my daily battle with MS, caused me to overreact to this situation.

However, I am not using that as an excuse for my behavior and I accept full accountability for my actions. Regrettably, I reacted childishly to the situation and for that I truly apologize to all concerned. I would like to invite Courtney and her family to appear on my show for a public apology."

It was a reasonable question she asked...you have to wonder why he responded in the way that he did to a young lady. He should still answer the question, even if he used his disease as an excuse to behave badly and now makes a big production out of apologizing for it. It might be a ploy to get more attention on the pharmaceutical organization he represents.

I'd like to know how that organization gets medicine for people for free. We're not a socialist form of government and he do not have national healthcare. So what's the catch and how do they undercut the pharmaceutical companies? Won't that cause damage down the road, just like Canadians selling American-made medicines back to Americans for a profit? America is footing the bill for part of their National Healthcare program by giving Canada Medicines under cost. No business can survive very long, doing that. The reason drugs are expensive here is because we are the only country in the world that develops new ones. That's called Research and Development, which costs money. That is part of what's embedded in the cost of medications and drugs here.

It's unfortunate that people who want everything for 'free' only think of themselves. I don't agree with someone traveling the country helping people to beat the system.

"The Grim Truth" --- That’s the title of an article in National Review. What they mean, of course, is the grim possibility of a Democratic sweep next year. (Hat tip to Daily Kos.)

NR warns its readers that

It’s almost impossible to exaggerate the Democratic advantage on domestic issues: If it’s an issue, they lead.

And their greatest fear is that if the Democrats do win,

It would probably also mean a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future.

I think that sentence contains a grim truth for progressives: the right will fight any health reform tooth and nail. They believe — and so do I — that the implications of universal coverage would extend far beyond health care, that it would revitalize the New Deal idea. And so they’ll do anything to stop it.

Even before Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton unveiled her new healthcare plan, Republicans attacked it as socialized medicine. They neglected to mention, however, that her plan bears a striking resemblance to changes that were proposed in 1974 --- by the late President Richard M. Nixon.

''It was an extremely extensive plan, as I remember, that would have given universal coverage'' for healthcare, recalled Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and economic official in the Ford administration.

Nixon introduced his Comprehensive Health Insurance Act on Feb. 6, 1974, days after he used what would be his final State of the Union address to call for universal access to health insurance.

''I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses,'' he told the nation.

Nixon said his plan would build on existing employer-sponsored insurance plans and would provide government subsidies to the self-employed and small businesses to ensure universal access to health insurance. He said it wouldn't create a new federal bureaucracy.

The Nixon plan won support from a Time magazine editorial on Feb. 18, 1974, which noted that "more and more Americans have been insisting that national health insurance is an idea whose tune [sic] has come.''

Fast-forward 33 years to the American Health Choices Plan, which Clinton outlined Sept. 17, and to similar plans by Democratic rivals Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

A CBS News poll earlier this year found that 64 percent of Americans support federally guaranteed health insurance for all citizens. Clinton's plan, like Nixon's, calls for building on the existing private-sector healthcare system and using government subsidies and tax credits to get all Americans under an umbrella of health coverage. Like Nixon, Clinton said her plan "is not government-run. There will be no new bureaucracy.''

Nixon's plan didn't require all Americans to purchase health insurance, as Clinton's does, something that's known in healthcare parlance as an individual mandate. Clinton's rival Edwards also favors government-mandated purchases of healthcare. Obama would mandate only that all children be insured.

Like today's Democrats, however, Nixon sought help for small businesses and sole proprietors to pay for affordable health insurance.

A growing number of Americans --- 47 million --- are uninsured. Medical costs continue to outpace inflation, albeit not nearly as fast as they did in Nixon's day. And Americans then and now fear that a single serious health problem can bankrupt a family.

If the next president decides to push for healthcare restructuring, it will be the fifth such effort since World War II, when the practice of getting healthcare coverage through employers began. (This grew out of wartime wage freezes; businesses tried to offset wage controls by giving workers greater benefits.)

The national health plans proposed by Presidents Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton also failed. Every time, the criticism was the same: They amounted to socialized medicine. The public support for healthcare restructuring that built up during the campaigns waned as soon as the revisions began. That's because there hadn't been any upfront discussion of the difficult tradeoffs involved, said Robert Blendon, a healthcare historian at the Harvard University School of Public Health.

In Nixon's case, there also was a timing problem.

''We had a few distractions then,'' joked Ray Price, who as Nixon's chief speechwriter crafted the State of the Union address and other speeches on healthcare.

Nixon's health plan followed his pivotal support for creating health maintenance organizations. But the effort was sidetracked by the widening congressional investigation into the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which eventually forced his resignation.

''The wagons were not only circling, but they were heavily arming and out for blood. It was very difficult to get anything through at that point,'' Price recalled.

Nixon grew up poor and lost two brothers to tuberculosis, which marked him for life. He frequently pointed to the cure for tuberculosis as a medical marvel that underscored the need for a public-private partnership on healthcare.

''It was something personal for him,'' Price said of Nixon's healthcare push.

Nixon resigned that Aug. 8. Four days later his successor, Gerald Ford, addressed Congress and sought a bipartisan effort to pass national healthcare insurance. But the economy soured, Ford sought to rein in government spending and national healthcare languished.

''Today, I think there's national consensus that everybody should have health insurance. That consensus wasn't there then,'' said David Matthews, who served as President Ford's health secretary from 1975 to 1977.

In his 1992 book, Seize the Moment, Nixon repeated his support for national health insurance, sounding remarkably like today's leading Democrats:

''We need to work out a system that includes a greater emphasis on preventive care, sufficient public funding for health insurance for those who cannot afford it in the private sector, competition among healthcare providers and health insurance providers to keep down the costs of both, and decoupling the cost of healthcare from the cost of adding workers to the payroll,'' he wrote.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery
by: Joe Leonardi

Liberalism is the scourge of modern society. It's mantra of entitlement is slowly leading the United States into an inescapable abyss. The liberals hide their treachery in the promotion of human kindness. They claim that their interests are only "what is best for the common people." Their subterfuge hides a more sinister outcome. Liberals are destroying the independent spirit of humankind.

A recurring theme in American history is that of the rugged individual. The belief that most people unencumbered by an oppressive government not only can, but desire to provide for themselves. In today's nanny state we are slowly losing this.

There are two primary questions to ask. How do liberals do this and why?

The why is easy. Pure, unmitigated power. Through dependence the liberal seeks to control the masses. It is much the way many of histories most tyrannical despots ruled their countries. While the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used fear and intimidation to keep their political opponents silent, they also fostered government reliance to keep the masses in check and enslaved.

The how is a little more complicated and, in my opinion, much more malevolent. Liberals, since the progressive era, have chosen Robin Hood economics to demolish the American dream and break the American spirit. Early 20th century progressives sought to steal from the most productive citizens and give their money, transferring it unearned, to the least productive. To accomplish this they required the power to tax all income. To ensure unbridled authority to take from the rich and give to the poor, the progressive movement introduced, passed, ratified and enacted the Sixteenth Amendment. Congress was given the authority to "wet their beaks." In less than half of a century the American government abolished slavery over a portion of the population and reintroduced it over the whole.

In the beginning, this was sold as a tax on only the wealthy. Because to gain popular support liberals, then and now, vilify those who create wealth and earn large incomes, often ignoring the fact that those are the same who create jobs.

Of course, the rich are not the only ones taxed. The ability to tax shackles the American income earner at every rung of the economic ladder. The harder we work, the more we earn, the more we are extorted to give the federal government "their cut." Taxation is the means the government utilizes to enslave the middle and high wage earners, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Most everyday folks don't care what happens to these people, because liberals indoctrinate them into the belief that "rich" people don't deserve what they have and they must be compelled to share what they have earned. What the believers of this fallacy do not realize is that they too are being enslaved by the liberal ruling class.

How? Redistribution. Utilizing this method the lower classes become tacit wards of the state, forever trapped in poverty, begging the omnipotent liberal government to provide.

Locally, we have a talk show host who wants free health care, free swimming, free skateboard parks, free everything for everyone. Well --- nothing is free. The hard working income earners and producers will be over-taxed to provide these gratis services.

The simple truth that these liberal slave masters don't want you do know is that the more you are "given," the less you have. Soon the United States will resemble much of Europe. People will be locked into the class to which they are born. Upward mobility will be a thing of the past. Those that do not earn their way in our society will be placated with all the basic necessities of life. Their ability and desire to provide for themselves will no longer matter. They will have been stripped of inherent traits that made America and Americans the envy of the world.

When Stalin died much of the free world rejoiced in the departure of a ruthless, cold-blooded tyrant. However, the populace of the former Soviet Union wept in fear. They cried out, "who will take care of us?" They did not need to be beaten into submissive servitude. No, they were conciliated into it.

Will this be our dreadful, dire destiny? Do we yearn to be hand fed from cradle to grave; or do we "yearn to breathe free?"

When did adversity, hardship and struggle become dirty words. I want the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon my decisions, based upon my drive, based upon my actions. I want the freedom to live my life unrestrained by government sanctioned slavery. Don't you?

Beware the modern, moderated, boisterous beatnik beating the drum for a free, fanciful, easy existence. Because the cost of "free" --- is freedom.

Joe Leonardi

Two important articles co-authored by Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office.

The first emphasizes a point I’ve also tried to get at:

The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.

In other words, Social Security is not the big problem (and it’s not in “crisis,” Sen. Obama); it’s Medicare and Medicaid, and their problems are wrapped up in a general health-care crisis.

The second has a lot to say about controlling costs, and also explains succinctly, albeit in slightly obscure terms, why “consumer-directed” care, which is at the core of all the Republican plans, won’t work:

On the consumer side, higher deductibles would encourage patients to be more prudent in their use of services, but they also raise concerns about the financial burden on persons with major health problems. Furthermore, the concentration of health care spending among a relatively small percentage of the population with very high costs limits the effect on total spending of increased cost sharing for initial charges.

In short, making people pay more for things like doctors’ visits is going where the money isn’t. The big bucks go for big expenses like cardiac surgery — and either these things are paid for by insurance, or not at all.

Earlier this week, Rudy Giuliani released a radio ad directly engaging the health care debate. "I had prostate cancer five, six years ago," begins the ad. "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chance of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent under socialized medicine."Unsurprisingly, Giuliani's statistics are a straight lie resulting from a basic mathematical error. The Annenberg Fact Check Project wrote, "We tracked down the source of that number, which turns out to be the result of bad math by a Giuliani campaign adviser, who admits to us that his figure isn't 'technically' a survival rate at all. Furthermore, the co-author of the study on which Giuliani's man based his calculations tells us his work is being misused, and that the 44 percent figure is both wrong and 'misleading.'" The Giuliani campaign, demonstrating their traditional fidelity to truth and accuracy, have said they will continue using the statistic.

But the basic question Giuliani poses should be central to the presidential campaign: How good is American health care? The developed world is full of alternative models, fully functioning structures that can be viewed as little experiments, the outcomes of which should inform our policies. If our system outperforms its competitors, than we should amplify what sets us apart and pushes us ahead. If we under-perform, we should take a hard look at whether our model really is superior. And luckily, we have the data.

Indeed, we have brand new data. The Commonwealth Fund just released a broad survey collecting health care attitudes and experiences from patients in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Here are summaries of some of the findings:

• 1. We spend the most. We spend more than any other country in the world. In 2005, our per capita -- so, per person -- spending was $6,697. The next highest in the study was Canada, at $3,326. And remember -- that's "mean" spending, so it's the amount we spend divided by our population. But unlike in Canada, about 16 percent of our population doesn't have insurance, and so often can't use the system. These facts should set the stage for all numbers that come after: Every time you see a data point in which were dead last, or not leading the pack, remember that we spend twice as much as any of our competitors.
• 2. We don't pay doctors according to the quality of their care. One of the first questions is "percent of primary care practices with financial incentives for quality" -- in other words, how many doctors are paid, in part, according to the quality of the care they deliver. In the United Kingdom, the number is 95 percent. In Australia, it's 72 percent. The U.S. scores lower than anyone else, at 30 percent. Similarly, electronic medical records -- which both increase the quality of care and lower its cost -- have 89 percent penetration in the U.K., 79 percent in Australia, 98 percent in the Netherlands, and 28 percent in America. On both these metrics, we perform miserably.
• 3. Our wait times are low because many of us aren't getting care at all. It's true, Americans do have short waits for non-elective surgeries. Only 4 percent of us wait more than six months. That's more than in Germany and the Netherlands, but considerably less than the Canadians (14 percent) or the Britons (15 percent). But our high performance on the waiting times only account for individuals who get the care they need. Our advantage dissipates when you see the next question, which asks how many patients skip care due to cost. And here, America is far worse than anywhere else.In just the past year, a full 25 percent of us didn't visit the doctor when sick because we couldn't afford it. Twenty-three percent skipped a test, treatment, or follow-up recommended by a doctor. Another 23 percent didn't fill a prescription. No other country is even close to this sort of income-based rationing. In Canada, only 4 percent skipped a doctor's visit, and only 5 percent skipped care. In the U.K., those numbers are 2 percent and 3 percent. Few of our countrymen are waiting for the care they need, that much is true. But that doesn't mean they're getting it quickly. Rather, about a quarter of us aren't getting it at all.Indeed, 19 percent of Americans were unable, or had serious problems, paying medical bills in the last year. Comparatively, no other country was even in the double digits. This is part of why we perform well on the waiting-times metric. In other countries, the disadvantaged wait longer for their care, and so show up in the data tracking wait times. In our country, they disappear from that measure, because they never get the care at all. You don't wait for what you're not receiving. So their wait times show up as "zero," when they should really be something akin to infinite. And would you prefer to wait four months for your surgery, or never get it at all?
• 4. Most of us don't have a regular physician. One might expect, given what we pay, that our care would at least be more central and convenient. But it's not so. Of everyone surveyed, Americans were the least likely to report a doctor or general practitioner they routinely saw. As a result. Americans are the most likely to say their doctor doesn't know important information about their medical history, which has obvious implications for care quality, medical errors, etc.
• 5. Our care isn't particularly convenient. Nor is medical service more convenient for Americans to access. On such questions as whether your doctor has early morning hours, evening availability, or weekend slots, we're not trailing the pack, but we're not in the lead, either. On evening hours, for instance, we lag behind Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand. On same day appointments, Only 30 percent of Americans report that they can access a doctor on the very day they need one, as opposed to 41 percent of Britons and 55 percent of Germans. And a full 67 percent of Americans -- more than in any other country -- say it's difficult to get care on nights, weekends, or holidays with resorting to the emergency room, where care is costlier and, if your injury is not grievous, less efficient.
• 6. Our doctors don't listen to us. But maybe the amount we're paying comes in customer service -- maybe our doctors spend more time with us, are more reassuring, are more attentive to our cases. After all, we basically like the care we get. Our overall self-evaluation of the treatment we receive is solidly in the middle of the pack, with 70 percent expressing satisfaction -- which means we're less satisfied than the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, but 5 percent above the Britons, and well above the Germans or Dutch. But when you ask for specifics, we do a bit worse.

Americans are the least likely to report that their doctors explain things in ways they understand (though the spread on this question is rather small) or say doctors spend enough time with them (56 percent of us say they do, as compared to 70 percent of Germans). We're the most likely to report that test results or medical records were unavailable during our scheduled appointments and, along with the Germans, the most likely to say that our doctors ordered tests that we'd already had done. On the bright side, 78 percent of us say our regular doctor was "informed and up-to-date" about follow-up care after a hospital visit.

• 7. We have high rates of chronic conditions. Aside from the surprisingly unhealthy Australians, Americans have the highest rate of chronic disease. And this isn't only a comparative problem; our high rates of chronic disease are a massive cost-driver, attributable, according to the research of Ken Thorpe, for about 2/3rds the rise in health spending over the past few decades.
• 8. … But we're not treating them properly. So given the high prevalence of such diseases, and the pressures they exert on our system, you'd hope our system had evolved so as to treat these diseases more effectively.Not so. One of the big issues with chronic disease is coordination of care. Illnesses like diabetes and kidney failure have so many manifestations, and require so much maintenance, that it's critical for care providers to have a full picture of what treatments are being received, what the patient's medical history is, what therapies they will and will not follow, etc. And for that reason, it's critical for the patients to have a single medical home – a regular care center where their case is understood, tracked, and treated. Sadly, we're tied with the Canadians for the lowest percentage reporting a single "medical home."Worse,we're far and away the likeliest to report spending more than $500 out-of-pocket on prescription drugs annually. That's a problem, as higher out-of-pocket costs mean more of us going without prescriptions, which means less maintenance of conditions and, thus, more cost when our chronic illnesses balloon into catastrophic health events. Indeed, 42 percent of Americans with chronic conditions -- the exact same percentage who report paying more than $500 for drugs -- report skipping care, drug doses, or doctor's appointments due to cost. That's cheaper for them in the short-term, as they can spend some of the money on food or rent. It's more expensive for us, however, as we pick up the huge bill when they end up in the hospital in full cardiac arrest.
• 9. We're frequent victims of medical, medication, and lab errors. Along with Australians, Americans are the most likely to report a medical, medication, or lab error, with 20 percent saying they've experienced one of the above over the past year. For those of us with chronic diseases, the rates are even higher. There are many reasons for this, ranging from our low adoption rate of electronic medical records to our splintered care system. But the effects are bad for our health and, needless to say, bad for our insurance rates. Conservatives make a huge deal out of medical malpractice claims, but studies show that our high rate of lawsuits is due to our high rate of medical error. The crisis isn't just in the courtrooms, it's on the operating tables.
• 10. Most of us are dissatisfied with our current system. In health polling, happiness with the system is generally measured through a three-answer question: Does your system merely need minor changes, as it works pretty well? Does it need fundamental changes? Or does it need to be rebuilt? Of all the countries surveyed -- including the supposedly dystopic U.K. and Canada -- Americans are the least likely to report relative satisfaction, and the most likely to call for a fundamental rebuilding. Only 16 percent of us are happy. In Canada and the U.K., that number is 26 percent. In the Netherlands, it's 42 percent. Meanwhile, 34 percent of Americas want to completely rebuild. Only 12 percent of Canadians say the same, and only 15 percent of U.K. residents want a new system. So paying more than twice as much as anyone else, we have the lowest satisfaction with our health care system. Lower than the countries with waiting lines. Lower than Germany, and Australia, and New Zealand.And perhaps this shouldn't be a surprise. Is it any wonder that Americans who have to forgo care are less satisfied than Canadians who simply have to wait for elective surgeries? That our shorter doctor visits, more impersonal caregivers, higher rates of medical errors, and inability to find primary care after 6 P.M. have left us frustrated? And that our sky-high costs have, finally, left us aching for change?

There is no other area of American life where we collectively accept such a bad deal. We spend the more than any other nation on our military, but our military is unquestionably the mightiest in the world. We spend the most on our universities, but our universities are the best on the planet. But we spend the most on our health care -- twice as much as anyone else -- and our health system is mediocre-to-poor, with 47 million of us lacking the insurance necessary to easily access it. It's not surprising that Americans want change. But it should be shocking that opportunistic politicians like Rudy Giuliani feel safe to stand in its way. Maybe in this election that will change.

I honestly tried to avoid it; like a lot of Americans, I try to avoid discussing both politics and religion with strangers per my moral stance of any kind of evangelism - political or otherwise.

This guy wouldn't shut up with his anti-liberal, anti-Europe sentiments. He figured since I was 25, I wouldn't know jack about politics; or what HE thinks politics are: defending your bank account like a paranoid maniac.

The whole situation was explosive, as I had asked him to leave my office several times and her refused to abide. I lost control and I went flying headlong into his web.

A little background on me: I don't value money like I "should." I don't own a home and I am not married. I don't have kids. I own my own vehicle, I am debt free, and I live with minimal rent. I enjoy the way I live, and I don't think anyone has any right to tell me how I should be living.

The whole altercation got me thinking. It seems that the people who have less to give actually give more. Those who have more to lose fear losing it.

I guess it may be construed as my being naive and young - I want the world to be a better place, I hope to move mountains, so on, so forth.

But really. It's only money. Do you really need that extra car that you'll drive half the year? Does your wife really need that Louis Vuitton bag?

I understand: you've worked hard all your life, you want to KEEP the money you've earned. It's respectable to reap what you sew. You earned it.

But let it weigh on your conscience that someone out there can't afford stitches for their child while you buy that fancy new car. Is it their fault? You would think so, wouldn't you.

Not everyone in America is going to be an educated person with a Master's degree. There are people out there making minimum wage, and there always will be - the market demands it.

So while you blame these people for "not being educated," and "not getting ahead," remember what you said when the garbage man collects your trash early in the morning, when the teenage mother behind the counter at McDonalds hands you your greasy lunch, and when you check into a fancy hotel.

I also expressed to this fine, rich DHL delivery man that instead of pointing fingers are Hillary Clinton or Rush Limbaugh - labeling the commie pinko liberals and those staunch, zealot conservatives - why can't we work together? So we differ in our fundamental beliefs. So what.

We're all in this country together. We better learn to work together to do good for our world, or our ship will sink.

I can't even imagine living in a country where a war in Iraq is more important to the nation than providing basic health care to it's citizens. I live in it. Who would have imagined?

Of course, I have my criticism of a "national healthcare plan" as well. The government can't accurately do ANYTHING, even if you give them a perfect crosshair and homing device.

I guess that concludes my rant. I'm just really upset at, well, everyone for being so oblivious to his brother. What a great world this would be if we could all just get along, no matter our differences.