Very well said, T.A.. If you can't make it to this event send an e-mail or fax courtesy of Democracy for America - Stand with Dr. Dean.

I demand Obama "eat shit and die" then. Not a difficult choice as there were elections that "meant something" in 2000 and 2004 as well, which didn't matter to you.

Barack Hussein Obama=Not My pResident.

Another stupid rally?

Okay you asked. Here's why the left needs to stop scheduling rallies and protest marches.

Rallies/protests haven't been about causes for decades. It's been that long since a rally/march accomplished anything other than maybe adding some names to some mailing lists.

They do gather all the opponents of a concept in one easy to ignore location. Sen. Wyden knows as long as he doesn't show up to his office on Saturday, a day he doesn't have to go to work anyway, he will be free of being annoyed by people who disagree with his positions.

So the one person you can count on to ignore Wyden's office during the rally is WYDEN.

Who won't ignore at the rally? Portland Police. PLENTY of them will be there. Are we trying to get the endorsement of Portland Police for any particular cause? Then it does not do much good to have PPD at that event, then, does it.

However, there is a reasonable risk the police beat the crud outta some of the progressive that show up.

Why are we doing this again? For either no reason, or to get beat on/tazed?!?

The primary beneficiaries of protests/marches are the always long list of leaders on the left who get to go up in front of a big crowd of people who yell for them.

That's no longer sufficient justification for getting progressives attacked by police. Progressives are getting the hell beat out of us for no damn good reason.

The only direct action the left has done in decades that actually accomplished anything was BOYCOTTS. Chavez beat Safeway with a boycott. Glenn Beck is losing advertisers to a boycott. There was another broadcaster boycott during the Kerry campaign of Sinclair Broadcasting that was effective, too. You can make the right jump if you target action at their WALLETS. They don't feel any other direct action.

No progressives can get attacked by police during a boycott, either.

Please stop wasting the time and resources of progressive activists. If you make a request for the time / resources of progressives, you need to have better justification of the use of that time than "Stay home, and it does no good at all."

I may actually attend this. I also have decided I like government controlled medicine and I support the public option. I'm glad Bernanke was re-appointed.

The sooner this country is bankrupted, the sooner we can bust it up into pieces and start over. In the meantime, I'm eyeing a little farm in Uruguay.

So long as Obama eats the dookie.

TA, Actually its' bankrupt right now. The only thing keeping things running is the confidence of foreigners that the federal monster can loot enough from it's subjects to pay them the interest. What they need is a tap on the shoulder to bring them to their senses. A massive new entitlement or two should do the trick.

I have never hated a president or feared for my freedom before... but I sure do now with that racist, bastard, socialist in the White House.

NOBAMA!

I started reading this with the hope that it was going to be something intelligent. When I encountered the words: "Tea-baggers" and "birthers", I realized that it was just another retread from another asshat! Get off your toilet and write something of value or SHUT UP!

Have you any idea that "tea-bagging" refers to the sexual act of fellatio (male on male or female on male... doesn't matter)? Do you even care? Are you delighted by denigrating those who want to have Obama present his "bona fides" as "brithers"?

So basically, you are either a bone-headed ignoramus or just a DENIGRATOR! If you ask me... it is BOTH!

Idiot denigrator, fellatio is not the sexual act colloquially known as "teabagging" (hint: no female can perform), so you do not know your subject matter!

Tea-bagging is when a male inserts his testicular package into someone else's mouth.

So when Faux newscasters proudly declaimed, "Tea-bag the White House", it made sense for Jon Stewart to suggest how that might require the Jolly Green Giant.

In April '09, the National Organization for Marriage rolled out its "Two Million for Marriage" campaign, or 2M4M.

2M4M is used in singles ads, chat rooms and social messaging to indicate two gay men seeking a third for a three-way.

(check out www.2m4m.com)

For the love of Google, people! Hire some marketing folk with measurable life experience!

What a wonderful world it would be - to quote a line from my Mother's favorite song - if right wing nuts would spend time talking about dipping their testicles in each other's mouths on another web site. There is such a thing as an intelligent conservative, and I have many friends who qualify. But they don't hurl the electronic equivalent of vomit in every direction when they try to make a point.

Lately this site is becoming a dumping ground for wack jobs. Maybe that includes me, but at least I enjoy my own wacking.

This is teabagging: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwoWDMiNa0

"So when Faux newscasters proudly declaimed, "Tea-bag the White House", it made sense for Jon Stewart to suggest how that might require the Jolly Green Giant."

Ho, ho, ho GreenJobCZAR!

The question is, did you feel any pity for Mary Jo, or any sense of injustice that the person responsible for leaving her to die actually got off with a light slap on the wrist and a career in the Senate?

"Posted by: Joe White | Aug 28, 2009 6:28:57 PM

The question is, did you feel any pity for Mary Jo, or any sense of injustice that the person responsible for leaving her to die actually got off with a light slap on the wrist and a career?"

Did you feel any pity toward 17 year old Michael Douglas... the ex-boyfriend of Laura Welsh Bush that she killed with her car shortly after they broke up?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

What happened to the editor who usually deletes off-topic comments?

The topic for Bill Moyers Journal tonight on OPB is: The film Money-Driven Medicine investigates the profit-driven world of US healthcare.

Bill, you're right. Let's get back on topic. Here's an inspirational video from another health care rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Elewrockwell%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F&feature=player_embed

An honest cop, gotta love it.

Well, it's the same old, same old. The trolls have nothing to say except hate and name calling.

Adam503 wrote:

"Laura Welsh Bush"

What office was she elected to?

T.A. wrote:

"make real health care reform happen"

I am in favor of real health care reform.

We simply differ on what that is.

I have health insurance that I like, as many Americans do.

You wish to take away what I benefit from simply because you don't like it.

What ever happened to freedom of choice?

Why can't you let others choose the health insurance they want, and you make whatever private arrangement suits you?

Why do liberals consider it proper to destroy private business using government and to deprive millions of the insurance that they are willingly covered by?

Why do liberals want to give everyone's health records, and decisions over what care will and won't be available, to the government?

If all doctors become government employees, the government, by definition, decides what practitioners work where, and when.

In essence, the politicians will decide what care will and won't be available.

Just as now, politicians send dollars for roads to their districts, so the party in power will allocate more and better medical resources to their own districts, and allow districts that voted for the opposition to do without.

Do you really want allocation of medical specialists and equipment to be driven by politics?

Joe White: You do not have the moral right to have freedom of your choice of your choice of health care when providing a system that provides that type of choice prevents 50 million people from getting health insurance at all.

I'm sick of selfish people like Joe White here who think they are entitled to the best health insurance, but only they themselves are entitled to that great insurance, screw every other American.

Joe White wants HIS, and doesn't give a crap what happens to anyone but him. Joe White thinks the system entitled to a system of health care for Joe White, screw everyone else but Joe White.

If people don't show up it'll look like the trolls of Beckland are the only ones that care. Actually most of them are yellow anyhow. The last town hall I was at the teabagging trolls were outnumbered 10 to 1 - up in NW a couple of weeks back. Even in McMinnville the ratio was only 1 to 1. And that's conservative country. Maybe some of 'em have been denied coverage since then, or they've heard the REAL horror stories from REAL victims of the insurance racketeers.

Posted by: Joe White

"Laura Welsh Bush"

Epic Fail.

After ALL the Hillary and Michelle Obama shit we heard from you idiots over and over and over, you're going to try to pull "What office was she elected to?" crap?

Joe, of course he does! Its a power play, that's all. The answer to real health reform is simple:

a) Abolish the FDA b) Abolish the AMA's control over medical school admissions and physician accreditation. c) Free physicians from threat of lawsuits. d) Eliminate the tax preferences for employer-based insurance e) Get rid of Medicare and Medicaid f) Get rid of interstate insurance regulation

and thats just a start...

I've been phoning Wu's office regularly for a couple of years asking him to co-sponsor HR676.

Wu responds to his constituents. He sends back lenghty communiques that describe, in depth, the problems that arise around health care. He says U.S. healthcare is the world's best under some circumstances but that the system needs reform.

And then he doesn't say what he's going to do about it and also doesn't specifically speak to HR676.

Frustrating.

Joe White's other questions...

"Why do liberals consider it proper to destroy private business using government and to deprive millions of the insurance that they are willingly covered by?"

Liberals think it's immoral to profit off the suffering of others. You right wingers think pain and suffering is a business opportunity.

Why do liberals want to give everyone's health records, and decisions over what care will and won't be available, to the government?

George W. Bush and Republican Party opened yours and everyone else's medical records to government AND multi-national corporations while Bush was President. Bitch at Dubya and Darth Cheney for opening your medical records to anyone who wants to make money off you.

Government doesn't make any decision about patient care in any public health system anywhere in the developed world. Doctors make those decisions.

That's a big, fat Republican LIE. Republicans lie. Alot.

If all doctors become government employees, the government, by definition, decides what practitioners work where, and when.

In essence, the politicians will decide what care will and won't be available.

Except for the part that it's another GOP Lie.

Do all Medicare's doctors work for the government? NO! None of them do!

Just as now, politicians send dollars for roads to their districts, so the party in power will allocate more and better medical resources to their own districts, and allow districts that voted for the opposition to do without.

Do you really want allocation of medical specialists and equipment to be driven by politics?

More GOP lies.

Yes, under single-payer the medical professionals are not government employees. They are in private practice in Canada.

Joe White: what is your problem with not being able to understand this?

Adam503 wrote:

"Liberals think it's immoral to profit off the suffering of others"

I see.

So, being a doctor is immoral, right? (You do know that doctors make a really good living, don't you? They do make a profit in their medical practice. You're aware of that, right?)

And I'm sure that you would never support an immoral system, so undoubtedly you never have gone to see those immoral doctors who are there to make a profit off of you.

To keep your purity, you'd be better off washing your hands of the whole thing.

No medicine (not even over the counter stuff. Those companies are there to make a profit), no medical care of any kind will your pure hands touch, right?

And you're definitely not gonna let your kids get corrupted by seeing a doctor, are you?

Just tell them when they are sick that you are looking out for their moral welfare by keeping them out of the doctor's office.

Joe White: is there not a difference between corporate profit and the salary one accrues as fees-for-service?

Adam503 wrote:

'la la la la I'm not listening. You're a liar. la la la la'

Face the truth Adam.

If Obama gets his way and the government runs all health care, politicians are gonna divvy it up just like they do other pork spending projects now.

If you want good medical care, you'll have to move to the district of the politically powerful.

What the left proposes is using medical care as a political weapon.

How much of your insurance premium goes to pay for your health care coverage, and how much to pay the CEO of the insurance company?

The more I hear about the Swiss system, the better I like it. Private insurance, private doctors, universal coverage, treated like a regulated utility.

I wonder how some of you folks would have reacted to the public power debates of roughly 70 years ago. Maybe you would have said only cities deserved electricity because there was no profit in rural electrification.

Stephen Amy wrote:

"They are in private practice in Canada."

When 100% of your income comes from a government arranged transaction, you can pretend it's private if you wish, but you are a government employee.

Stephen Amy wrote:

"is there not a difference between corporate profit and the salary one accrues as fees-for-service?"

It's a distinction without a difference.

The physician's income far exceeds his business expenses.

It's profit.

Profits are evil to communists.

Each according to his ability, each according to his need.

The credo of parasites.

Posted by: Joe White | Aug 28, 2009 9:55:00 PM

Stephen Amy wrote:

"They are in private practice in Canada."

When 100% of your income comes from a government arranged transaction, you can pretend it's private if you wish, but you are a government employee.

Using that definition, joe, everybody can pretend they are private employess, but we all end up government employees.

So that's why Joe and his right wing buds are yelling "Communist" so much. Any action any American takes one way or another turns every single person in the USA into an employee of the Soviet Republic of America.

Yes, by all means get out and rally! But, I find it odd, and depressing, that these brilliant people we elect can't seem to do the right thing unless there is a huge public outcry. Even then, the process seems to be clogged by a few corrupt senators who don't give a damn that this country is experiencing a precipitous decline in economic status. Without a clear path to reducing health care costs to the norm of the rest of the industrialized countries, American corporations will continue to outsource or swallow an unfair burden. This exercise is far more important than the stupid fucks in this country can comprehend.

Adam503 wrote:

"we all end up government employees"

Only if the Democrats get their way.

Doctors who take medicare patients are not government employees because their income is not 100% derived from medicare patients with no choice to do otherwise.

Even if you could find a doctor whose patients at the moment are 100% from medicare (and there probably are quite a few), he still has the choice to take those patients, or take others with private insurance.

If Democrats get their way, the government system will be the only game in town.

Their intent is to misuse power to drive private businesses into bankruptcy and establish a monopoly.

I'm curious as to why anyone would welcome the idea of politicians handing out medical care in the porky fashion that they currently handle things like roads and other public projects.

Do you really want the availability and scope of medical care in your community to be subject to the politically powerful?

What happens when your party gets voted out of power? You may say 'that will never happen', but it would take a naive person indeed to truly believe it.

FDR Democrats in the 40's thought they would reign forever, then came 50 years in the latter half of the century with over half of it under Republican presidents.

these posts are informative regarding the topics of income and investment trend in different eras

T. A. Barnhart:

Blue Dog Dems who have yet to understand there was an election last year that meant something.

Bob T:

I believe they're more concerned now with the 2010 elections.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Democrats love to debate with the far right. They ignore anyone even slightly to their left. What does this tell you?

"We know that simply organizing occasional polite marches in Washington, or in key cities, accomplishes nothing. We have learned that email campaigns to deluge members of Congress with canned opinions don’t work. What has worked, and will always work, is massive campaigns of civil disobedience, tent cities in Washington, organized disruption of war preparations, and door-to-door organizing. The corrupt hacks who inhabit the halls of Congress and the White House will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing, or because we ask them nicely. They may, if we make them fear that they will actually lose our votes in the next election." (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff08202009.html)

I thought it was a great rally. I intend to continue working for insurance reform.

Wrench Monkey, I think it means that they believe they can take our money, energy, and votes for granted because we have nowhere else to go.

tmk wrote:

"I intend to continue working for insurance reform."

There are reforms that need to take place.

Destroying the insurance industry (by using the government to set up an insurance apparatus or 'public option' that will undercut the market), isn't 'reform'.

Hey Joe White, there was a British comedian at the Crystal Ballroom show last night.

At one point he said, "Oh, please liberate us, America. Give us the freedom to take out a second mortgage so's we can pay medical expenses."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/health_care_abroad_the_myths.html

Stephen Amy wrote:

"a British comedian....said"

wow you get your political perspective from the deep thinkers, don't you?

"Do you really want the availability and scope of medical care in your community to be subject to the politically powerful?"

Ha, that's funny. Private insurance and Big Pharma have had a lock on the availability and scope of medical care in our community precisely because they are politically powerful.

Ron,

Do you really think that pharmaceutical companies would limit the number of people who could take their drugs in a given year?

Congress will limit the number of people who can take certain drugs, and pat themselves on the back for 'cost cutting'. Another word for it is rationing.

I trust pharmaceutical companies who want to make medicines more available, much more than I trust politicians who want to limit the availability of them.

When all pharmacies must purchase their stock by government quota, what will you say when your neighborhood pharmacy runs out of your prescription and isn't allowed to order any more until Congress passes the budget for the new year?

Joe White: deep thinkers or no, what about this?

Number of Americans who last year declared personal bankruptcy, citing medical expenses: over 1,000,000.

Number of Canadians who did the same: 0.

Anyway, Joe White, let us consider some indisputable facts:

1) Almost all of the rest of the industrialized world's governments provide either a socialized or single-payer health system for the benefit of their citizens.

2) All of the rest of the industrialized world spends less, and in some cases far less, on healthcare, per capita, than does the U.S.A.

But Joe White in Portland OR knows better. Joe White has had an epiphany. Joe White is the smartest guy in the world- so damned smart that most people of reasonable intelligence think he's nuts, because his ideas are so far above everyone's heads that they cannot understand.

"I trust pharmaceutical companies who want to make medicines more available, much more than I trust politicians who want to limit the availability of them."

Really? You do know that the pharmaceutical companies rely on the government to protect their patent monopolies, which in turn creates scarcity, which drives cost. Of course if we abolish the FDA and other bothersome government entities then we wouldn't have to worry about such socialist incursions into our lives and we could purchase all the Russian and Chinese counterfeit drugs we want, at least until they run out of antifreeze or until our internal organs turn into goo.

"When all pharmacies must purchase their stock by government quota, what will you say when your neighborhood pharmacy runs out of your prescription and isn't allowed to order any more until Congress passes the budget for the new year?"

Well, I know my congressman. He depends on my vote to stay in office. If he's screwing the pooch I can work to boot him out of office, every two years. I have no idea who the CEOs are of the companies that manufacture and distribute my prescriptions. They don't come around much, I don't feel they're particularly responsive to me. If I'm unhappy with their performance I'm SOL. I suppose I'm supposed to feel reassured by the elegance of the unseen hand of the marketplace, but the images that conjures up for me are more akin to Hogarth than Ayn Rand...

Stephen Amy wrote:

"what about this?

Number of Americans who last year declared personal bankruptcy, citing medical expenses: over 1,000,000.

Number of Canadians who did the same: 0"

So have you moved to Vancouver yet, so that you can get in on the latest round of rationing?

btw, the average amount of debt in those bankruptcies was how much? In the figures I've seen it's less than 20k. Bankruptcy is marketed heavily by attorneys as the 'easy way out' and many people later regret it when they realize they could've put together a plan with the hospital to pay it off over time.

Stephen Amy wrote:

"Almost all of the rest of the industrialized world's governments"

So what?

Do any of those countries have the Constitution that we have? Do they have the history of political and economic freedom and prosperity that we have?

Are millions of Americans packing up and moving to those countries, or is it the other way round?

I couldn't care less what other countries do. If I truly thought that they had a better deal there, I'd move and so would you. The fact that you're still here says a lot.

Joe White: conservative governments in Canada have been known to cut back funding for their Medicare in hopes of eventually killing the program.

I don't have any ability to move to Canada, although I'm not sure I would, anyway, as their environmental enforcement is even weaker than is the U.S.'s.

And, what excactly does the U.S. Constitution have to do with healthcare? I believe the U.S. Constitution, as it's generally interpreted, would allow for anything from a completely privatized system all the way to single-payer (as is our Medicare) or even a socialized system (as is our military health system). So what's the Constitution got to do with it, Joe White?

And, are you saying that people from industrialized countries that have either single-payer or socialized health are moving here for our non-existent health system?

Most of our immigrants are from poorer countries, anyway.

Here's your "reform:"

There will be (is?) a dossier on every citizen that contains their medical information, their financial transactions/status, their legal problems. It will be (is?) available to the government, to homeland security, probably to the police, to insurance companies..and to whoever any of these entities want to give it to..

And that’s apart from the snoops, crooks, personal enemies, corporate spies, domestic and foreign spooks, advertisers, computer hackers, vigilantes, activists, and private eyes who might get their hands on it. Sleep well, my friends.

www.mindbodypolitic.com

"I trust pharmaceutical companies who want to make medicines more available, much more than I trust politicians who want to limit the availability of them."

Pharmaceutical companies only make medicines that will create a profit for them. If there is no or not enough money they ignore the needs of afflicted people.

Bill Bodden wrote:

"Pharmaceutical companies only make medicines that will create a profit for them."

And doctors require payment for their services, too.

What's your point?

The US pharmaceutical companies have developed more medicines that have helped more people than any government or any other group you can name.

Try imagining the state of health care WITHOUT the existence of medicines we now take for granted, that were developed by for-profit companies.

If you think it's evil to make a profit, then by all means, stick by your principles:

a) Do not take any medicine that was developed by a for-profit company.

b) And do not go to any doctor who has a medical practice that makes a profit.

Stephen Amy wrote:

"I believe the U.S. Constitution, as it's generally interpreted, would allow for anything "

No, not as it's 'generally interpreted', but as it's ignored by liberals.

The Constitutional framework of limited government and enumerated powers doesn't allow government to nationalize any and every industry it wishes.

Do you really wish the allocation of medical resources (staffing of nurses/doctors, equipment, medicine, facilities) to be porked around in the same way politicians handle roads and bridges now?

What happens to your 'blue' district when the 'red' party comes to power? or vice versa?

Health care should not be a political favor doled out to ones friends and campaign supporters.

To pretend that this is within the intent of the framers of our Constitution is to either willingly ignore or blatantly misrepresent what they wrote.

Health care rationing here we come.

More signs of the times, as they will be if we are foolish enough to follow our neighbor's example. Health care rationing, here we come.

Question, who allowed blood and blood product tainted with Hepititis B and C, HIV and CJD to remain in their systems after being warned by the United States?

Answer - Canada, France, India, Great Britian.

Are you talking about the tainted blood that Bill Clinton sold them?

Too bad we didn't let Bill 'reform' our health system when we had the chance in '93.

Gotta love how the opponents of reform think Canada and the U.K. are the only two countries with universal care systems to compare us to.

Thanks to all you who were at the rally. It does make a difference and it helps to demonstrate strong support for universal health care. The Rs have made a calculation to oppose anything and everything. But rallies like this help the Ds to have some spine and push back on the media coverage of the town hall screamers.

"Even for those of you who are willing to justify anything and everything in the name of 'political pragmatism,' betraying clear campaign commitments and constantly exhibiting contempt for core progressive values doesn't seem to be working very well as a political strategy, to put that mildly."

(Glenn Greenwald, Has Obama lost the trust of progressives, as Krugman says?, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/21/obama/print.html)

@ Sue Hagmeier

What's sad is to see top leaders in the Portland Democratic Party spend their time whining about trolls.

Rob, I am glad Sue posted the link to the TR Reid piece.

Personally, I like the Swiss system, and I'd love to hear why Republicans would oppose it. Because it is the American right to pay more on health care administration than any other country?

And it will be interesting to see what happens when actual votes start taking place. Sen. Murkowski at a town hall meeting said there needs to be health care reform, but she reserves the right to look at the details. OK, Liza, describe the bill you could vote for.

@Rob Drake trolls = pollution

It's just useless and unproductive to have to wade through the toxic, fact-free, sludge, and when it reaches a certain level (as it has here recently) it becomes difficult to sustain the original vector of the conversation.

That's not whining. That's wanting to be allowed to participate in adult discourse.

Joe Hill wrote:

"wanting to be allowed"

The dishonest language of the left is never more in evidence than here.

Mr Hill is not being allowed, he says, to participate.

Liberals hate dissent. That's what it boils down to.

Any opposing voice must be silenced, or else 'they aren't being allowed to participate'

The same type of dishonest language is used in the health care debate itself. 'People don't have access to health care' How disingenuous.

People can access health care, just like they can access the grocery store. oh surprise, you have to pay for what you get.

The liberal illusion that health care should somehow be 'free' for all, belies the fact that nothing is ever free.

Can anyone really with a straight face claim that health care paid for by taxes is 'free'?

Bill R wrote:

"The Rs have made a calculation to oppose anything and everything."

This is simply not true. Most Republicans would gladly join in on an effort toward true reform.

But destroying the present system isn't 'reform'.

Thanks for posting the link to the 5 myth article that was in the Oregon this morning. It is good reading for everyone, regardless of their position on the health care reform debate.

One thing that is clear from the article is that the US does indeed spend considerably more per person.

Another thing that is clear is the the US offers a mishmash of many of the alternatives.

What is not clear to this voter is exactly what Obama, the House, or the Senate really want to do for reform. There is nothing that President Obama has articulated with any consistency. Neither has the House nor the Senate.

Of the alternatives discussed in the article, there is no clear winner. Each country reports success to some degree.

This NAV likes his present healthcare as provided by Kaiser. Having it for nearly 35 years has been quite satisfactory to my family.

My position is this: - eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions when switching health insurance; if I have it now, I should not be excluded if for some reason I must change to another carrier, public or private - remove requirement that most health care insurance is tied to employer or employment - establish a base line of healthcare available to everyone; for those that cannot pay, a means sensitive subsidy - private and public insurance co-exist and regulated - same services should cost the same - extra care available at extra cost; there will always be a need for specialists, and by their nature, they will always be in limited supply. Not every healthcare situation may have a remedy or available solution. The extra cost may be for the care itself, or for additional insurance.

In this forum, things like public option and universal health care are casually written without explanation. What may be understood by one writer could be different from one reader to the next.

Joe White: so, according to you, the U.S.'s Medicare program is unconstitutional.

It must be tough to desperately cling to a position that has no chance of being taken seriously, even by GOP court appointees.

Hey, Joe Hill:

“Work and pray, Live on hay, You’ll get pie in the sky when you die, That’s a lie.”

Americans have evidently been breathing aerosolized Valium for too long. They have also been Obamatized. Now, if the Super Bowl or American Idol were canceled, all hell would break loose. (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/exclusive-the-slow-demise-of-social-security-by-gary-sudborough/)

Re: "In this forum, things like public option and universal health care are casually written without explanation. What may be understood by one writer could be different from one reader to the next."

That's the whole purpose of the "debate": to confuse the issue. Medicare For All removes the complexities and solves the legitimate questions being asked by, e.g., seniors (A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly).

The complex wonkfest of options, non-options and competing options has thoroughly confused what should have been a simple, easy-to-sell message. Now who could possibly profit from that?

Well T.A.,

Yours was a good point. You seem to be a magnet for some very sick and tragically bored people.

Public Option now has a strategy.

After we get Public Option, oppose Insurance reform. The greed players made their bed with the "free enterprise" fantasy, let them sleep in it.

This is the horns of the dilemma which will bring us the public option system. And the insurance companies are right. They cannot compete with a system that is over 30% more efficient and provides far better care.

Fireslayer wrote:

"And the insurance companies are right. They cannot compete with a system that is over 30% more efficient and provides far better care."

Being priced under the market rate due to your government subsidy is hardly 'efficiency' is it?

No private company should have to pay to subsidize their own competitor.

Are you in favor of allowing insurance companies to become exempt from taxes?