What does Joan Baez have to do with anything?

She is cool old lady, Dylan's ex-girlfriend, great singer, effective pacifist, and prettier than Jimmy Carter.

That a third of the world's inhabitants live in countries liberated since 1945, nonviolently?

We've been through this part already and it has been disproved. Just what exactly have you been studying to make you unaware of that in the first place?

You didn't disprove it, I didn't show the whole list. But wanting to make peace, I'll compromise at 30%. Or, see my Joan Baez quote, counting dead Russians.

OK, whatever. You gave a list, each was effectively scratched off the list (maybe one wasn't), now you refuse to acknowledge it. Fine. Believe whatever you want. It won't change the facts.

Thank you, sincerely, one and all. I have concluded, after 35 years of studying both war and peace, that my debate opponents usually haven't studied more than a tiny bit about peace, and most of it was with a cavalier dismissal. I apologize to those who honestly, seriously studied it.

Would you rape your daughter or another's daughter, if ordered to? Of course not. But would you kill because somebody told you to? Quite possibly. Sorry for the rape comparison again, but I see no better comparison.

It is a challenge to debate one who is evidently well read, and enjoys so proclaiming, when he sees "no better comparison" than the raping of an innocent to killing in order to save lives. I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

Killing bad guys to save good people's lives is a good thing. Rape is always bad.

After losing his majority, Obama may now be sliding into oblivion.

Puppet President.

i'm afraid that Obama is not doing too well on the "saving us all" front. He better concentrate on save himself first!

So how's your 'golden boy' doing now?? Same as it ever was.

It is easy to go on the internet and tear everything down and never offer any kind of alternative or positive solution, but it does not say much about the person who does it.

So how's your 'golden boy' doing now?? Same as it ever was.

There was never any doubt except among the gullible "hope & change" crowd. Good or bad, there were enough of them to get him elected. I for one am glad he won. While I'm sure McCain would make a much better President, the time was right to give the other side a shot. Otherwise the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) would have seamlessly morphed into MDS before he was even sworn in and the naive in America and around the world would have been whining about a rigged election and "what ifs" about Obama. By winning, now the curtain has been pulled back and everyone can see him for what he is and always has been...a politician. Hopefully the Republican learned their lesson after getting their asses handed to them in 2006 & 2008. Because they are poised for big gains in 2010 and if they don't wise up, things won't get any better. IF they do get better with a big Republican in November, expect Obama to get re-elected. At election time, voters care about how their lives are going at the time and whoever is President at the time will get the credit. That's how it works. Presidents always get too much credit & blame.

Thank you for an excellent post that tells it how it is!

Did I say Hillary was a better candidate?

Did I say Hillary was a better candidate?

Chances are, she wouldn't be. As she is cut from the same establishment convention as any of them. Most don't have the ability to recognize an alternative if it crossed their paths. Rather moot actually, for anyone that wasn't attached to the orthodoxy {and their respective clubs} wouldn't be allowed to serve.

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

The Democrats have been trying to pass Socialized Medicine on the US since FDR. So far they have not been successful and it seems they will not be this time.

There are a few simple steps Congress could take that would be a start in dealing with the medical issue. These steps are...

1. Tort reform. Put some sort of reasonable limit on frivolous law suits and get the trial lawyers out of the business. Passage of tort reform also would cut down on defensive medicine practiced by many Doctors and'or medical facilities.

2. Allow shopping across state lines for group insurance policies. Now an employer is limited to securing his group insurance from an insurance provider within his own state. Permit an open market and let the market set the premium costs.

3. Permit Health Savings Plans in order for people to manage their own destinies, rather than mandating insurance coverage by the federal government.

Congress could pass legislation that would accomplish this in one day. It wouldn't add one dime to the deficit and, over a period of time, could very likely solve many of the cost problems within the medical industry.

I would question your statement that the health care insurance industry is making 30% to 70% premium. Exactly what do you mean? Is it your position the insurance industry is making 30% to 70% profit?

Can you clarify your statement on this issue?

The current plan being kicked around by the Democrats is for the plan to become effective upon passage yet not pay any benefits until the beginning of the fifth year. When you collect revenue for ten years to pay for six years of service and call it deficit neutral, you are seriously engaging in creative accounting. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al are trying to do a job on the people. It's all about increasing the size of government and gaining control of 1/6th of the GDP.

The US doesn't need this $1-3 Trillion monstrosity of a health care bill.

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

I don't disagree with your feelings about health care, but we need to wait until the country is back on its feet. This is just the wrong time to do something that is going to cost a lot of money and it will, no matter what its proponents have to say.

The Democrats have been trying to pass Socialized Medicine on the US since FDR. So far they have not been successful and it seems they will not be this time.

There are a few simple steps Congress could take that would be a start in dealing with the medical issue. These steps are...

1. Tort reform. Put some sort of reasonable limit on frivolous law suits and get the trial lawyers out of the business. Passage of tort reform also would cut down on defensive medicine practiced by many Doctors and'or medical facilities.

2. Allow shopping across state lines for group insurance policies. Now an employer is limited to securing his group insurance from an insurance provider within his own state. Permit an open market and let the market set the premium costs.

3. Permit Health Savings Plans in order for people to manage their own destinies, rather than mandating insurance coverage by the federal government.

Congress could pass legislation that would accomplish this in one day. It wouldn't add one dime to the deficit and, over a period of time, could very likely solve many of the cost problems within the medical industry.

I would question your statement that the health care insurance industry is making 30% to 70% premium. Exactly what do you mean? Is it your position the insurance industry is making 30% to 70% profit?

Can you clarify your statement on this issue?

The current plan being kicked around by the Democrats is for the plan to become effective upon passage yet not pay any benefits until the beginning of the fifth year. When you collect revenue for ten years to pay for six years of service and call it deficit neutral, you are seriously engaging in creative accounting. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al are trying to do a job on the people. It's all about increasing the size of government and gaining control of 1/6th of the GDP.

The US doesn't need this $1-3 Trillion monstrosity of a health care bill.

Those are are mostly all good suggestions that I agree with. Let's face it, this socialized medicine is on it's way. The demographics are rapidly shifting and smaller numbers of workers are going to be paying for greater numbers of people who are lawfully "entitled" to government sponsored healthcare. It's best to get the ball rolling. I think some of your suggestions will be implemented in the not too distant future, especially tort reform.

I left out a word above. The highlighted area should have read 30%-70% premium increases just this year. Those are anecdotal accounts I've seen from reading internet articles on the subject. I don't watch TV so don't know if everyone is experincing those kinds of increases but I'm sure plenty are. That's just got to stop. Yes, it's expensive. My suggestion to pay for it, shitcan Social Security.

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

That's the first I've heard that. Do you have a link?

The Democrats have been trying to pass Socialized Medicine on the US since FDR. So far they have not been successful and it seems they will not be this time.

There are a few simple steps Congress could take that would be a start in dealing with the medical issue. These steps are...

1. Tort reform. Put some sort of reasonable limit on frivolous law suits and get the trial lawyers out of the business. Passage of tort reform also would cut down on defensive medicine practiced by many Doctors and'or medical facilities.

That will never happen as long as the Dems are in control. The Trial Lawyers Assoc of America, er, I mean, the American Assn for Justice as they are now called, is the 6th largest political donor of the past 20 years and at least 90% of that goes to the Dems (95% in the 2010 cycle). The trial lawyers own the Democratic party.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=L

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

That's the first I've heard that. Do you have a link?

http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Car...uptcy-in-the-US

I had high hopes for Obama. I really did, but the fact that all he seems to care about is shoving his health plan down the throat of the American people during the biggest financial turndown in many decades is rather scary.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

That's the first I've heard that. Do you have a link?

http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Car...uptcy-in-the-US

That's amazing. I would have thought it would have been the housing crisis that was the cause of the majority of bankruptcies. Of course, the study linked to was done in 2001 so it might have changed.

What better time? 60% of all bankruptcies stem from unpaid medical bills. Unemployment is soaring and the rapacious health care insurance industry is making 30%-70% premium this year alone. Seems emminently sensible to me. Anyhow iif it doesn't happen this year it will happen next year and if it doesn't happen then it will be the year after. Why not get on with it?

That's the first I've heard that. Do you have a link?

http://www.examiner.com/x-11804-Health-Car...uptcy-in-the-US

That's amazing. I would have thought it would have been the housing crisis that was the cause of the majority of bankruptcies. Of course, the study linked to was done in 2001 so it might have changed.

I think they update it yearly. Here's 2007:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...medicine_09.pdf

2. Allow shopping across state lines for group insurance policies. Now an employer is limited to securing his group insurance from an insurance provider within his own state. Permit an open market and let the market set the premium costs.

I always felt this would make the biggest difference in the shortest time.

It is amazing in this day & age that it is not allowed.

2. Allow shopping across state lines for group insurance policies. Now an employer is limited to securing his group insurance from an insurance provider within his own state. Permit an open market and let the market set the premium costs.

I always felt this would make the biggest difference in the shortest time.

It is amazing in this day & age that it is not allowed.

I think chuckd's suggestion has merit....but I suggest that a totally open market has it's own pitfalls. Some regulation is needed simply to curb corporate greed.

If the banks had had tighter controls, the country may not be in such a crisis now.

I think chuckd's suggestion has merit....but I suggest that a totally open market has it's own pitfalls. Some regulation is needed simply to curb corporate greed.

If the banks had had tighter controls, the country may not be in such a crisis now.

For sure as you say regs/changes are needed in those fields & others.

But we are allowed to buy auto insurance or home insurance form any company nation wide & that keeps prices reasonable & competitive in those fields. It seems very anti free market to disallow medical insurance being sold outside of state lines.

I think chuckd's suggestion has merit....but I suggest that a totally open market has it's own pitfalls. Some regulation is needed simply to curb corporate greed.

If the banks had had tighter controls, the country may not be in such a crisis now.

For sure as you say regs/changes are needed in those fields & others.

But we are allowed to buy auto insurance or home insurance form any company nation wide & that keeps prices reasonable & competitive in those fields. It seems very anti free market to disallow medical insurance being sold outside of state lines.

What's the rationale behind the limited-to-the-state proposal? Is it to limit growth of individual insurance companies? Can individual companies operate in multiple states?

What's the rationale behind the limited-to-the-state proposal? Is it to limit growth of individual insurance companies? Can individual companies operate in multiple states?

I cannot imagine the rationale behind the limit to purchase. Except that they worry the competition would be won with lax laws within one state. Meaning a State would relax regs to attract companies opening shop there.

Then all the insurance companies would move there & open shop so as to take advantage of those lax regs.

So this *could be* one reason that they have not allowed it.

They would be expected to follow each States medical insurance laws when sold within that State. Same as they do for auto insurance now. While we can buy across state lines. They the insurance company must abide by each States regs when selling there. As to min coverage etc. But if States relax laws to attract companies...Then I guess that could be a problem....Again just guessing/wondering out loud here

As for individual companies operating in multiple States. Yes they have some now.

Each state has established minimum regulations that are required to be followed by health insurance companies. The argument, therefore, is that you must purchase the coverage from an insurance provider located in your state in order to be certain all state regulations are being followed. By not permitting shopping across state lines however, those companies operating within a state have an effective monopoly and are not subject to the supply and demand principals of ordinary commerce.

This argument holds no water, however, since there are also individual state insurance regulatory agencies charged with overseeing that policies are in accordance with state regulations. Insurance companies located in other states would merely need to comply with a particular state's regulations in order to follow that state's laws. It would then be the responsibility of the insurance regulatory agency to insure the laws are being followed.

I read recently (don't remember where so I don't have a link), the states with the fewest regulations also have the lowest premiums. Massachusetts, with the most number of regulations, also has the highest premiums.

Massachusetts also has socialized medicine.

One problem I see with the reforms being offered by the Democrats was the manner in which they approached the problem. With Obama's election in 2008 and the super majority the Democrats held in both houses of Congress, they saw the opportunity to force feed the American public with this entirely too costly attempt to socialize the medical industry. They were passing 2,000 page laws without reading them and without any public discussion. It was all being done behind closed doors and in secret. That is what originally raised the ire of the Tea Partiers and encouraged them to the form of action they later took.

Another problem is the enormous costs associated with the bill. We are talking about a cost to the tax payer of something over $1 Trillion, and that is not sustainable. The CBO hasn't even come up with an estimated cost on Obama's latest attempt. It could be in the $2-3 Trillion dollar range and that is beyond reason.

I would ask the advocates of the US government being in charge of 1/6th of the GDP if they are satisfied with the manner in which the US government has handled the US Postal Service, Amtrak, General Motors, Chrysler and all the other myriad details of our lives they seem to think they can manage. How can anyone possibly believe the US government will be able to handle health care and actually save money???

What it amounts to is that Obama and his henchmen in Congress seriously misjudged the mood of the electorate. Now they might be paying the price for that misjudgement in November.

I would ask the advocates of the US government being in charge of 1/6th of the GDP if they are satisfied with the manner in which the US government has handled the US Postal Service, Amtrak, General Motors, Chrysler and all the other myriad details of our lives they seem to think they can manage. How can anyone possibly believe the US government will be able to handle health care and actually save money???

Agreed & I often us the USPS example myself when discussing this with other.

What it amounts to is that Obama and his henchmen in Congress seriously misjudged the mood of the electorate. Now they might be paying the price for that misjudgement in November.

It seems that winning an election makes the winner think everyone loves him and his ideas. Look at Bush in 2004 after his victory he said something like "I've earned my political capital and now I'm going to spend it" then went hard after Social Security and got shot down by Congress & the Dems. In exit polls do they ever ask whether you voted "for" one candidate or just "against" the other? Politicians suck.