The Smallest Minority

Kevin,
What do you dislike about Ron Paul?

Again, he is not a perfect candidate, but his voting record speaks for itself.

Kevin: Awesome, me too.

He's one of my two picks, and I hope he turns out to be what I'm looking for.

Gregg:

The problem with Ron Paul is that he apparently does not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it applies to politics. To wit: you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Ron Paul is disconnected from reality.

If there were 50 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 220 Ron Pauls in the House, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Unfortunately, there's only one, and one isn't going to accomplish anything, even if he's President. While it would be amusing to watch him throw sand and monkey wrenches into the machinery of government from the height of the Oval Office, it's not something I think we can afford to indulge ourselves in at present.

Well, I hope my break was long enough but I couldn't let the Fred Thompson thing go without making a comment.

You say that he is not perfect but I am curious, given past statements on here about trial lawyers and Hollywood, how you see Thompson as NOT being an idealogical part of two areas of our country with which you are at odds?

Yeah, Mark, it was long enough. My blood pressure has come down somewhat.

Two chichés for you: 99.9% of lawyers make the other 0.1% look bad, and Thompson once said "After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."

It's quite possible that Fred Thompson has learned to fake sincerity (something I don't think any of the other candidates have managed), but I doubt it. And of the candidates that I believe have a good probability of getting elected, he is the least socialist one running.

I'm not surprised you're supporting Fred. But what does he stand for? What is his platform? That's the most worrying part of him- he doesn't really stand for a whole lot.

Of course I support Ron Paul. I think that's the only way the GOP is going to win the Presidency.

Matt,

If there were any doubt that you live in a different reality, you just obliterated it.

"The only way the GOP is going to win the presidency"??

With 2% support on a good day?

The man's politics are out of step with everybody. Being for small government eliminates 50% of the electorate, being an isolationist in time of war eliminates two-thirds of the remainder, and ranting on about the Federal Reserve freaks out most of the rest.

Because it is painfully obvious that he has no idea how the modern financial system works. How do I know? Has he ever said what aspects of the regulatory structure he would relax sot the banking system can continue to function without their government-approved failsafe?

"Of course I support Ron Paul. I think that's the only way the GOP is going to win the Presidency."

Well, we already knew how closely connected to reality you were. There was no need to reinforce it.

"With 2% support on a good day?"

I am reminded of a story that passes among our family for a private joke.

A restaurant owner was being interviewed by a reporter for the local newspaper. He was bragging on and on about how successful the restaurant was. The reporter asked how he had accomplished it, and he replied, "We buy steaks for one dollar and sell 'em for four, and we're real happy with that three percent."

Actually, I think Ron Paul has some good things to say. Remember he did win that first Fox debate. I wonder why?

I actually like most the candidates on both sides. I really only have serious problems with McCain, Hillary and Fred.

Well, looks like I too am out of touch with the current fantasy world masquerading as reality.

As far as returning the toothpaste to the tube, well, I truly hope that you are wrong. Because there is a way to mop up all the spilled toothpaste and get a new tube. Unfortunately, that is expensive.

I guess we really haven't learned from the past.

The fundamental problem with Libertarians is that they have an end-state - a imagined world that if we could only manage to create, things would be right.

There isn't any end-state. Never has been, never will be. Not short of the Coming of the Great Green Arkleseizure, anyway.

To be relevant, a libertarian can't just throw up his hands and complain about how everything is wrong, or fantasize about gaining power and knocking everything over and starting again, he has to have a realistic plan for moving things in the direction he wants to.

We live in a society in which a great many people are dependent on government. I think we'd be better off as a society if that weren't true. But kicking them out on the street wouldn't be humane, and threatening to kick them out on the street isn't going to get them to vote for you.

Bush was on the right track, prior to 9-11, with his ownership society. Health Savings Accounts, privatization of Social Security, etc. He was, in fact, continuing with something that Saint Ronnie started - IRAs and 401(k)s, which have transformed the debate around entitlement programs in a massive way.

Unfortunately, he's had to put all that on the back burner, to deal with a more immediate threat.

I hope to see a future president continuing the work - structuring federal social programs to reduce individual dependency on government. Fred Thompson may well be the one.

Certainly his health care proposals are on the right track.

"Well, looks like I too am out of touch with the current fantasy world masquerading as reality."

What you don't seem to understand is that you just accurately described the real world.

Societies are essentially groups of people who share a set of common delusions.

And odd (sometimes catastrophic) things happen to those societies when one, some, or all of those delusions conflict with objective reality.

The people of this nation once were more firmly connected to reality than they are today, but entropy apparently will not be denied.

And you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Sometimes the only thing to do is bite the bullet, pay the price, and get a new tube.

But it can be, as you said, very expensive.

Where is his health care plan? I looked on his site and I couldn't find it.

Why is health care the job of the Federal government? Does Ron Paul have a health care plan? You like him, you said.

Frankly, the farther the Fedgov stays away from my health care, the happier I'll be.

Interesting. I just want to the Ron Paul web site and it has the same general design as Thompson's.

His health care plan is very brief and VERY libertarian

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

Again, Kevin, your health care will not be threatened if there is universal health care. Your life will not change. Actually, if you look closely at Romney's plan and Edwards' plan

http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Health_Care

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

both of them call for it to be privately driven, without increasing taxes and actually lowering them.

By the way, I don't see an issues tab on Thompson's site but I do on all the others. Maybe I'm doing the guy thing and not looking carefully but if true, why is this?

"Where is his health care plan?"

You've shot yourself in the foot, Mark.

Do you understand how you lay out your own philosophy, your own view of the proper role of gubmint in society, simply by asking that question, and do you understand that you contradict yourself by doing so?

You stated in comments elsewhere:

"Everyone in this country needs to work. Period. That's what I believe. That's what "liberals" believe as well. No one gets free handouts."

Then why are you concerned that Fred Thompson might not have a plan to give "free handouts" in the form of health care? Indeed, why should he have a health care plan at all? Your statement suggests that you believe he should and that he is therefore deficient by not having one that you can find.

You stated that you believe "everyone in this country needs to work," which, if they did, would greatly lessen their dependence on gubmint. So, why are you apparently calling for Fred Thompson to foster more such dependence?

I have many problem with Fred Thompson, not just his lack of clarity on the issues. Read through the links again and if you are still unhappy, which you shouldn't be, then we can talk some more.

Also, read what I just put up in the QOTD post above.

Mark,

This is what Edwards' plan entails:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

This doesn't fit in with any reasonable person's description of a free society. Personally, it scares the crap out of me. What happens if I don't want to go for a check-up?

"What happens if I don't want to go for a check-up?"

You're involuntarily put in psychiatric observation, of course.

Which, BTW, removes your right to arms under color of (present) law, too.

Why do you suppose he would require that everyone go in for a check up? Hmm...let's think about this for a minute. Could it be that, in order to control costs of health care, people need to get checked out once a year like they should so when they get sick and the come crying to the doctor it won't cost Mark, Sarah, DJ, and Kevin a crap load of money?

And by crap load of money, I don't mean our tax money...I am talking about insurance companies, hospitals, and medical groups who might have to charge more because people are morons about their health and then become a burden on the system.

Edwards plan does have a flaw, though. What he should do is make people sign a waiver saying that if they don't go in for yearly check ups then they waive the right to universal health care and are on their own in the free market. Would that be acceptable to all of you?

Mark, why don't you just answer the questions I asked you instead of slithering away?

Mark,

Sure, but then why not just leave the system the way it is now? Only 4% of the population can't afford medical coverage. The rest of the population that isn't covered by health insurance has the means but has decided to spend the money on other things. They've already opted out of the system. So we're really talking about implementing a MASSIVE national program -- that no country in the world has demonstrated works very well -- on behalf of 4% of the population. It doesn't make sense.

Mark:

Not to distract you from the other questions you've been asked...

Could it be that, in order to control costs of health care, people need to get checked out once a year like they should so when they get sick and the come crying to the doctor it won't cost Mark, Sarah, DJ, and Kevin a crap load of money?

(I love that should).

If you get sick, no checkups will have helped you. Checkups only help diseases, emergent or chronic conditions. If I get hit by a car, or fall off a ladder, or contract the Peruvian Swine Flu, my checkups in the past won't have helped - and those are the huge outlays in the healthcare system.

The other huge outlays are the "chronic" conditions. Often caused by thing like diabetes, obesity, lack of exercise. Now, how were you planning on "fixing" those? Think about what that would take, and if you're not scared yet, there's little hope for you.

But anyway, far more importantly, This is what HMOs were going to do 25 years ago. This is how they were going to drop the cost of health care. Improve coverage.

You'd have to have a regular doctor. Checkups. Yearly physical.

The last time we tried this, it failed, why would Edwards (who's sole claim to Medical Knowledge is an ESP-connection to a infant being born and an omniscient view 5 years later) would come up with a plan that would work at all? Tell me why the HMO's failed, before you insist we try the same thing, but harder!


Mark, do you understand that the current disconnect with Health Care Insurance is because of the FedGov? Freezing wages during the Depression, so companies started offering "health care" as part of the package to recruit people?

And the preferential treatment of employer-paid healthcare in the tax system?

So if you want to claim the current system is broken, at least do the investigation to find out that it's directly related to the current federal government's involvement.

Before you, you know, inside on MORE! MORE!

A final quick note - Mark, do you advice, insist, or want the .fed to buy your car or home insurance?

Or, as our current system usually has it, your employer?

Why wouldn't you want your employer to pay for your car insurance, and "save you money" with a one-size-fits-all-policy for your company?

Sorry DJ, I was responding to the comments directly above me.

"Do you understand how you lay out your own philosophy, your own view of the proper role of gubmint in society, simply by asking that question, and do you understand that you contradict yourself by doing so?"

You and I have a fundemental difference in philosophy here. Correct me if I am wrong. You believe that government is corrupt and would make the health care situation worse. I too believe that government is corrupt but that's because we elect nincompoops to office. If we elected people who were skilled and intelligent rather than someone you can have a barbeque chicken sandwhich with, then I believe government can work.

Health care in this country, while fine for you, is a travesty for others. The free market has gotten way out of control with costs and it is NOT because of frivelous law suits. It's because these companies need to increase profits so they charge more. So routine procedures cost insane amounts of money. It has to end. We're not talking about LCD TVs or toys...we're talking about the health of our population. That is where government can help.

"why are you concerned that Fred Thompson might not have a plan to give "free handouts" in the form of health care? Indeed, why should he have a health care plan at all? You stated that you believe "everyone in this country needs to work," which, if they did, would greatly lessen their dependence on gubmint. So, why are you apparently calling for Fred Thompson to foster more such dependence?"

DJ, please listen to me. There are millions of people in this country who work hard every day and can't afford health care. They pay taxes, they pay for health insurance and they still are paying through their teeth for health care. These are not free loaders. These are people like you and I who are being ripped off by the system. It's real. It's happening. It's not a liberal lie. It is a situation that is out of control and it is actually costing the government MORE money now because there is no plan or regulations in place.

That is why I think the federal government must step in and deal with this situation which has gotten to be inhumane in the last 10 years or so.

Sarah, quick repsonse to you. Have you ever lived in or talked to people who have experienced socialized medecine? I lived in France for a year and it was incredible. I also have friends from Canada who say their system is not as bad as some people say it is.

Unix, every uhc plan I have read calls for choices. This vision of the government ordering you around in your daily life is propaganda put out by the people who will lose the most from uhc. Is the librarian at you public library preventing you from going to Barnes and Noble?

Mark:

You're dodging the questions put to you.

every uhc plan I have read calls for choices

They claim to be supporting choices. That's a big difference between you and I - you're taking the paper claims at face value and (at this point) intentionally ignoring past examples where those obviously ...questionable... claims were correctly questioned and ignored.

You're now trying hard to avoid the very logical conclusion to "Universal Health Care", using faulty logic and non-linear jumps around.

I'll ask you again: Would it make sense for your employer or the government to purchase your home or auto insurance?

The free market has gotten way out of control with costs and it is NOT because of frivelous law suits. It's because these companies need to increase profits so they charge more. So routine procedures cost insane amounts of money. It has to end. We're not talking about LCD TVs or toys...we're talking about the health of our population. That is where government can help.

1) Bullshit
2) Bullshit
3) Jesus, you believe this bullshit?

Ok, I'm sorry, but Mark, you're echoing every socialist talking point here. I'm sorry if it strikes me especially hard. And I mean every. Go back and read your post again. "Has to end!" "Propaganda!" .... Every one.

Routine procedures cost insane amounts of money

Like what? Most procedures are getting cheaper - or - far more effective. I can get a CAT scan for $119. Just cause I want to see what my blood vessels around my heart looks like. $119! That's not even "routine!"

So what's "insane amounts of money"? For what routine procedures? As long as you keep tossing (questionable) generalities in the air, having a decent discusssion with you is useless. I gave you a lot of concrete, historical fact. Go double-check me if you want. You say "it's not because of lawsuits!"

A relative is a OB/Gyn. Last I asked her, her liability insurance was in excess of $250k. Per year. For someone who's never been sued. Many doctors have just hung up their forceps and walked away in her area. If you want to claim that lawsuits aren't responsible while backing Edwards
John Edwards.

Who made his name and fame suing doctors for children born with complications. Complications that have no scientific basis for having been caused, or aggrevated by any medical care received or not.

John Edwards "Channeling" Jennifer Campbell: "She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

My wife's a nurse. I can promise you that over 1/2 of all that "outrageously priced" health care is now driven by concerns of getting sued if they don't run tests, draw blood, investigate low-order-probability possibilities. On top of the insurance premiums.

This vision of the government ordering you around in your daily life is propaganda

Mark, tell me how the government will lower chronic costs without control.

But answer me about your car and home insurance.

Why does it make sense for healthcare, and not your other insurances?

Mark:

I too believe that government is corrupt but that's because we elect nincompoops to office. If we elected people who were skilled and intelligent rather than someone you can have a barbeque chicken sandwhich with, then I believe government can work.

Let me cringe and guess: You don't see any historical parallels with that declaration, do you?

Mark:

I haven't got time to read through the last few comments fully, but I got to this quote, and I have to say something about it: "If we elected people who were skilled and intelligent rather than someone you can have a barbeque chicken sandwhich with, then I believe government can work."

This reminds me of the old adage, "I want to vote for the best candidate, but he never runs!"

Skilled intelligent people don't generally run for office. Some do, I'm sure, but they are overwhelmed by idiots, idealogues, criminals, and the easily led. Skilled, intelligent people can earn a lot more money (honestly) in private, rather than public life. Skilled, intelligent people who do choose a public life can also be corrupted. Power corrupts, remember, and it also attracts the corrupt. You apparently believe there is a much larger contingent of altruists in this nation than there really are. Robert Heinlein said it well: "Never appeal to a mans better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self interest gives you more leverage."

The Founders attempted to establish a government that would restrict the influence of the criminal, the selfish, and the stupid. Overall, they did a pretty good job, as this Republic has lasted longer than any in previous history. But entropy eventually has its way. What you want doesn't exist. And while I believe Barack Obama is a socialist (and you don't) he is - at best - what Justice Brandeis descrbed as a man of zeal:

"The Greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

The same may hold true for you, as well.

Unix, ah once again, the "framing question" from a conservative...

"Would it make sense for your employer or the government to purchase your home or auto insurance?"

If I answer yes, then I am a totaletarian freak bent on government control. If I say no, then it must mean that it makes no sense for the government to run health care. Sorry, but I learned my lesson a long time ago not to play the conservative language manipulation game. The question is invalid because THEY WON'T BE DOING IT. YOU WILL!!! You will be the one making the choices.

Did all of you repeatedly listen, to the point of hypnosis, to that Ronald Reagan record, from the 1960s, that described the "evils" of socialized medecine? Try to flush the idealogy out of your mind and be just a little open minded.

Take a step back for a moment and think about a system that can work to accomadate everyone's needs. It will not be as extreme as you are making it out to be. Sheesh...

"It will not be as extreme as you are making it out to be. Sheesh..."

Perhaps not at first. But one thing we've all learned (well, maybe not you) is that no government program ever gets smaller nor has its scope reduced. Ever.

We've learned that. Why not you?

"Sorry DJ, I was responding to the comments directly above me."

No, you were doing your usual cop-out, in the mode of "you go study some more and then ...". You either ignore the questions you don't like the answers to or you try to change the subject.

I'm an engineer, dude. I ask questions to get information. We're like that.

"It will not be as extreme as you are making it out to be. Sheesh..."

You won't be the one deciding what it'll be, dude. You're just flaying the ink with platitudes again.

"You believe that government is corrupt and would make the health care situation worse."

We all saw what Hillary Clingon tried. I believe history one hell of a lot more than I believe you. History has credibility and you don't.

Here's a short story about why I don't like medical care other than what is offered by the free market system.

Way back in '86, I was diagnosed with diabetes, right out of the blue. It happened during a routine yearly physical that my employer arranged and paid for every year. Otherwise, I was enrolled in "Group Health Plan" for routine medical care. GHP is a "Health Maintenance Organization" that tried to cut costs by what amounts to "preventive maintenance". (Now where have I heard that before?) Their "preventive maintenance" could not have prevented the problem (as it's an auto-immune reaction, likely inherited, and I weighed only 170 pounds) and it did not diagnose the problem. A a good free market doctor picked it right up and saved my ass.

I had to go to GHP for treatment, though, which meant immediately starting a regimen of insulin injections. To my great fortune, I was assigned a doctor who had just started with GHP and who had just finished a five year long stint with an endocrinology clinic. He was very, very good. There was also a lab technician there who was good. Otherwise, once I saw the place operate from repeated visits therein, I would never let them lance a boil. I changed to a different health insurance option at my earliest opportunity.

Oh, and that doctor? He left GHP a year later. He told me he wanted to practice medicine, not accounting. Literally.

Nope, you can keep your dreams of socialized medicine. I'm agin' it.

Health care is indeed expensive, and it's not because of lack of preventive maintenance, therefore it wouldn't be noticeably lowered by instituting it.

It's expensive primarily for three reasons: 1) people cannot be refused medical care at a great many facilities, and so those of us who pay for care, either directly or through insurance companies, pay for everyone who gets it but can't pay for it; 2) the cost of insurance for liability is HUGE and it's spread over every treatement given and every medicine that is dispensed; and, 3) there are lots more procedures available than there used to be, and doctors use them both to treat their patients and to cover their own liabilities.

Another short story suffices.

My wife is a clinical psychologist, now retired. When she was in private practice, the cost of her malpractice insurance was her biggest expense. Each year, the premiums ate up more than one third of her gross income, and no claim was ever filed against her.

As I described to you earlier and elsewhere, John Edwards made a fortune by trying malpractice suits of a particular type. The complaints were that doctors delivered babies naturally instead of by C-section and so the results were babies with cerebral palsy. Now, as a result, a much higher percentage are delivered by C-section than before, but the percentage with cerebral palsy hasn't changed. It was a scam, pure and simple, and it was very effective. His efforts had two results: 1) he is very rich; and, 2) having a baby is much more expensive.

Your grand pronouncements have to account for the facts, teacher, and they don't.

Uh, Kevin, I submit to you that you are incorrect. I site as an example the FCC, once a powerful entity. Since deregulation by Reagan in the 1980s, it's only purpose these days is to monitor wardrobe malfunctions. Turn on any "news" channel and you will see what I am talking about.

DJ, I submit that your view of what Hillary would've done is a fine example of what can be done when lobbyists from the health care industry pay leaders in Congress to lie. You believe the lie. I don't.

I think that the plans that are on both sides address issue #1 on your list of why it's expensive. The general idea is to reduce these costs through better management of the system. If we had a system like Canada's, doctors/hospitals/insurance companies would be managing health care, not the government. It is a privately driven entity, available to all through the government. Now, I am not saying their system is perfect but imagine if we could use it as a jumping off point and make ours even better...

If we had a system like Canada's, doctors/hospitals/insurance companies would be managing health care, not the government.

Oh, you mean like that woman who came to the US to have her quadruplets because there was not a hospital within three hundred miles who could deal with her?

I worked in a hospital in the Seattle area. I met a man from Canada who had gotten tired of waiting for his wife to recieve cancer treatment. She had been waiting two months. For breast cancer. The doctor at my hospital told him that they would do what they could, but if they had come down one month earlier, she would have had a 90% chance of survival.

She ended up dying in that hospital. I guess that Canadian system is just great, right?

You want to see how government healthcare would be handled? Look at Medicare. Doctors have stopped accepting medicare patients because the government will not reimburse the entire cost of treating the patient. Too many medical professionals are losing money treating medicare patients. Why in god's name do you think that we should expand that to everyone?

The government is corrupt, wasteful, idiotic, stupid, moronic (yes I have more adjectives for that!), greedy, and literally could not run a whore house to make a profit. But you think it's a good idea to give them control of my health care?

Nope. I don't think so.

Mark:

Unix, ah once again, the "framing question" from a conservative...

Before you get too old-worldly...

Consider answering the question. You'll learn more than presuming that I've been brainwashed.

See, the question is a valid one.

And it shows that you don't understand the current system. So if you utterly to fail to understand the current system, how can you be expected to fix it??

"Would it make sense for your employer or the government to purchase your home or auto insurance?"

If I answer yes, then I am a totaletarian freak bent on government control. If I say no, then it must mean that it makes no sense for the government to run health care.

Potentially. But rather than presuming to answer for me, you ought to answer the question, and find out why I'm asking you that. And harping on it.

See, the interesting thing about that question, isn't that it postulates a wild wooly unforseen future - it is exactly what most of the people in the US have.

Let me repeat that for you: For over 85% of the people covered by health insurance, the policies were purchased by somebody else, either government (for indigent, medicare/medicaid, VA, DoD), or employer.

When I ask you does it make sense for your employer to buy your car insurance, I'm asking you, if you're not insisting on the "right" for car insurance, or homeowners insurance with employment - why not?

Because that's exactly what we have right now. For almost everyone, they are a "consumer", but not a customer of insurance and health care.

Sorry, but I learned my lesson a long time ago not to play the conservative language manipulation game.

Let's get back to who's manipulating language in a second.

The question is invalid because THEY WON'T BE DOING IT. YOU WILL!!! You will be the one making the choices.

And you're accusing me of being brainwashed?

How, Mark, I've already laid out that what Edwards was talking about at best would only marginally decrease costs. You're welcome to argue that regular checkups would somehow stop accidents and severe illnesses, and somehow, without sacrificing choice or freedom, we'll be able to mandage diabetics and others with chronic conditions act in certain manners...

Sure, go ahead. (And this even leaves aside the fact that the creepy "mental health" statement is exactly Soviet in tone.)

You're presuming because Edwards says you'll have choice, that you'll have it. (Or Hillary, Or Obama).

But wait a second.

If we're using merely what people (running for election, making promises) say, what about the people actually doing things?

At Pfizer, we're inspired by a single goal: your health.

Remarkable Services. Exceptional care.
Exceptional care, Mark! Exceptional!

Why do you doubt them? (Sorry, 2 will do for this example, feel free to see how many insist they're ripping people off for their shareholders...)

Seriously - you've got to stop decrying what we're telling you as rote propaganda (when we're giving you historical arguments), and then claiming that the paper claims of politicians are Truth!

Um.
You didn't answer me with my cringing question either... I'd really hope you could at least answer it in a disparaging fashion. Please?

Mark:

I site as an example the FCC, once a powerful entity. Since deregulation by Reagan in the 1980s, it's only purpose these days is to monitor wardrobe malfunctions.

15 seconds of Google.

15 seconds.
FCC Budget of $278,092,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2003
FCC Budget of $280,798,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2004
FCC Budget of $292,958,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2005
FCC Budget of $304,057,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
FCC Budget of $302,542,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2007
FCC Budget of $313,000,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2008

Another 30 seconds finds:

$99.6 million in fiscal 1989 to $185.2 million in fiscal 1995

99.6 million, FY 89. 313 million in FY 08.

Seems your cite to shut up Kevin was... err... not so obvious. Or correct.

Seems Kevin's snark was correct, no?

Mark,

I also have friends from Canada who say their system is not as bad as some people say it is.

I lived in Canada for 20 years, and it is as bad as some people say it is (including me). I am Scared. To. Death. we are going to end up with the same system in America. I visited my folks in Vancouver last month, and started to get really sick a few days before I arrived -- I was absolutely loathing the idea of having to see a doctor or go to the emergency room while I was there, and was trying to figure out how quickly I could get to the Bellingham hospital if I should suddenly need care. Now that I've been living in the USA for several years, I never want to experience the hell of the Canadian system again.

Also, my husband grew up in Finland, and while the quality of the care was better in Finland than in Canada (much easier when you have a tiny infrastructure), it was much like Edwards' proposed programme in that patients have NO choice over the type of care they receive. None whatsoever. Your doctor decides for you, and if you want different care, tough luck.

Socialized medicine is a nightmare. I've lived with both systems, and believe me, the American system flaws and all is much superior.

Socialized medicine is the opiate of the masses.

Ragin' Dave, until you start listening to stories like the ones told in Sicko, or (gasp!) actually go see the film, your point of view will be forever one sided and thus not very credible.

Unix, regarding your cringing question, I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe government can work. I think it can. You don't because...at least I think this what you are driving at...more government control, in your eyes, has always meant totalitarian control. I think that there are good people out there, on both sides, but they rarely run because of how broken the system is at present. I think it can be fixed. You don't.

My point about the FCC was that it does not have near the control over your lives as it did before 1981. Other than Janet Jackson's nipple, most anything goes on TV. So to say that "no government program ever gets smaller nor has its scope reduced" is wrong. They are putting money into something that wields no power. Bemoan the wastefullness of your tax dollars but not the control it has in your lives. It has no scope and no power at all.

Sarah, yes, it sounds like an awful experience. Do you think we can do better? I do. There was a big meeting at Mayo recently, here in my home state, which took a big step at bridging the partisan divide on health care. Mayo officials laid out a package that steered clear of the single payer system (government) but mandated the purchase of portable, individual health insurance policies. Employers would be urged and maybe even induced to contribute to these policies costs. Low income people would receive government subsidy to help cover the cost. This is basically Romney's deal with improvements.

The Mayo variation on those ideas involves changing the way medicine in most places is practiced . Patient satisfaction will be the top priority and will be compared to the value of care. Providers should be paid for delivering high value not the number of office visits or procedures.

"Sarah, yes, it sounds like an awful experience. Do you think we can do better? I do."

Do it again, only harder!

First, try this article:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/year_wait_for_p.html

Notice it references an article by the CBC, but that site is not responding at the moment. So I looked down the Google page and found the one above, which references it.

The gist of the story is found in this excert:

"The beauty of capitalism is that it allows resources to be distributed to meet needs as naturally as water seeking its level. Consider all the goods available at your local supermarket, all of them stocked fresh as often as needed. What would it be like if it were left to government bureaucrats to accomplish such a complicated task?"

It's been tried. Find the history books and look up "Union, Republics, Socialist, Soviet". It didn't work.

The excerpt continues:

"Socialized healthcare in Canada offers a clue. Since the free market has been taken out of the equation, resources are not distributed rationally. For example, there are four times as many urologists practicing in Nova Scotia as in Newfoundland, although Nova Scotia has less than double the population.

"The shortage of urologists in eastern Canada is so severe that patients are waiting about a year for surgery. Laments Andy Grant, a member of a St. John's prostate cancer support group:

"First of all, [patients deal with] the shock you might have prostate cancer, then the shock of being confirmed with prostate cancer. Now you have the shock of saying, "I have to wait until next year?"

"Actually, they don't have to wait: there's still a free country right across their southern border. But having already paid excessively for their healthcare through taxes, not all Canadians can afford to pay again to actually see a doctor down here."

And the gubmint's solution will be, well, what, exactly? Will it force people to become urologists? Will it force them to live in Newfoundland? Yup, likely so. The article continues:

"Not to worry though, the bureaucrats are on top of it. According to the inaptly named Health Minister Ross Wiseman:

"We're in the process now of developing a physician human resource plan, and we hope to be able to, either in the early fall or late winter, roll out that strategy. [This] will identify the kinds of specialties and family practice doctors we have — where we need them [and] how many we need — and that will give us then a blueprint for the future.

"Look for a workable solution to be successfully implemented sometime around when hell freezes over. In the meantime, tell your prostate cancer to wait."

So, is the threat of dying of prostate cancer real, or is this something that affects only a few people up there? Well, go see:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1232350

Here's the meat of it from the abstract:

"In the 1997 cohort of 5.8 million Canadian men between 40 and 80 years old, prostate cancer would be diagnosed in an estimated 701,491 men (12.1%) over their lifetime."

Astounding. In Canada, one man in eight over the age of 40 can expect to get prostate cancer, and if they live in the east, they can expect to wait a year after diagnosis for surgery to save their lives?

And you think it's "not as bad as some people say it is?" Well, I agree. It's far, far worse.

"DJ, I submit that your view of what Hillary would've done is a fine example of what can be done when lobbyists from the health care industry pay leaders in Congress to lie. You believe the lie. I don't."

No, I read what she proposed, word for word, when she proposed it. You haven't. You don't know what you're talking about, and you keep on talking about it.

You still haven't learned that bluff, bluster, and bullshit don't work here, and your cognitive dissonance progresses merrily onward in high gear. I understand Canada has treatments for it. Perhaps you could e-mail the Health Minister and find out how long the wait is.

Mark:

One of the major differences is I'm not guessing at your motivation. It doesn't matter. I don't have to "feel" the way you do. Note that almost every answer you try and guess what the person you're talking to is thinking/feeling.

IOW: The messenger is more important than the message. Who delivers it is more important than the facts.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe government can work. I think it can. You don't because...

What I asked you about while I was cringing was did you realise that what you were saying was a full-on-aped/imitation/possible satire... of what the Fascists/Socialists/Communists said. Don't get upset about that, go read some history books. In Italy, in Germany, in Russia, the "people in charge" were idiots - and once the People Took Over, Well, They'd Appoint smart people.

(That's even aside from the fact that some of the "smartest" people I know can't manage to do many day-to-day things, nor manage personal relationships, and are some of the worst managers.)

And you're apparently utterly unaware of the historic context of that feeling, that emotion, what it's led to.

No, that doesn't mean it's inexorably going to lead there, but again, like you're trying to argue sterotypes in the other comment thread, there's a reason the truism "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

My point about the FCC

Actually, not what you said. You cited it as an example of a government program that had gotten smaller. Which it hasn't. Nor has it lost scope - it's rather gained a lot. The 1980s, the FCC had close to nothing to say about cell phones, computer communications...

was that it does not have near the control over your lives as it did before 1981.

1) Debateable, at best.
2) That's more of a function of people going around the FCC to satellite/cable, and entertainment choices diversifing, if true.
3) But, wait, those were smart people! You're denigrating them for their enforcement of morality... Do you not see the utter irony of that when you're trying to argue for another government agency to have even more, and control of your health?

Other than Janet Jackson's nipple, most anything goes on TV.

Not true. I suspect you're used to watching Cable or Satellite. The broadcast networks and radio stations are very concerned with the FCC. (The FCC also tries to exert dominance over the Internet from time to time.)

So to say that "no government program ever gets smaller nor has its scope reduced" is wrong.

It's a truism. One that's borne out by your example. Kevin made a statement that's a truism. And yes, a truism, even as often as it's true, may not always be true. I know of several government programs that were terminated. (Amazingly, no one lost employment with the State when this happened.) Even though those agencies were dissolved - the total spending went up, and the tasks they were performing were transferred elsewhere.

They are putting money into something that wields no power.

Ask Howard Stern about that.

Bemoan the wastefullness of your tax dollars but not the control it has in your lives. It has no scope and no power at all.

I'm not going to show you how to google again, but to claim the FCC has "no scope and no power" is demonstrating how ludicrious your thinking is, how deluded you're allowing yourself to get to argue for something - anything!

I'm not trying to insult you, Mark, I'm trying to get you to understand that you're feeling things, and then inventing "Facts" to support them, rather than the opposite!

Kevin made a generalized statement - that turned out to be completely correct (with 45 seconds of Googling) it's obvious that the FCC's budget has increased over 3X from 1989. Claiming that the FCC has "no power" is flailing.

It's OK to admit that you picked a bad example, but instead, you're doubling down on a loser....

Again, this means that your insistance on health care "reform" (where you're also skimpy on specifics, despite getting handed many in reply, is probably not-well-thought-out. Can't you see how readers would draw that conclusion, when you "quote" Lenin and Mussolini (possibly accidentally, but without notice of the irony), and when you toss out an "example" to prove Kevin wrong, refuse to admit that, well, actually, it is an example of exactly what he was saying?

Well, I can see how you would feel that way about health care. But what do you say for every example you give me about how bad socialized medecine is I give you an example of how good it is? I agree that their are flaws in the system. How do you explain the Canadians who I talk to who love their system and are frightened of ours. Or the Americans I know who live in France who are there specifically for the higher standard of health care than ours?

Aren't you at least willing to listen to a film like Sicko, get a well rounded look at what universal health care could really mean or do you have to keep beating the "we are all going to be wearing brown shirts, given a bowl of hair soup for a meal everyday, and a hammer for a headache" idea of socialized medecine?

And DJ, I was saving this for the next time you brought cognitive dissonance.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22018

Mark:

Aren't you at least willing to listen to a film like Sicko, get a well rounded look at what universal health care could really mean

No.

Sicko is unmititgated Communist Propaganda. The fact that you're insisting that it's valid as a reference for Universial Health Care is obscene.

The Ob/Gyn I mentioned earlier? She's Cuban. There is nothing good about the Cuban health care systems. Your Bullshit filter is utterly and totally broken.

Michael Moore actually admitted that on 20/20 Friday, "Let's not talk about Cuba..."

Because John Stossel was asking him about it - and showing the real Cuban clinics. The ones with roaches. Blood on the floor. Filthy, uncovered mattresses. Empty pharmacies.

The only equality in Cuba is that of utter poverty and destitution.

But when we tell you that that's what you're holding that up as a ideal, you froth, you inist we're brainwashed.

And now you hold that up as a ideal.

Without irony.

Tom Tomorrow, let's discuss his "Cognative dissonance"..
"The war in Iraq is an overwelming success" - please show me where anyone of any note in the "Republican party" has said that.
"There's no scientific consensus on global warming" - There's... not. Unless you've got cognitive dissonance and are on the left, and (especially) hate America. (China and India are far worse in emissions, why are you trying to stop emissions here, when the rate-of-increase there is so much higher?)
"Homosexuality can be cured" - Since when is this ever a Republican talking point/point of belief? Other, of course when they're being incorrectly sterotyped. You're bitching on the other comments about Lyle's statements about "liberals", yet your examples are incredibly false. Lyle's are easily backed up.
"Democrats want the terrorists to win" - I wish this weren't true. I really, really do. But they do, but without admitting it.
"I think there would be enough support ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." James Clyburn. House Majority Whip.

Even if you want to disagree - that's an arguable point. Again.

So Tomorrow's whole slander falls flat - naming "things that cannot be questioned" that are... well, either not true, or very open to questioning.

Meanwhile, you're using Sicko (regurgitating easily debunked Communist propaganda) as authoritative.

I see your problem. I'm not sure it's cureable. A mind is a horrible, horrible thing to waste, Mark, but you're insisting on it.

Other than this last question, I'm out. Trying to discuss policy with someone who refuses to research, insists on his own set of facts and history is futile. But one last question:

At least tell me you know who Walter Duranty is, and what his crime against history was. Please.

I grew up in the UK, where healthcare was "free". I was initially horrified to hear that I'd actually have to pay to see a doctor.
I'd grown up thinking that healthcare was a RIGHT. But it's not. It's a COMMODITY.
People train for years at expensive schools to provide it. Countries that ration healthcare - and that is what universal healthcare is all about - keep very quiet about their problem patients. You know, the ones with advanced cancer, or needing surgery. I remember hearing about them in the news - raising money to go to America to get life-saving treatment because it WASN'T AVAILABLE at home. It wasn't available in ENGLAND - this is not some third-world country I'm talking about here. America is the STANDARD for healthcare worldwide. We make the best /most drugs, our treaments are superior and why? Because of that FREE MARKET that Markadelphia seems to despise so much. Why strive to improve services and treatments if your work is not going to pay off for you? Why must health care professionals work for "the common good"? We don't ask that of any other industry.

Kevin S, France is the standard for health care worldwide. It has the number one system on the planet. It's research facilities are as good if not better than ours, its doctors top notch and well paid, and its facilities impeccable. Again, if saw a film like Sicko or talked to people living there, you would see why it is. They have a free market there and everyone has health care.

Unix, and thus my point is proved. I am willing to admit that there is a definte downside to universal health care, especially in this country where thousands of people are employed by the insurance industry. We can't simply turn everything over to the government and say "See Ya" to those folks. We have to find a new way other than the current systems that our out there.

You, however, are not willing to see the Canadians in Sicko who buy health insurance everytime they come to the US because they are scared to death of getting stuck with a large medical bill if they get hurt here. That is a FACT, not communist propaganda. Your idealogy is blinding you. People come here for care, they go to France, Switzeraland...they go all over for the best doctor.

Walter Duranty, defender of why brutality is necessary? Denyer of how brutal Stalin was? Yes I know who he was. So, we can expect that kind of brutality against our country if we have universal health care? Oh, wait, I got it now. I have been co-opted by the communist propagandist Michael Moore, hater of America, who wants us all living in brown shirts and living in dank buidlings. What year do you think it is, btw? 1952?

There's propaganda flying around here alright, and it's not coming from me, someone intelligent enough to know the difference between Stalin (brutal dictator) and universal health care advocates (people who want to improve our standard of care).

Mark:

thus my point is proved.

By... making lots of generalizations, and stating with no equivocation "facts" that are easily found to be incorrect.

Wow. Amazing. But, I said with one exception I was giving up on you. But you brought in Canadians - funny thing, all the Canadians I know, not have seen in an edited propaganda piece by a discredited hypocrite, come to the US regularly for care.. Many older ones maintain a house/address in Florida just so they can buy BC&BS on top of their crushing tax burden. So if they do get diagnosed with cancer (Something the CDN system does well), they can get it treated - before they're dead.

The only couple I knew happy with the healthcare system were retired French Canadians... and last I saw of one of them - he was immobile due to having to wait for care - she was rather not happy anymore with the system she was using, but had never really paid into. Suddenly, the praises were over. Funny how that works.

Anyway.

Walter Duranty, defender of why brutality is necessary? Denyer of how brutal Stalin was? Yes I know who he was.

Most specifically - what did he report? And how did those reports affect the view of Americans towards the Soviets?

So, we can expect that kind of brutality against our country if we have universal health care? Oh, wait, I got it now.

No, Mark, you don't. I keep telling you to stop trying to figure out my emotions - I'm not working from sheer emoting, so you are doomed to failure. Instead, you've proven you don't understand me at all

Nor do you understand why Duranty is so important to this discussion.

To lay it out for you, since you're incapable of using basic research - Duranty repeated Soviet lies.

He reported record harvests. While [he saw] there was famine.

He reported the Russian people happy and estatic with Soviet rule, while [he saw] the Soviet troops gunning down men, women, and children in the streets.

He reported equality and liberty for all, while [he saw] the elite living a life of luxury, and the proleteriat forced to live a life without luxuries common to the average American at the time.

He reported that the Soviet system was far superior to the American while seeing that to be false. To this day, the New York Times refuses to relinquish the Pulitzer awarded him for his "reporting"... which turned out to all be false.

Millions died, and Duranty's reporting was used as evidence that "smart people" did far better than "the people who you can sit down and have a BBQ sandwich with". It started a meme that is continued to this day - as many people do not know, or (sound familiar), refuse to admit that the basis for their "evidence" was utterly falsified.

Nothing to do with any projection that you want to put on me. Any brainwashing.

I merely know what Duranty did, what people did in reaction to it. And I can analyse that, and compare that to current events.

Feel free to continue the Ad-hom's.

(Sorry, guys, I know I said I'd be hush.... Something very pertinent to the discussion came up, well, errr, I ran across it in my insomniaic state...

Marko does some math on the stats:
45 Million "Uninsured"?

* 37% of the un-insured live in households earning more than $50,000 a year (and 19% live in households earning more than $75,000). Can people at these income levels afford major medical insurance? Yes. Should they be subsidized by you and me? No. Subtract this group and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 28 million.

* 20% of the un-insured are non-citizens. Should you and I pay to insure them through a top-down federal monopoly? We think not. Subtract this group and the number of un-insured people drops to roughly 19 million.

* 33% of the un-insured are already eligible for existing government programs. No new program is needed for people who are already covered by current programs. Subtract them and the number of uninsured people drops to roughly 4 million. This is much more likely to be the true size of the problem."

Right. 4 million. Or, 1/10th the problem that we're told (By people like Unca Walter, no less) that we face.

Ok, sorry, back to being hush. Wanted to get that on fact and record here, as well.

OK, so all the Canadians I know (around 60 or so) are happy with their system. Half of them are frightened of the US system...the others don't notice any difference at all which is funny because it makes our whole conversation a waste of time. So, you have some people that hate they system and I have some that hate it or don't care. Do you suppose the truth is somewhere in between?

I know what Duranty did. Are you saying the Michael Moore is like Duranty?

Oh, and again, the uninsured are not the chief issue. Nor are they the point of Moore's film. It is the insured, hard working Americans and how they are getting ripped off

"And DJ, I was saving this for the next time you brought cognitive dissonance."

You're gonna have to explain, in plain English, why you might want me to see that. I've looked at it twice, and it's a mystery to me.

Now, look at what Sarah posted. It was about her own experiences with Canadian health care, and that, in her opinion,

"Socialized medicine is a nightmare."

What was your response?

"Sarah, yes, it sounds like an awful experience. Do you think we can do better? I do."

My response to you was:

"Do it again, only harder."

Now, go read Kevin's many posts explaining this statement. Do you really not see how it applies to your response to Sarah's statement? Are you really that dense?

"I'm not trying to insult you, Mark, I'm trying to get you to understand that you're feeling things, and then inventing "Facts" to support them, rather than the opposite!"

Well said, Jedi, but we've been trying to deliver that message to Mark for a long time. I don't know if his doorbell is working, but I know he doesn't answer the bell.

""DJ, I submit that your view of what Hillary would've done is a fine example of what can be done when lobbyists from the health care industry pay leaders in Congress to lie. You believe the lie. I don't."

Not to revisit an old pile of manure, but look at the following:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWZhMjI5N2Q5NWYxOGUxOGIzMzNmMjQ1ZDkyM2RkYzE=

Here is the meat of it:

"WASHINGTON — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the taxpayer-funded system.

"This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States," Clinton said to applause from seniors gathered in Washington to push their policy agenda. "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

So, if privatization isn't the answer to anything, the gubmint is the answer to everything.

She tried it before when she hadn't been elected to anything. She still believes it.

Plain English-you accuse me of cognitive dissonance and yet you have said some of those exact things in the cartoon-things are that blatantly false.

How about instead of do it again only harder we do something different?

Hillary-how do you suppose she is going to be able to accomplish what you believe she will (i.e. privatization off the table and government control of everything) when the people that are supporting her are staunch captilists?

Mark,

How do you explain the Canadians who I talk to who love their system and are frightened of ours.

The Canadian healthcare system is a sacred cow to Canadians. They don't "love" it, they have a bizarre, zealous devotion to it, even though it is not very good. Most Canadians are really unhappy with the system, but they stick with it the way a battered woman stays with her abusive husband, because the alternatives are too scary.

Here is how screwed up Canadians are when it comes to their system. In a recent poll a majority of respondents indicated that the system was in crisis -- but a different question in the same poll asked if the system should be changed, and most Canadians said no. There is a total disconnect from reality when it comes to Canadians and their healthcare.

Well, most of them anyway. A couple of years ago a patient and his doctor sued the Quebec government to force it to allow private health insurance after the patient was unable for a year to get a procedure that would allow him to walk. More recently another patient is suing the Ontario government to pay for a sight-saving procedure she got in the U.S. She would be blind by now if she had waited in the government queue.

What the hell kind of system allows people to suffer like this? You don't think the system sucks because Canada isn't trying its best to alleviate these problems? It just doesn't work, Mark. And it doesn't work for the exact reasons DJ explained above, which is embodied in this quote from the article: "It is wonderful that [healthcare] is free but if you have no access to it, it is of no value."

The system, incidentally, is not free, it's paid for with lots and lots of taxes, which many people in socialist and quasi-socialist countries don't seem to understand. They see the word "privatize" and go into a panic thinking that some entitlement is going to be taken away, when in reality, with the amount they pay in taxes, they would be financially no worse off with private insurance and would actually get something for their money.

Canadians who are frightened of our system have never experienced it, and what they know about it has been distorted through the media, through the education system, and through hearsay. I was told those same lies, and was scared when I first got here, but I wouldn't go back to the Canadian system for anything. That is probably why your friends are frightened -- they've never actually experienced the American system. But most people who have experienced both prefer the American system. Check out this article, which indicates that most Americans living in Canada prefer American healthcare.

Sarah, I don't doubt the veracity of your points. I am certain, in fact, that much of the experience of the people you talk about is honest. And yours as well....

You have to understand, though, that the people I know don't feel that way. By saying that "Canadians who are frightened of our system have never experienced it, and what they know about it has been distorted through the media" you are basically making them sound like children. They think that our system is out to rip people off. It is. They are right as well.

You strike me as being a fairly open mined person. Go watch Sicko and tell me what you think.

"Hillary-how do you suppose she is going to be able to accomplish what you believe she will (i.e. privatization off the table and government control of everything) when the people that are supporting her are staunch captilists?"

I don't believe she will accomplish what she has tried in the past to accomplish regarding health care. I believe she will be opposed and her efforts will be defeated, if she is elected and tries it, because we, the people, don't want what she wants.

Still jumping to conclusions, aren't you?

"You have to understand, though, that the people I know don't feel that way."

So, the Canadians whom you know are representative of all Canadians, but the ones whom Sarah knows are not?

"Plain English-you accuse me of cognitive dissonance and yet you have said some of those exact things in the cartoon-things are that blatantly false."

I accuse you of cognitive dissonance because you make a daily spectacle of yourself by exhibiting symptoms of it. As Kevin noted thoroughly, it is a characteristic of those so afflicted that they cannot see it in themselves.

DJ,

You said

"So, the Canadians whom you know are representative of all Canadians, but the ones whom Sarah knows are not?"

I said

"Sarah, I don't doubt the veracity of your points. I am certain, in fact, that much of the experience of the people you talk about is honest. And yours as well...."

I also said

"Do you suppose the truth is somewhere in between?"

See how easy it is to think when you aren't blinded by idealogy?

"Do you suppose the truth is somewhere in between?"

No, the "worst case stories" are real, but fortunately not everyone experiences them. My gauge of how well a system works extends beyond how well it hands out aspirin to someone with a cold. As Sarah pointed out so pertinently, "... if you have no access to it, it is of no value." In my opinion, it is, in great measure, its inability to deal with those who need it badly and who need it immediately that condemns it, and it is our system's ability to do so that makes Canadians come here, at their own expense, to make use of it.

Compare Canadian health care to the notion that you should not be "allowed" to own or use a gun in your own home for your own protection. The gubmint has no obligation to protect you in particular. Your only recourse to imminent death staring you in the face in your own living room is to call for the police, if you can, and hope their waiting list isn't too long. That scenario is a very realistic gauge of why such a system is wrong.

My reason for making the statement you objected to is that you continue to point out that the Canadians whom you know apparently think the system is just fine, when it is demonstrably not, and from there you jump all the way to the bald statement that the system is not as bad as sumsay. Indeed, it is worse, in my opinion, than sumsay.

No, the truth does not lie "somewhere in between." If, some day in the future, you find yourself needing immediate, sophisticated treatement to save your life, then perhaps you'll understand my point of view. Right now, I don't think you do.

"Go watch Sicko and tell me what you think."

Mark, you do not seem to understand that we do not hold up Michael Moore as an example of who to ask for the truth. As I pointed out before, he is an admitted liar and a demonstrable liar.

He may or may not have something to say that is worth hearing. But, as with you (only on steroids and french fries), it is not worth wading through the manure he submerges it in to find it, so we don't try. It's about credibility, and he has destroyed his own.

OK, Mark, I've tried and tried. You stated:

"And DJ, I was saving this for the next time you brought cognitive dissonance.

http://www.workingforchange.com/...fm? itemid=22018"

I replied:

"You're gonna have to explain, in plain English, why you might want me to see that. I've looked at it twice, and it's a mystery to me."

to which you replied:

"Plain English-you accuse me of cognitive dissonance and yet you have said some of those exact things in the cartoon-things are that blatantly false."

I have read that thing four times. It's in front of me right now. Let's see what it says, and so see what it says that I have said, and that you might think is wrong:

"The war in Iraq is an overwhelming success!" Nope. Never said it or believed it. The bludgeoning death of the Hussein gubmint was an overwhelming success, but the war in Iraq isn't over. I've said many times that it'll take years, and that it likely won't end in my lifetime.

"There's no scientific consensus on global warming!" Nope. Never said it in Kevin's parlor. But, golly, dude, go read the papers. You'll find that there are genyooine scientists who do dispute it, and so, by gum, there is no consensus, scientifically speaking. And that is true no matter what I think of the subject, and you don't know what I think of the subject because I haven't told you.

"Homosexuality can be cured!" Nope. Never said it anywhere. The subject doesn't interest me.

"Democrats want the terrorists to win!" Nope. Never said it. What the Dimocrats want is victory in the next election, and they method they have chosen to achieve it makes them have a vested interest in the terrorists winning, regardless of what they want. The two concepts are not the same and are not equivalent. To win, the Dimocrats have to satisfy their base, i.e. the far left moonbattery, which wants us out of Iraq now, which would guarantee the terrorists winning there, and they also have to satisfy those voters of a more reasonable bent, which they do by not proposing any plans of their own, thus not appearing to be the cause of anything that results.

"Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!" No, my term is "and so on, and so on, and so on." I've said that many times, but about what, exactly?

"BZZRAAPPP! SPLUTTER! EEP." nOPE. nEVER sAID iT.

"Does not compute!" Bingo! Said it several times, if I remember correctly.

"Electricity comes out of holes in my wall!" Nope. Never said it. But, it is true. I'm an electrical engineer, remember?

"Why do scientists hate America?" Nope. Never said it. Haven't even discussed the subject in Kevin's parlor.

"Zucchini trashcan mouthwash! Radio frequency! Radio frequency!" Nope. Never said it. Don't even understand it, actually.

"Iran evil go boom! Big war! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!" Nope. Never said it.

"Oh, he's just posturing! There's no way he's going to attack Iran! No one could be that crazy! At least no one with a functioning brain!" Nope. Never said it. I don't recall ever discussing whether or not President Bush would attack Iran, nor do I recall ever discussing whether or not President Bush would threaten to attack Iran as a "posturing".

So, in summary, it appears that the one thing in that, well, whatever it is, that I said is "Does not compute!" Now, tell me how it was "blatantly false".

Mark, if you want to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to do a lot better. This bit of manure is what I might expect of a six year old.

And, more to the point, this piece of buffoonery has nothing to do with "cognitive dissonance" as Stephen den Beste and Kevin have described it, and as I and others have repeatedly described you as suffering from. I'm not gonna explain it to you again. If you didn't understand it before, then you won't understand it if I word it any differently. But, I strongly urge you to go find their descriptions and read it until you do understand it. We're serious about it, and you're not, and you've got it really bad.

C'mon, Mark. Explain yourself.