"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever." - Reagan, January 20, 1981

"In Vietnam, we tried and failed in a just cause. No More Vietnams can mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again." - from No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon

Thursday, July 17, 2008

ObamaIraq Watch

I'm going to keep updating this one as it develops

first, lets remember http://www.gop.com/ObamaIraq.htm

and for a short intro story -

we're undoutably wining the war, ever since mccain's troop surge plan was pushed through. obama is now saying that HIS plan would work because of the extraordinary outcome of (although he will not say it) mccain's plan. i really hope mccain is recognized for his disicive support of plan, and people realize that obama is just sugercoating his plan because he can't re-write history.


Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

Monday, July 14th 2008, 8:10 PM

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."

Let's get started:

Before being "refined":




_____lets hear it_____

"Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002...."

_____bla bla bla_____


_____denial isn't just a river in egypt
"Iraq violence falls to four-year low" May 26, 2008
life before the surge
"Life In Hell"
life after the surge
"Back to Baghdad"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1722747,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar _____

"Iraqi Government Not Stepping Up"

_____ That is not what the mid-east nations (sunni-led, non-the-less) think
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121331389679269827.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ____

"Uneven Gains Not Sustainable Without Iraqi Action"

_____ Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas From Sadr Force - April 20, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?hp _____


_____ ummm.... do you even know what it is?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14369678 ____

"Military Stretched Thin"

_____ but not broken
http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2008/06/12/news/news10.txt _____


_____From Iraq Study Group Report:
Precipitate Withdrawal
Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. _____

" All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009"

____he wouldn't even be inaugarated until jan. 2009 _____

"Residual Force to Remain"



_____http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/afghanistan_rel_2003.jpg _____


_____From Iraq Study Group Report:
national reconciliation, including the negotiation of a "political deal" among Iraq's sectarian groups on Constitution review, de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, the future of Kirkuk, and amnesty; security, particularly curbing militias and reducing the violence in Baghdad; and governance, including the provision of basic services and the rollback of pervasive corruption. _____

"A United Nations-Led Constitutional Convention"

_____ okay.... he doesn't like the one already written, so he wants a bunch of foreiners to write a new one for the iraqis. i wonder how the iraqis would feel about having their constitution scraped for one obama likes. CHANGE _____

"Refuse to Provide U.S. Assistance to Sectarian Actors"

_____ because we actually try to help sectarian actors, right mr. obama? _____

_____ i will put this part in it's entirty:
"Support for Iraqi Stability: Barack Obama would work with Kurdish leaders to come to an accommodation
with Turkish leaders who see the Kurdish ascendance as a threat. He would press Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia to use their influence to encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile. To combat terrorism, Obama would press
Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to stem the flow of foreign fighters, arms, and financial resources into Iraq. Obama also would be a tough negotiator with Syria and Iran, sending a clear message that they need to stop
meddling in Iraq’s affairs. Prevent the War's Spread Beyond Iraq: To prevent spillover -- in particular, Turkish or Iranian adventurism -
- the Obama plan would promote a regional compact that would ensure commitments by Iraq's neighbors to non-intervention and to Iraq's territorial integrity.
A New Cooperative Security Framework in the Gulf: As we disengage from Iraq's civil war, America needs
to support regional sources of stability. This is particularly important given recent claims from Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran will fill any vacuum created by American withdrawal. Barack Obama would
work to develop a long-term strategy of regional cooperation. This will not only improve Iraq's stabilization
and regional integration, but also serve as a check against Iran's regional ambitions."

lets sit down and talk, unconditionally, make a speech, they will listen to you. it worked on kool-aid drinking high school kids, why is this any different? ______


_____ without enough troops _____

"Iraq is Facing a Humanitarian Crisis Right Now"

_____really? lets pull the troops! ______

"Take Care of Refugees"

_____ that would be nice, especially since there will be a lot more once the obama plan is in place _____

"Secure International Assistance"

_____ we have been trying to do that. but this is different because they will drink obama kool-aid. speech ______

"Prevent Genocide"

_____ wothout enough troops? how? oh yeah, you will tell the un to do it, that will really "restore the world's faith in america"
"Fulfill America's Obligation to Accept Refugees"
and to do that "Obama would expedite the Department of Homeland
Security's review of Iraqi asylum applicants". okay.... but also tell "Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands" as well as "Arab governments, especially American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait" to "expand their refugee quotas"... that will really "restore the world's faith in america", .... especially since there will be a lot more once the obama plan is in place ______


_____ bla bla bla. said that already _______

Now his "Refined" NYT one (The NYT later revealed that Obama has a team of 300 Foreign Policy Advisors that tell him what questions to expect and how to answer them, an example given appears repeatedly in this article - “a genuine opportunity,” - begging the question of how much of this article is is genuin Obama):

"Op-Ed Contributor
My Plan for Iraq By BARACK OBAMA Published: July 14, 2008"
let's hear it

"CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States."

________Nice try, straw man. let's tell the whole story -
[The Iraqi timeline proposal made public Tuesday appears to set an outer limit, requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that precondition could itself take years. ]
From what it sounds like the Iraqis want a conditions based system where these conditions have to be met. Then when those are done they want a US withdrawal within such a time-period (NOT A SPECIFIC DATE) to ensure we don't sit around. The government wants US help until its up and running, then us out of there so they can get going and I can understand that._______

"The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president."

________HEY, THIS PART WASN'T REFINED! "Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002...." bla bla bla________

"I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown."

______This was just complaining - and an exageration http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2008/06/12/news/news10.txt - until the part whare it says "Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown." The only thing that has grown with respect to Iran is the number of names in their checkbook, the exception being Sadr, who seems to be getting more unpopular by the day. as for Al Qaeda, lets ask them what they have to say about that
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece ____

"In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness. "

________but you said - "THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING" and "Uneven Gains Not Sustainable Without Iraqi Action" and "AMERICAN MILITARY CANNOT SUSTAIN CURRENT STRATEGY IN IRAQ" - THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID_____

"But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

lets take this one 1-point-at-a-time. "The strain on our military has grown"- an exageration http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2008/06/12/news/news10.txt
"the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated" - in relation to what? it was 'better' before the invation of Iraq? http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020318/popup/
"we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted" - it would have been less if more people did what you did and voted against funding the troops
"Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country" - first of all http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-05-21-iraqarms_N.htm
second, if we can't handle corruption (Tony Rezco), you expect a government only a few years free and has been in war for it's whole existance to be able too and use it as an excuse to abandan the Iraqi people?
"they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge"
nice try straw man, the surge was too create an environment whare it can happen, not only did you contradict yourself in this same op-ed, but http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121331389679269827.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ____

"The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009."

____but in the last sentence, you said "they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." and you did that straw man thing again, the Iraqis want a conditions based system where these conditions have to be met. Then when those are done they want a US withdrawal within such a time-period (NOT A SPECIFIC DATE) to ensure we don't sit around. The government wants US help until its up and running, then us out of there so they can get going and I can understand that.____

"Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government."

______again, the Iraqis want a conditions based system where these conditions have to be met. Then when those are done they want a US withdrawal within such a time-period (NOT A SPECIFIC DATE) to ensure we don't sit around. The government wants US help until its up and running, then us out of there so they can get going and I can understand that. you have to tell the whole truth, not twist it to suit your political wants. doing your idea of a pull-out, which is not what anybody else you mentioned here was talking about, would just be "i'm sick of this" and leaving, aka “surrender”_______

"But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."

_____this is a combination of lies and stupidity______

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal."

_______"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in" - if you are going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. nobody that you mentioned in this op-ed agrees with your plans, and neather does Petraeus, yet you stick to it.
"We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began" - so first it's " All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009" (he wouldn't even be inaugarated until jan. 2009) then it's by the end of 2009 (which still isn't 16 months) and now it is " summer of 2010" (he finally got his months right), and leave a "residual force" in Iraq to "perform limited missions" like going after "any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia", which before he said Al Qaeda has grown because of us not withdrawing Iraq, but now says that only remnants now remain in Iraq, said all in one op-ed._____

"In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees."

_____??? these claims don't seem to have been 'refined', it is the same stupid idea from before_____

"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq. "

_____Mullen did not say to compleatly withdraw like you are advocating, and actually "Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has suggested that if security continues to improve in Iraq, the Pentagon may be able to send some units to Afghanistan instead of Baghdad as scheduled early next year. But he has also stressed that he will wait for Petraeus to make his assessment.""- AP
. But there is another, more disterbing part of this. you said - "Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been" but http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/20/binladen.message/index.html

he doesn't really say anything else, but I will put the rest anyway______

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."



Obama: Surge Succeeded Beyond ‘Wildest Dreams’
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, September 4, 2008

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

But Obama also warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.

“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”

Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver.

Obama said he “absolutely” believes the United States is fighting a War on Terror, with the enemy being, “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam.”

He repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror.

Obama was first asked to come on “The O’Reilly Factor” in early 2007. The interview will air in three more parts after Thursday, from Monday through Wednesday next week.


I don't want Obama in charge of my security, he can not even write an honest op-ed that doesn't contradict itself from paragragh to paragragh, or admit his own changes and mistakes.

now, no matter what anybody says, after all the political attacks, and all those like obama who said 'no we can't', no matter how anybody tries to spin this, the determination of the Republican party never wavered; and for that confidence in our heroic servicemen and women, all our allies, and the truly inspiring courage of the Iraqi people who strove for freedom in their darkest hour;

We Won The War; And The Rebublic Of Fear Is Gone Forever

7/17/08 - TOP STORY - Opponents promise challenge of new D.C. gun law

the day the Heller case was ruled, June 26,2008

now - to 7/17/08

Opponents promise challenge of new D.C. gun law

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The doors opened Thursday to post-handgun ban era here, with gun rights advocates vowing another legal challenge to the city's newly approved gun control law.

Less than a month after the Supreme Court overturned the city's 32-year-old handgun ban — the most restrictive in the nation — the same litigant in the landmark case appeared at police headquarters and said he likely would wage a new fight.

D.C. GUN BAN: Read the court's decision

Dick Heller, whose legal challenge prompted the Supreme Court ruling, said he would challenge new city regulations that continue to ban District residents from owning semi-automatic weapons.

"The city still does not yet understand the decision of the Supreme Court," Heller said from the steps of police headquarters. "We have been denied again."

The court struck down the handgun ban June 26, and established for the first time in U.S. history that the Constitution's Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns at home for self-defense. But the court also indicated that a person's right to gun ownership is not unlimited.

Dane von Breichenruchardt, president of the Bill of Rights Foundation, said the city was attempting to make gun ownership as "difficult and restrictive as possible."

"We're going to be back in court. There is no doubt about that," he said.

Under terms of the emergency law, passed earlier this week by the D.C. Council, residents must obtain a city-issued handgun permit and may keep handguns only in their homes for self-defense purposes.

The permits require every gun owner to pass a written test and vision exam, submit the weapons for ballistic testing and offer proof of residency.

The provisions still rank as some of the toughest in the nation. But perhaps the most controversial aspect of the law, gun rights advocates say, mandates that gun owners keep their weapons unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless they face a "threat of immediate harm."

The National Rifle Association has signaled it also will challenge the new D.C. regulation, describing the law as extreme and in "complete defiance of the Supreme Court's decision."

"The current D.C. proposal requires the complete cooperation of the criminal," NRA spokesman Andrew Akulanandum. "It would require the criminal to call and tell you when they plan to come and attack you."

D.C. Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said the regulations can be "interpreted" in various ways. "But this isn't a 'gotcha' program. We're trying to accommodate people," he said.

When the doors opened to prospective gun owners at 7 a.m. Thursday, only one other applicant was waiting. Ron Jones, 33, said he had not yet purchased a handgun, but planned to get a start on the registration process.

"I'm interested in self-defense. It's our constitutional right. I'm here to exercise that right. The way things are now, with the kids and the mischief they are making, what are we supposed to do? They have the guns already," he said.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

7/16/08 - TOP STORY - "It seemed like the Stadium didn't want it to end"

AL outlasts NL in marathon 15-inning All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium

Updated Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 11:20 AM


The All-Star Game said goodbye to Yankee Stadium Tuesday night. It was a long, long, long goodbye.

By the time it ended, at 1:37 Wednesday morning, the Stadium was half-empty, a stark contrast to earlier Tuesday, when a packed house paid tribute to baseball's cathedral with a cavalcade of stars - past and present - on display.

Fifteen innings and four hours and 50 minutes later, the American League did what it always does - it won the game. Michael Young's sac fly brought home Justin Morneau - barely - with the winning run of a 4-3 marathon.

"It seemed like the Stadium didn't want it to end," said Derek Jeter, who stuck around for all 15 innings while Yankee teammate Alex Rodriguez left the Stadium shortly after coming out of the game in the fifth. "That's what me and Mo were talking about."

The win came just in time as both teams were down to their last pitchers.

As a matter of fact, NL skipper Clint Hurdle actually told Mets' third baseman David Wright (who was in the DH spot) he might need him to pitch if the game went on much longer.

Asked how Met owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon would react if he were to pitch, Wright said, "I just hope that they were asleep."

It would be hard to blame them if they were, as the game, at times, seemed as if it would never end, with the American League failing to win it in the 10th despite loading the bases with no outs.

Boston's J.D. Drew, one of seven Red Sox on the AL squad, was named the MVP, even though he didn't enter the contest until the sixth inning. Drew was actually cheered, but his Boston teammate Jonathan Papelbon was vilified when he entered in the eighth for suggesting on Monday that he - and not Mariano Rivera - should close the game.

Drew went 2-for-4 with a home run, stolen base and a walk that loaded the bases in the 15th inning.

That's when Young came up and lofted a fly to right fielder Corey Hart, whose throw barely nailed Morneau.

"I was just praying at that point. I think if I had popped it up to second, he was still taking off for home," said Young.

The game may have ended after nine had Billy Wagner not blown a one-run lead for the NL in the eighth - giving up an RBI double to Tampa Bay's Evan Longoria - but thanks to a shaky outing from the Met closer, the teams played seven more innings.

Wagner wasn't the only star to struggle Tuesday night.

Dan Uggla made an All-Star record three errors, doing his best to hand the AL the victory, but the Junior Circuit resembled the Yankees with runners in scoring position, missing out on opportunities in the 10th, 11th and 12th innings before finally coming through in the 15th.

While the NL lost out on home-field advantage and saw its winless streak extended to 12 years, there was little doubt that the night will go down as a memorable one for everyone involved.

With a collection of 49 Hall of Famers in attendance to join the 64 current All-Stars, the Yankee Stadium field was loaded with some of the greatest talent the game has ever seen for the pregame ceremony.

There was one more special guest to help close out the festivities, as George Steinbrenner made his first appearance in the Bronx since Opening Day, riding in from the outfield on a golf cart with his family surrounding him.

The night began with a Hall of Fame celebration, as the 49 members of the Hall emerged from Monument Park, where they had been gathered behind a red curtain in left-center field.

The biggest ovations were reserved for Wade Boggs, Cal Ripken and Willie Mays - at least until Reggie Jackson was announced, bringing chants of "Reg-gie! Reg-gie!" that made you think you it was 1977.

The final players introduced on the field were the catchers, giving the fans the opportunity to show Yogi Berra their love with a thunderous ovation. Moments later, following Sheryl Crow's rendition of the national anthem, a golf cart emerged from the curtain in left-center, bringing Steinbrenner onto the field to deliver the balls for the ceremonial first pitch.

Steinbrenner, flanked by daughter Jennifer, son Hal and son-in-law Felix Lopez, was greeted with a nice ovation from the fans, then welcomed to the infield by Jackson, Berra, Whitey Ford and Goose Gossage, who then stepped up to deliver the ceremonial first pitches to A-Rod, Joe Girardi, Jeter and Mariano Rivera, respectively.

"It's my 12th year and by far it's the greatest show I've seen for an All-Star Game. New York knows how to do it best," said A-Rod, who was long gone by the time the game ended.

Pitchers dominated the early going, as the game was scoreless going into the fifth for the first time since 1990.

Matt Holliday, tabbed to replace Alfonso Soriano in the NL's starting outfield, snapped the scoreless tie in the fifth with a solo home run to right field off Ervin Santana of the Angels. The NL added another run to its lead in the sixth on Lance Berkman's sacrifice fly against Oakland's Justin Duchscherer.

Arizona's Dan Haren continued the NL's stellar pitching night, throwing two scoreless innings to match Ben Sheets Carlos and Zambrano. Edinson Volquez was unable to continue the trend, however, serving up Drew's two-run homer to right field with two outs in the seventh that tied the game.

Jonathan Papelbon came in for the eighth, ending the debate over who would serve as the AL's closer. Papelbon came into a chorus of boos from the 55,632 on hand, most of whom erupted in chants of "Mariano!" and "Overrated!" throughout the inning.

Papelbon allowed a leadoff single by Miguel Tejada, who stole second and advanced to third when Dioner Navarro's throw went wide and into center field. That set up Adrian Gonzalez's sac fly, giving the NL a one-run lead and putting the Red Sox closer in position for the loss with the unearned run.

Rivera got five outs, getting the final two in the ninth before pitching a scoreless 10th, but he missed out on a chance to be the winner after Colorado's Aaron Cook escaped a bases-loaded, no-out jam in the bottom of the 10th.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

7/15/08 - TOP STORY - Petraeus confirmed as Centcom chief


Senate OKs promotions of Iraq generals

WASHINGTON (AP) — Notwithstanding months of partisan wrangling in Congress over the Iraq war, the Senate Thursday handily confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the top commander in the Middle East and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as the chief military officer in Iraq.

The Senate voted 95-2 in favor of Petraeus with Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd and Tom Harkin opposing. Harkin, D-Iowa, cast the lone vote opposing Odierno, who was confirmed 96-1.

The Senate action will keep the nation on its present course in Iraq for the remainder of the year. It also will hand the next administration a pair of combat-tested commanders who have relentlessly defended the need to keep troops in Iraq in large numbers, rather than wind down combat operations.

Despite their firm backing of the politically unpopular war, Petraeus and Odierno drew little criticism from congressional Democrats who typically reserve their sharpest critiques for Bush and his political appointees.

"This continuity in U.S. military leadership will be helpful in working with regional and Iraqi political and military leaders," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Byrd, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he opposed Petraeus in part because the general should see through operations in Iraq.

With security gains being described as fragile, "it does not seem prudent to remove the mastermind behind the fragile successes that have been thus far achieved," said Byrd, D-W.Va.

Harkin spokeswoman Jennifer Mullin said the senator believes that "Petraeus has been an unapologetic supporter of this misguided war in Iraq, continually toeing the administration's party line" while Odierno is guilty of "serious flaws in judgment."

Odierno has "refused to characterize the insurgency that began after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime as anything that was serious and worthy of a shift in U.S. strategy," Mullin said in a statement.

Last year, Petraeus helped to tame growing opposition to the Iraq war in Congress by providing measured assessments of progress and warning that an exodus of U.S. troops would result in chaos. In the meantime, he advocated a buildup of some 30,000 troops in Baghdad and other hotspots, which eventually proved vital in tamping down violence.

Odierno, as Petraeus' deputy commander in Iraq, is credited with successfully managing the new strategy.

In their new jobs, Odierno will receive a fourth star and report to Petraeus, whose area of responsibility will broaden to include such countries as Iran and Pakistan.

Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William J. Fallon as chief of U.S. Central Command. Fallon resigned last month following news reports that he was at odds with the White House over Iran policy.

By mid-July, the Pentagon is on track to withdraw the last of the additional combat brigades sent as part of the build-up, leaving behind roughly 142,000 troops. During his nomination hearing in May, Petraeus told Congress that he is likely to recommend more troop reductions this fall.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

7/14/08 - Top Story - NYC's Mayor Bloomberg Attempts To Redefine Poverty

The above presentation was sponsored by the Catholic Campaighn for Human Development


Bloomberg Attempts To Redefine Poverty
By GRACE RAUH, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 14, 2008

Nearly one in four New Yorkers are living below the poverty line, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who says the federal government is underestimating the number of poor people in the city.

The Bloomberg administration is adopting a new poverty measurement that raises the rate of poverty in the city to 23% from 18.9% by accounting for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, as well as tax credits and government subsidies received.

The federal poverty measure, adopted in 1969, is primarily based on food costs and income levels. It does not account for regional cost of living differences or the impact of government programs to combat poverty.

Any effort to redefine poverty in America would be fraught with political implications. A new formula that increases the number of people living below the poverty line, as the New York City formula has done, is expected to create pressure on the government to expand social service programs to reach families previously ineligible for anti-poverty programs.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has attempted to make combating poverty a centerpiece of his second term, was supposed to announce the new formula at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Cincinnati yesterday, but after storms grounded his plane a deputy mayor, Linda Gibbs, did so on his behalf.

"In Washington, while there's a never-ending debate about how to confront poverty, there is hardly any clarity on who is actually poor. I spent most of my career in the private sector, and I'm a big believer in the saying, 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it,'" Mr. Bloomberg was to have said, according to his prepared remarks.

The mayor's poverty campaign will head to Washington this week, where the director of poverty research for the city's Center for Economic Opportunity, Mark Levitan, will testify at a congressional hearing about a similar federal proposal to change the national poverty formula, known as the Measuring American Poverty Act.

A subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee will hold the hearing on Thursday. Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat of Harlem who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is supportive of the city's efforts, saying in a release issued by the mayor that it is a "useful start."

"We are clearly using an outdated standard to measure the level of poverty in our nation," he said.

As with the federal proposal, the city's new formula is based on recommendations developed in 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences' panel on poverty and family assistance. Those proposals were never implemented.

Ms. Gibbs said yesterday that the city's anti-poverty commission, which the mayor convened in 2006, quickly determined that the federal poverty measure was inaccurate and inadequate when describing the current dynamics of poverty.

The measurement would not immediately change program funding or eligibility requirements for city programs, but Ms. Gibbs said it would allow the city to more accurately track poverty and develop policies to combat it.

The federal poverty measurement puts the poverty line at $20,444 for a family of two adults and two children in 2006. Under the city's new formula, the poverty line for the same family would be $26,138.

Using the city's formula, there is a smaller proportion of New Yorkers living in extreme poverty, which is measured as less than 50% of the poverty threshold. The proportion of impoverished families where at least one family member has a full-time job would grow under the city's measurement.

The city's formula found that Hispanics represent the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line, followed by Asians and then blacks. Hispanics also represent the largest group of impoverished Americans under the federal formula, followed by blacks.

7/13/08 - Top Story - Report: Bush Administration Considers Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Withdrawal (of 'Surge' forces)

Dear Insurgents, just remember this:

and you're next Taliban


Report: Bush Administration Considers Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Withdrawal

Sunday , July 13, 2008

FOX News

The Bush administration is considering withdrawal additional combat forces from Iraq, but a timeframe will depend on a report from newly-confirmed Central Command leader Gen. David Petraeus, the Pentagon said Sunday.

Citing administration and military officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that although no final decision has been made, additional troops could begin departing in September, and at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could either be withdrawn or scheduled for withdrawal by the time President Bush leaves office.

The report references the need for additional troops in Afghanistan, where efforts by the Taliban have increased, as a cause for the consideration to withdraw troops.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen have both said they want to begin shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and to withdrawal forces from Iraq based on conditions on the ground. If Iraq remains on the positive trends through September, removing additional troops would be the logical next step based on what they've said.

"Secretary Gates certainly hopes that conditions in Iraq allow for continued troops drawdowns this year and the steady security progress we have seen lately would suggest that may indeed be possible. However, no decisions have been made yet and won't be for some time," said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.

"The last surge brigade is still pulling out of Iraq. Once they have left the country, we will begin a 45 day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that time, Gen. Petraeus will make a recommendation to Secretary Gates and President Bush about whether to continue the troop drawdown," Morrell said.

The Times reported that although the consensus in Washington and Baghdad is that forces may leave Iraq, Bush may be cautious due to goals of establishing a stable, democratic government in the country.

“There hasn’t really been any discussion of numbers, and it’s definitely based on conditions on the ground,” a military officer in Baghdad told the Times. And conditions, he went on, “are a lot more favorable than in December or April or even two months ago.”

White House officials will say only that a number of scenarios are under consideration and that commanders talk regularly with the defense secretary, who reports to the president and senior staff about options.

Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Dick Lugar said it may not be so easy to leave Iraq because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has several political problems, including provincial elections, a fragile security in Anbar that could delay a Status of Forces Agreement and individual provincial leaders attempting to make independent oil deals that ignore how the revenues are to be distributed.

"As far as our troops are concerned, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, has indicated we need troops in Afghanistan. But he has no troops to send to Afghanistan," Lugar, R-Ind., said. "So it is logical in the military sequence that we are going to move troops out of Iraq, not immediately perhaps to Afghanistan, but at least to relieve the strain, which is intense right now upon our armed forces. And that is why it may make sense."

Saturday, July 12, 2008

7/12/08 - Top Story - IndyMac Folds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in trouble, and Oil in Alaska


In IndyMac's Wake, Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Safe?
After IndyMac Goes Bust, Concern Centers Around Mortgage Giants
July 12, 2008 —

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies with deep ties to the government.

Fannie Mae was created during the Depression as part of the New Deal as a way to revive a collapsed housing market by providing mortgage guarantees to low- and middle-income Americans.

Today they own or guarantee a mind-boggling $5 trillion in loans  far more than any other lender, which is why the fear that they could go under has been so nerve rattling.

"If they were to go out of business, most of middle America would not be able to get a mortgage," said Howard Shapiro, an analyst for global adviser Fox-Pitt, Kelton.

Even if you haven't heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there's a good chance, if you're a homeowner, they own your loan. Here's how it works: After a bank gives you a mortgage, it often packages it with other mortgages and sells it, most often to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

If Fannie and Freddie were to fail, analysts say mortgage rates would soar, mortgage lending would grind to a halt and borrowers of all kinds would pay higher rates  sinking the economy into an even deeper downturn.

That's why most analysts believe the government would never let it happen.

"Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play such a vital role in the mortgage market," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst for Bankrate.com. "They are essentially too big to fail."

Government officials tried to shore up confidence in Fannie and Freddie. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., says there is no crisis and no bailout is necessary. "These institutions are in sound shape," he said. "The economics are fine in these institutions, and people need to know that."

But news late Friday saw another big mortgage lender, IndyMac, shut down by regulators. IndyMac's assets as of March 31 totaled $32.01 billion and its deposits totalled $19.06 billion. This news is likely to feed the psychology of fear that has been gripping the market.

Per a July 11 press statement from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., IndyMac "had about $1 billion of potentially uninsured deposits held by approximately 10,000 depositors." The FDIC has taken over the bank, which it described as the "fifth FDIC-insured failure of the year."

Fox-Pitt, Kelton analyst Shapiro said, "We've been in kind of a psychological mode in the markets for the past year, where the worst news is the news everybody believes."

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


Bush Says Gas Prices Causing Rethinking on Drilling (Update1)

By Holly Rosenkrantz

July 12 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said some opponents of expanded domestic oil drilling and exploration are rethinking their positions amid the rise in gasoline prices.

``If this change of heart is real,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address, lawmakers can ``expand American oil and gas production and eventually relieve the pressure of rising prices.''

Bush is pressing Congress to open more domestic land to oil drilling in an effort to reduce energy prices. He has proposed drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and developing energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a response to record prices.

Many Democrats have resisted calls for new drilling on the grounds it may damage the environment, and they have called on Bush to release oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease pressure on prices, a proposal Bush has rejected.

The stockpile, with more than 700 million gallons of oil, ``has never been more full than it is now,'' Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said in today's Democratic radio address. Releasing some of it would give drivers ``quick and real relief'' from gasoline prices that have nearly tripled during Bush's presidency, he said.

The U.S. also needs a long-term energy policy to curb its dependence on foreign oil, boost the economy and reduce global warming, Van Hollen said.

The price of crude oil has doubled in the past year, with oil for August delivery settling at $145.08 a barrel yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline now tops $4 per gallon, according to AAA, compared with less than $3 in early February.

McCain's Stand

Bush, in his radio address, didn't name lawmakers who have changed their positions on the issue. Some Republicans, including presumptive presidential nominee Senator John McCain and Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, have expressed stronger support for domestic drilling than they have in the past.

House Democrats will push legislation next week that would ban the export of Alaska oil to overseas markets. The legislative package would also require oil companies to drill on leases they have before asking the federal government for more leases.

Bush blamed a lack of action on the issue on the Democratic Party.

``Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have repeatedly been rejected by Democrats in Congress,'' he said.

Friday, July 11, 2008

7/11/08 - History - Srebrenica Remembered

NPR audio report:


Case Study:
The Srebrenica
Massacre, July 1995


In the Bosnian silver-mining town of Srebrenica in July 1995, one of the most notorious modern acts of gendercide took place. While the international community and U.N. peacekeepers looked on, Serb forces separated civilian men from women and killed thousands of men en masse, or hunted them down in the forests.

The background

The events at Srebrenica mark the climax of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the most vicious and genocidal battlefront in the Balkans conflict. The conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina began in 1992 and featured largescale genocidal and gendercidal atrocities from the first. These are dealt with in a separate Bosnia case study. One of the largest massacres of the early part of the war took place at a gymnasium in the village of Bratunac in April 1992, when an estimated 350 Bosnian Muslim men were tortured to death and massacred by Serb paramilitaries and special police. Bratunac lay just outside Srebrenica, and would again serve as a killing ground when the city fell to Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995.

Although the Serbs seized Bratunac, they were not able to take Srebrenica itself. The city was defended by Naser Oric, a Rambo-like figure whose troops (and associated squads of civilian torbari, or "bag people") inflicted a number of smaller atrocities on Serb villages around the Srebrenica pocket. Eventually, in April 1993, Serb forces closed in for a final crushing of the town and Oric's forces. Serb General Ratko Mladic made it plain that he held a special grudge against the menfolk of Srebrenica, armed or unarmed. In scenes that gripped the attention of the world, hundreds of women and children were evacuated from Srebrenica before the Serb noose tightened and shut off all refugee flow. The plight of the city prompted the international community to declare Srebrenica one of five "safe areas" in Bosnia (the others were Zepa, Gorazde, Tuzla, Sarajevo, and Bihac in northwestern Bosnia). The meaning of the ambiguous term "safe area" was never properly defined, and sufficient forces were never committed to ensuring the safety of the Bosnian inhabitants. As events at Srebrenica two years later so grimly demonstrated, "the safe areas were among the most profoundly unsafe places in the world" (Silber and Little, The Death of Yugoslavia, p. 274.)

The gendercide

In June 1995, Bosnian Serb forces, pushing for a resolution to the ethnic "anomaly" of the Muslim enclaves, closed their noose around Srebrenica and the other "safe areas." In Srebrenica, mass panic took hold of the civilian population. Women and children gathered at the U.N. base of Potocari, together with about 1,700 men,while most of the "battle-age" males -- mostly unarmed non-combatants -- took to the hills in a desperate attempt to flee to Muslim-held territory to the west. At Potocari, Dutch troops meekly allowed the Serbs access to the camps and the refugees they held. Then, the following day -- July 11 -- some 1700 men, disproportionately the elderly and infirm, were separated from women and children. The peacekeepers "stood inches away from the Serb soldiers who were separating the Muslim men, one by one, from their families" (Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance, p. 306). At Serb command, the Dutch drew up a registry of 242 Bosnian men remaining in the camp, again mostly elderly and infirm. Then they handed the men over to the Serbs. Not one of the 242 men is known to have survived. The children and women were bused, with isolated exceptions, to safety in Tuzla. Men, almost without exception, were carted away to their deaths. (Note: Other sources cite 239 as the total number of men named on the list; for an account of how the 242 total was eventually arrived at, see the letter from Hasan Nuhanovic posted to the Women of Srebrenica website. The letter also gives a harrowingly detailed account of the separation of men and boys from the remainder of the population at the U.N. base, and the blatant Dutch complicity in the process. Thanks to Kate Myers for bringing this source to our attention.)

Many of the men were killed in the school gymnasium in Bratunac that had already served as the site of a gendercidal massacre in the Bosnian war. Many hundreds more were massacred at a football field near Nova Kasaba, the worst killing ground of the entire five-day slaughter. Human Rights Watch recorded the testimony of one eyewitness to the gendercidal massacres at Nova Kasaba. The Serbs, he said,

picked out Muslims whom they either knew about or knew, interrogated them and made them dig pits. ...During our first day, the Cetniks [Serbs] killed approximately 500 people [men]. They would just line them up and shoot them into the pits. The approximately one hundred guys whom they interrogated and who had dug the mass graves then had to fill them in. At the end of the day, they were ordered to dig a pit for themselves and line up in front of it. ... [T]hey were shot into the mass grave. ... At dawn, ... [a] bulldozer arrived and dug up a pit ..., and buried about 400 men alive. The men were encircled by Cetniks: whoever tried to escape was shot." (Quoted in Mark Danner, "The Killing Fields of Bosnia", New York Review of Books, September 24 1998.)
A great many of the men who had sought to flee through the hills to Tuzla were doomed as well. The Bosnian Serb commander, Gen. Radivoj Krstic, in a radio transmission intercepted by western eavesdroppers, told his forces: "You must kill everyone. We don't need anyone alive." (Mark Danner, "Bosnia: The Great Betrayal", New York Review of Books, March 26 1998.) Serb forces took special pleasure in isolating trees where men had sought to hide, and riddling them with shrapnel from anti-aircraft guns.

Trapped in the hills under Serb bombardment, sleepless and thirst-maddened, men succumbed to hallucinations, paranoia, and despair. "The psyches of the men ruptured. Muslims mistook other Muslims for infiltrators. They threw hand grenades and fired their automatics at one another. ... Men shot themselves hoping the Serbs would show the wounded mercy" (Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance, p. 301). Many committed suicide. Thousands finally surrendered to Serb troops along the "Ring of Iron," who lured them with the sight of captured UN vehicles and promises of safe passage. All of those captured were taken to nearby fields and warehouses, executed, and buried in mass graves.

Summarizing the catastrophe in 1997, David Rohde -- who as a journalist with the Christian Science Monitor won a Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the first mass graves around Srebrenica -- offered a blistering critique of the moral lapse on the part of the "safe area's" alleged guardians: "The international community partially disarmed thousands of men, promised them they would be safeguarded and then delivered them to their sworn enemies. Srebrenica was not simply a case of the international community standing by as a far-off atrocity was committed. The actions of the international community encouraged, aided, and emboldened the executioners. ... The fall of Srebrenica did not have to happen. There is no need for thousands of skeletons to be strewn across eastern Bosnia. There is no need for thousands of Muslim children to be raised on stories of their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and brothers slaughtered by Serbs." (Rohde, Endgame, pp. 351, 353.)

How many died?

The Red Cross lists 7,079 dead and missing at Srebrenica. Other estimates range as high as 8,000 or 10,000. David Rohde notes that the massacre "accounts for an astonishing percentage of the number of missing" from the brutal Balkans conflict as a whole. "Of the 18,406 Muslims, Serbs and Croats reported still missing ... as of January 1997, 7,079 are people [men] who disappeared after the fall of Srebrenica. In other words, approximately 38 percent of the war's missing are from Srebrenica." By any standard, it was one of the worst and most concentrated acts of gendercide in the post-World War II era -- and the worst massacre of any kind in Europe for fifty years.

Who is responsible?

Chuck Sudetic writes of the Srebrenica massacre that "the men who carried out the executions were reportedly under orders handed down by General [Ratko] Mladic and Radislav Krstic, a colonel in the Bosnian army who was promoted to general and named commander of the army's Drina corps by Mladic within a few days of the killings. Among the units that took part in the killings was the Tenth Commando squad, which answered directly to Mladic's headquarters ... Men from Srebrenica, Bratunac, Kravica, Milii, Visegrad, Bajina Basta, Loznica, Zvornik, and other towns also participated." (Sudetic, Blood and Vengeance, pp. 317-18.)

In 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal indicted Mladic and Krstic for crimes of humanity committed at Srebrenica. Joining them on the list of indicted war-criminals was Radovan Karadzic, leader of the self-styled "Republika Srpska" or Serb-controlled territories in Bosnia. Karadzic was intimately involved in planning the "endgame" in the Bosnian war, for which Srebrenica was to serve as a centerpiece. In July 1999, the Tribunal found that these mass murderers had been operating under "a direct chain of military command" from Belgrade and the Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic. For the first time, the Tribunal defined the Bosnian war as "an international conflict," recognizing both Bosnian independence and Serbian aggression . As yet, however, Milosevic remains unindicted for the atrocities he directed in Bosnia.

The United Nations must shoulder a large share of responsibility for allowing the massacre to take place under the noses of its troops. In November 1999, the UN released a highly self-critical report on its performance, stating that "Through error, misjudgment and the inability to recognize the scope of evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder." (See Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop '95 Bosnian Massacre", The New York Times, November 16 1999.)

The blame surely extends to the member states of the United Nations -- perhaps especially to its most powerful member, the United States. As The Economist magazine has noted,

The received version [of events] ... is that Bill Clinton and Al Gore vowed to "bomb the Serbs" and end the war when they were shocked to learn that thousands of Muslims had been massacred at Srebrenica. But, the reader cannot help asking, was news of this impending massacre -- the worst in Europe since 1945 -- really not available to America's two most powerful figures beforehand?
At earlier stages in Bosnia's war, when Muslim strongholds like Gorazde or Bihac had been on the verge of falling, America had worked (without the promise of ground troops) to galvanise its allies -- insisting that battle-plans be drawn up, and threats of bombing be issued, so as to warn off the Serbs. Yet in the final days and hours of the advance on Srebrenica, which American intelligence could monitor closely, Washington fell strangely silent. Srebrenica duly fell, with consequences which were unspeakable in human terms, but not inconvenient diplomatically.

Perhaps it is conspiratorial to assume that America's tardy reaction to Srebrenica reflected calculation rather than negligence. But the question needs asking ... ("Inside Out," The Economist, September 8, 2001).

The aftermath

Extensive forensic investigations of the Srebrenica massacre sites has so far turned up some 3,000 bodies. Only a few have been successfully identified. They are held at a combined memorial and mortuary in Tuzla (see photo at the top of this page). The forensics teams who worked on the Srebrenica and Vukovar sites gathered vital experience in their exhumation of the graves, and were able to employ their skills anew in the Kosovo gendercide four years later. (See Stover and Peress, The Graves: Srebrenica and Vukovar.)

The memory of Srebrenica's men was kept alive by their womenfolk. They stormed Red Cross offices in Tuzla in early 1996 to protest the stalled investigations into the fate of their missing men, and did so again on the fourth anniversary of the massacre in 1999. Organized as "The Women of Srebrenica," they have recently launched their own website (www.srebrenica.org). The group's list of primary demands reads as follows:

The full facts of Srebrenica should be revealed and publicised.
All graves should be exhumed and bodies identified without delay.
Any survivors of Srebrenica held prisoner in Republika Srpska [Bosnian Serb territories] or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be released immediately.
The people of Srebrenica should be enabled to return to their homes.
There should be a full & open international investigation into the failure of the UN to protect the Safe Area of Srebrenica.
All indicted and suspected war criminals, including Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Slobodan Milosevic, and all those complicit with genocide, should be arrested and brought to trial.
In Spring 2000, General Radislav Krstic, "the highest-ranking Bosnian Serb commander before the UN War Crimes tribunal in The Hague," stood trial for the genocidal atrocities at Srebrenica. (See "Peacekeeper Tells of Serb Massacre", The Sydney Morning Herald, April 8, 2000.) In August 2001, Krstic was convicted and sentenced to 46 years in prison.

In March 2003, the first 600 identified victims of the Srebrenica massacre were returned to the town and buried in a powerful ceremony (see "Srebrenica Finally Buries Its Dead", BBC Online, March 31, 2003.)

7/11/08 - History - American folk song: She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain


"She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain", also sometimes called simply "Coming 'Round the Mountain", is an American folk song often categorized as children's music. An alternate title and pronunciation is She'll Be Comin' 'Round the Mountain.

Although the first printed version of the song appeared in Carl Sandburg's The American Songbag in 1927, the song is believed to have been written during the late 1800s. The song was based on an old Negro spiritual titled "When the Chariot Comes", which is sung to the same melody. During the 19th century it spread through Appalachia where the lyrics were changed into their current form. The song was later sung by railroad work gangs in the Midwestern United States in the 1890s. The song's style is reminiscent of the call and response structure of many folk songs of the time, where one person would shout the first line and others repeat.

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes, (when she comes). She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes, (when she comes). She'll be coming 'round the mountain, she'll be coming 'round the mountain , She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes. (when she comes).

The same structure is repeated with the following verses:

She'll be drivin' six white horses when she comes, etc.

Oh we'll all come out to meet her when she comes, etc.

We will kill the old red rooster when she comes, etc.

We'll be havin' chicken and dumplings when she comes, etc.

We'll all be shoutin' "Halleluja" when she comes, etc.

Contrast this to the original lyrics of "When the Chariot Comes":

O, who will drive the chariot When she comes? O, who will drive the chariot When she comes? O, who will drive the chariot, O, who will drive the chariot, O, who will drive the chariot When she comes?

King Jesus, he'll be driver when she comes, When she comes . . . .

She'll be loaded with bright Angels When she comes . . . .

She will neither rock nor totter, When she comes . . . .

She will run so level and steady, When she comes . . . .

She will take us to the portals, When she comes . . . .


Carl Sandburg, in The American Songbag, suggests that "she" refers to union organizer Mary Harris "Mother" Jones going to promote formation of labor unions in the Appalachian coal mining camps.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

7/11/08 - John McCain - Health Care

7/11/08 - Reliable Sources - Universal Health Care (Sick in America)

The first part is from UPenn's Wharton Business School on the economics of UHC (October 17, 2007), the second part is from ABC 20/20 - "Sick in America", and the last part is a great discution i had about it on facebook

Presidential Candidates Push Health Care Reform, but Who Will Pay?
Published: October 17, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton

As medical costs escalate and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise, the 2008 presidential candidates have responded by placing health care near the top of their agendas. Indeed, many candidates have already laid out fairly detailed programs to address the nation's health care problems, although their plans to pay for new coverage are less clear-cut, according to Wharton faculty.

Leading candidates are talking about the issue much earlier in the campaign and with greater specificity than in past years -- an indication that health care is more important to voters than ever before. As a result, meaningful change in the system seems likely to occur once a new president takes office, says Mark V. Pauly, Wharton professor of health care systems. "I'm optimistic this time that we'll get something. It won't be Armageddon for the health care system, but there is actually a chance of doing more good than harm, and I wouldn't have said that in some other years."

The plans tend to fall along partisan lines, with leading Democrats endorsing mandated health care insurance for all Americans in order to guarantee that the nation's 47 million uninsured receive coverage. Republicans also want to improve access to the medical system, but they place more emphasis on market-based solutions rather than government mandates. "Both sides are talking about universal coverage and both sides are taking on the issue of the uninsured. That's a step forward," says David Asch, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Wharton.

To pay for the added coverage, Democrats often suggest rolling back President Bush's tax cuts and ending the war in Iraq. Republicans tend to point to competition, deregulation and new efficiencies as ways to reduce costs.

According to Scott Harrington, Wharton professor of health care systems, the notion of mandating coverage is a new ripple in the health care debate. "It's a significant change. Historically we have had government funding through Medicare for seniors and the state-federal Medicaid system for the poor, but we have allowed people not to be covered. A mandate would be a fundamental change to the system."

Heading Off Harry and Louise

When it comes to individual candidates' plans, there is a wide range in specificity but some of the basic elements of the plans are similar, faculty say. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, who spearheaded a failed attempt at major health care reform while she was First Lady, has outlined a $110 billion plan that mandates coverage and would provide subsidies for those who can't pay. "Hillary's plan this time around is scaled back substantially from the Clintons' 1993-94 proposal," says Wharton professor of health care systems Arnold Rosoff. "Their earlier Health Security Act plan was much more complex and ambitious, and they couldn't make it happen. I think [as a result] she has wised up."

Asch describes the current Clinton plan as more of a hybrid between free-market programs and her earlier proposal. That proposal was attacked famously in ads sponsored by the health insurance industry and featuring two characters, Harry and Louise, who raised concerns about government intrusion into the health care system. Clinton now emphasizes the notion of choice and would permit Americans to keep existing coverage or join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, which she says would provide greater coverage with no added bureaucracy.

John Edwards' plan, which is estimated to cost as much as $120 billion, also mandates coverage and requires employers to continue to assume responsibility for employee health benefits. His plan also calls for the U.S. government to help states and groups of states create regional Health Care Markets, which would act as non-profit purchasing pools offering a choice of competing insurance plans.

Barack Obama, too, calls for universal coverage and a mandate that all children be covered, but he stops short of extending the mandate to adults. His $65 billion plan also calls for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange, which would be a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would provide individuals with more affordable options for coverage within the private sector.

Only Dennis Kucinich endorses a full-scale single-payer system of government-managed health care similar to that in Canada. He has proposed extending Medicare coverage to all Americans.

The silence on a single-payer system shows that the candidates are reluctant to propose drastic change, according to Kristin Madison, a University of Pennsylvania Law professor and a senior fellow at Wharton's Leonard Davis Institute. "Five years ago or 10 years ago when people talked about health care reform, they were asking if it should include a single-payer system," she says. "You don't see that in today's proposals. These proposals are much more incremental."

On the Republican side, leading contenders -- including Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- have focused more on a continuation of the current private, market-based system without mandates. Harrington says Giuliani's plan emphasizes tax incentives and improving affordability to reduce the number of uninsured. "But the proposal thus far is not too sharp in terms of specifics. Giuliani is taking the gradualist approach and trying to work around the edges to improve things without starting to create a significantly greater role for government."

Romney's plan would shift charity care funds to subsidies for private insurance, emphasize high-deductible plans and make Medicaid a block grant allowing states more flexibility in developing health care programs. He does not, however, endorse a plan that includes mandated coverage as was enacted in his home state, Massachusetts, when he was governor.

David Grande, a senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute, says the Republican proposals lack force. "They reflect an ideological preference for a market-oriented solution but most serious health policy analysts would look at a plan like that and say it would have marginal impact on coverage rates. Any plan that relies on subsidies to purchase private insurance costs a lot of money. You have to give a lot of money to convince people to purchase insurance and that's where the lack of mandates becomes a real problem."

McCain has unveiled a plan that attacks the nation's health care problems from the standpoint of cost control rather than focusing on bringing the uninsured into the fold. The proposal also seeks better management of chronic conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease, which McCain says account for 75% of all health care costs. In addition, he calls for hospital and doctor compensation to be linked to performance, starting with the Medicaid and Medicare programs.

An important element of the McCain plan, according to Rosoff, is the elimination of the employer write-off for health care. Instead, McCain proposes a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families that would go toward the purchase of health insurance. "A move away from employer-based health insurance would seem to be a good thing," says Rosoff, "but it's not clear that this is the best way to go about it."

Pauly suggests that many of the plans from both parties could lead to important changes in regulation of health insurance that are not so obvious in a swift appraisal of the proposals. "The thing to worry about is what's below the surface." The Democratic candidates' plans would likely entail new regulation of health care coverage, such as what services insurers could offer and what insurance could qualify for subsidies. "The real issue is the specter of more intense government regulation."

'We Don't Let People Bleed in the Streets'

While most plans make at least some attempt to address the problem of rising health care costs, the issue is enormous and will color the future of health care reform even if the candidates attempt to play it down, according to Wharton faculty.

"Universal health insurance is a great thing, but it is also very costly," says Wharton health care systems professor Guy David. "It's not very easy politically to talk about cost. It's fun to talk about the uninsured and access and making health care fair, but these are just slogans. At the end of the day we, the American people, pay for health care. No matter how we finance health care -- through taxes, subsidies, employers or subsidizing hospitals -- we're paying for it and we're going to keep paying for it."

David says that when health care is made more available, it inevitably becomes less affordable. He pointed to another sticking point for the candidates and their health care platforms: Most voters are not among the uninsured. "What people really care about is what health care costs. Premiums have gone up fast in the past couple of years and insurance is less affordable for those who have it. If we take 47 million people and give them an insurance card to walk into a hospital, the system will be more congested and more costly."

He also points out that the current system provides care for the uninsured through tax breaks for non-profit hospitals that, in return, must agree to treat the indigent. "We don't let people bleed in the streets. One way we do that is subsidies to nonprofit hospitals. It may be a very inefficient way to finance health care, but it exists. If we have universal health care, why do we need non-profits or why should they get exemptions?"

In an article titled, "An Uncertain Prescription: Are Tax Exemptions for Nonprofit Hospitals an Efficient Way to Fund Indigent Care?" David and co-author Lorens A. Helmchen, a professor of health policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, write: "Poor people might be better off if they could decide for themselves how tax revenue earmarked for their medical care was spent. Under the current system, this decision is the responsibility of the hospital administrators who, in effect, offer the poor a take-it-or-leave-it menu of services."

Mandates would attempt to address the "free rider" problem in which people who tend to be young and healthy choose not to pay for coverage even if they have the money. Instead, they take their chances and depend on some form of charity care if they have a medical emergency. If those people were paying into the system, says Harrington, the added premiums would help underwrite the expenses of those who are sick.

He adds that any new plans to extend coverage to the uninsured must be viewed in the larger context of the nation's two other public programs, Medicaid and Medicare, which are expected to face "catastrophic" funding shortfalls as the Baby Boomers age. "To think about adding another program that conceivably leads to far higher costs and far greater subsidies begs the question: Where is the money going to come from?"

Is Technology the Answer?

Many of the candidates' plans turn to the promise of information technology as a way to reduce costs and improve quality. Even though the industry does lag others in developing electronic data systems, it is unclear how much savings new technology will be able to deliver, according to faculty. Microsoft recently introduced a new online service called HealthVault in which consumers can store their own medical information, such as blood test results and vaccinations. The company insists the free, ad-based service will maintain users' privacy.

Rosoff notes that in 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),which created new standards for electronic medical data and was designed primarily to improve the efficiency of claims-handling. Along with these cost-saving provisions came elaborate privacy protections that have taken a decade to put into operation. "The perception of many in the health care industry is that HIPAA was a big cost increaser, not a cost saver." He also suggests that many of the "administrative simplification" provisions of the law have now been implemented; therefore it may not be so easy to wring additional cost savings out of new information technology.

Grande agrees that the cost savings resulting from electronic data systems are unknown, but that information systems could lead to improved health care quality. Insurers can already use data to look for ways to improve quality. Meanwhile, physicians' offices could also take advantage of more sophisticated technology to monitor patients in order to manage illnesses more effectively. For example, Grande says, it would be helpful for a practice to know if its diabetes patients had been referred to an eye specialist in any given year.

According to Rosoff, although the health care landscape remains complex, the momentum for reform has accelerated since the days of Harry and Louise. "What I think has changed from 1993-94 is that, although employers were struggling with health care, I don't think they had thrown in the towel." Now, he says, employers have been so beaten down by rising premiums and employees who are unhappy with paying more of their own expenses that they are ready to walk away from offering health care benefits. "The employers' willingness to stand their ground in the past reinforced various other stakeholders in the health care system who didn't want to see change come. The employers were a powerful block, but [these days] that block is shaky."

Now that the plans are taking shape, Asch predicts that the candidates' next step will be to market their health care solutions as the campaigns move into full throttle. He says he has been watching the way words are used to generate powerful messages attached to health care. Clinton, for example stresses "choice" and McCain has latched onto the word "freedom." In the past, he says, opponents of reform have invariably used the term "socialized" medicine to drum up voter concern about change. "It's so funny that the word has been connected to medicine in a negative way. What's wrong with socialized medicine? Nobody says, 'I drive my kids to our socialized school on our socialized roads.'"

Needed Above All: Leadership Ability

Grande argues that since the candidates' plans within each party are quite similar, voters who are deeply concerned about health care should not cast their votes on the nature of a candidate's plans, but for the candidate they think has the most leadership ability to get his or her program passed. "There have been many failed attempts before. What we need more than anything for health care reform is leadership that comes from a new president."

He says Clinton appears to be consolidating support and is emphasizing her understanding and experience with health care. "On the other hand," he continues, "one could easily argue that what the country really needs to achieve health care reform is fresh, new inspiring leadership. Obama brings that to the table."

Harrington imagines a scenario in which miscalculations in the cost to mandate universal coverage may ultimately trigger deeper reform than any candidate is endorsing at this point. "The devil will, in fact, be in the details and it is quite possible a mandate will make matters worse. In conjunction with the Medicare and Medicaid funding problem, mandates could create inexorable pressure for something really radical -- for a single-payer system or more formal or informal rationing of health care through budgeting, as is done in many countries."

For the immediate future, however, the prospects for health care reform seem to be moving along a more gradual continuum. "I think it's highly likely that the changes in our health care system will be incremental," says Rosoff. "There will be a series of steps, some significant perhaps, some just tinkering. But I doubt we will see sweeping reform. I just don't think we have the political will in this country for that, at least not for now."

ABC 20/20

Topic: healthcare ? for bethanyReply to TopicDisplaying posts 1 - 30 out of 55 by 11 people.1

Post #1
2 repliesYou wrote
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:09 PM
ABC 20/20 on healthcare (6 parts)

what are your thoughts?
i'm asking you b/c you are intelligent and the most mature obama supporter on here

and just as a sidenote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WAReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #2
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) wrote
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:09 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNkReply to Stephen
Post #3You replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:29 PM
some of those millions could be overlaping, but even at the very least the % of those who purpasly opt. out of helth insurance that they can afford is still 40%, that is priy extraordinaryReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #4Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I'm at work, so I can't get onto YouTube, I'll look later tonight unless you would like to give me a text summary. Reply to Bethany
Post #5
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
From part 2:

"If we take this individual into our health care system, along with all the working families and individuals that are already there, it means that, for them, their price will go up extraordinarily."

They go on to say that premiums pay for sick people... and the more sick people, the higher the premium.

My problem with that... without private health care systems, in government controlled health care systems, no one can be turned down because the premiums don't increase and you CANNOT be denied for coverage. I understand they need to make a profit... but that's what the whole idea behind UHC is. Health insurance companies are making a profit... but people who need health insurance the most can't get it.

When I was on my mom's insurance, I had a shoulder injury. I had to have surgery. I had the surgery, but the muscles in my shoulder wouldn't develop. When I left physical therapy I had a 15 lb. weight restriction on my shoulder. Now that I'm off my mom's insurance, I'm a potential liability. So last year, when I developed gall stones, I had to pay for my surgery. It came to $13,000+. I'm a married college student, and I'm unable to get insurance. I can be added to my husband's insurance... but it would cost us something like $900/month... that's almost as expensive as our rent.

I'm saying, that I understand it's everyone for themselves. However, what about when there is no way for people to help themselves. The health system needs to be reevaluated. Health care isn't a luxury item, it's a necessity. And when there's no possible way to get that necessity, something is wrong.

I know I'm getting ready to get a lot of ridiculous attack on this... but it's just my viewpoint.

The point I want to make... is if we had Universal Health Care, would you use it? I don't mind paying higher taxes for something that is guaranteed to me, something that I need. Reply to Bethany
Post #6
2 repliesEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I agree completely.

Ive thought for a long time that our entire health care infrastructure(like many other kinds of infrastructures in the US) needs to be revamped in such a way that it becomes possible for it to handle greater levels of patients.

And this is a top priority job of the next pres.

The fact that our hospitals fall under the wieght of what is currently being thrown at it is BAD!!!!!

Its very bad. And it needs to be addressed.

In america children get.

Free police protection
Free education
No free healthcare

That is a disgrace and illogical and unethical.

So many problems could be addressed by this yes, costly, yes stressful, and yes LIBERAL idea and the gains and good that could be done by it are IMMESAURABLE.

Here's hoping.Reply to Eric
Post #7
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM
By the way, thank you for the compliment. I'm sure you disagree with everything I said, but it's nice that you asked.Reply to Bethany
Post #8Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM
He has a crush.Reply to Eric
Post #9Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM
This video, has some very interesting numbers, watch it and come back to me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNkReply to Stephen
Post #10
1 replyYou replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM
i wasn't aware that you had personal experience with this, but like every personal experience, there is another- equally insightfull one.
the kid who lived next to me in my dorm last year is from canada and his father had gall stones as well. however, in order to attain the surgery for it, he was put on a months-long waiting list. from my understanding, having gall stones suck, and he did not want to bear it for months, so he could do 1 of 2 things. 1. go to a private doctor up their, which is popular, but illiegal in canada. or 2. drive a few hours to new york state and have it done there. he of course choose 2.

the tax burden is an issue separate from what i was addressing, which is quallity of care, but i could get a great article from wharton buissiness school of upenn about the economics of the whole thing (my semi-famous friend heni is on wharton's mailing list and she has posted it here before)Reply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #11
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM
See, everytime I hear something like that about a Canadian I don't understand. My friend Helen moved to Canada a few years ago. Her father has terminal cancer and they have never waited for a doctor's appointment. Her brother needed to have his tonsils removed, and they did it in a few days. I have a couple of other friends that live in Quebec. They believe it to be as snobby as stereotypes play it, but are in full support of their health care system. The same goes for my friends in France. I don't personally know anyone living in other countries so I can't speak for them. There isn't a large unnecessary wait in countries with UHC, because they know they can get care whenever they need it. It's not like they all rush to the doctor everyday and give long wait lists, because they know the system is always there when they need it. Reply to Bethany
Post #12
1 replyJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM
"In america children get.

Free police protection
Free education
No free healthcare

That is a disgrace and illogical and unethical."

What's illogical or unethical about it. first of all, there is absolutely no comparison between police, education, and healthcare.

Police protection- a necesity, and one of the few true jobs of government is to enforce its own laws and keep its people safe.

education- not a necesity, but an extremely important component to the economy and our prosperity as a whole. also gives underprivleged chances to be successful.

Healthcare- not a necisity, not vital to the economy or to our prosperity as a nation.

"good that could be done by it are IMMESAURABLE."

You make it out to be as if everyone in the country is dying at 25 because of lack of healthcare. Something like 35% of people without healthcare make over 75k a year, more than enough to afford healthcare if they so desired. The benefits are in fact very measurable, and they arent that great. taking into account the painstaking beauracracy of the thing and the cost, there may not even be benefits.

But again, the big point is that there's no relationship between police, education, and healthcare. thus, what you said is just as logical as this statement.

It's a blasphemy, kids get

free police
free education
no free designer clothes

this is illogical and unethical.

Reply to Joe
Post #13You replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM
i believe that the subject of europe is in the documentary, part 3 is actually the biggest reason i posted the video. it says that tony blair made headlines around the world because of a promise he made to make the waiting list no longer then 18 weeks <- wow. and that their are anual doctor protests in europe because they are underpayed by their government. one very big problem in this country is the shortages of doctors and nurses, and poor pay would not help the situationReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #14
2 repliesEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:38 PM
You make it out to be as if everyone in the country is dying at 25 because of lack of healthcare. Something like 35% of people without healthcare make over 75k a year, more than enough to afford healthcare if they so desired. The benefits are in fact very measurable, and they arent that great. taking into account the painstaking beauracracy of the thing and the cost, there may not even be benefits.

Please show me where I "make this out".

"But again, the big point is that there's no relationship between police, education, and healthcare. thus, what you said is just as logical as this statement."

Lol. Yes there is a connection between rule of law, or lack there of in poor neighborhoods and that childs performance in school.

That you have not studied that issue and its implications is obvious.

Yes, there is a connection between a students health and there attentiveness and focus in school.

Yes, there is a connection between these things.

I think children need protection, education, and healthcare in order to meet their full potential. Yes, we have gotten along without healthcare for kids for a long time.

However, I think that just like public education was once seen as unneccesary, it is now seen as vital, and I beleive that we should start looking at healthcare for children that same way.

"It's a blasphemy, kids get

free police
free education
no free designer clothes

this is illogical and unethical."

Eh. Youve made no real point except for your continued dislike of healthcare. And that cool. But if you cant see how these issues are connected to a childs education and how that education lays a path for the childs direction in life, well I give up.

Nothing that Ive stated is new.

I dont advocate adults having free healthcare, but kids need this.

I mean, come on, its for kids.......kids man.

At the end of the day, if a parent should naturally be willing to do whatever it took to give their kid the best, I dont understand why this ideal cannot be applied to our society as a whole.Reply to Eric
Post #15
2 repliesAndrew Olson (Iowa State) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Is using taxpayer money to pay for socialized healthcare for illegal immigrants (who don't pay taxes and legally shouldn't be here) ethical?Reply to Andrew
Post #16Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Andrew's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM

For their children born in the US?

Yes.Reply to Eric
Post #17Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Andrew's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM
They make up 12 million of the 45 million uninsured. But they still receive healthcare through free emergency room free clinics etc.

Reply to Stephen
Post #18Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Lets also not forget that 14 million uninsured chose to opt out of medicare.Reply to Stephen
Post #19
2 repliesJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM
You make it out when you state that the effects of having universal health care would be immeasurable.

"Lol. Yes there is a connection between rule of law, or lack there of in poor neighborhoods and that childs performance in school.

That you have not studied that issue and its implications is obvious."

My point was that you made a false analogy. Because education and police protections is payed for does not in any way support the argument for uiversal healthcare. they are completely different.

"I think children need protection, education, and healthcare in order to meet their full potential. Yes, we have gotten along without healthcare for kids for a long time."

They also need food, clothing, grooming, love and affection, money, among many other things to reach their full potential. should the government be providing all of that as well. Just because someone needs something doesnt mean it should be given to them for free. Police are provided by the government because the people cannot realistically police themselves justly. Public education is not a necissity. My parents pay enough in school taxes up here to send me and my brother and sister to private school. I dont disagree with public education and i think its very important, but if freed from paying school taxes, many parents could easily afford to send their kids to school elsewhere.

"I mean, come on, its for kids.......kids man."

this argument does not sway me in the least. It's an obvious appeal to pity. Why should children be entitled to something that adults are not. If a kid gets sick and misses 3 weeks of school, big deal, they'll get back and the world goes on for that family as usual. If a working father gets sick and misses 3 weeks of work, the implications on that mans life, family, and possibly the business he works for could be tremendous.

"at the end of the day, if a parent should naturally be willing to do whatever it took to give their kid the best, I dont understand why this ideal cannot be applied to our society as a whole."

seriously? are you communist? collectivist? For one, forcing an ideal on a society can in many ways be viewed as tyranny, even if its a seemingly innocent one like this. In addition, society as a whole is not responsible for taking care of someone elses shortcomings. It's really simply, if you cant afford to have kids, dont have them.

There should be safety nets for the unfortunate and unforseeable circumstances, i agree with that. But we shouldnt be playing babysitter for every moron and inadequate caretaker. Whatever happened to individual responsibility, is it really a value that our societie's lost? All these democrats seem to think that responsibility falls on society as a whole, and personally it sickens me.Reply to Joe
Post #20
1 replyEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
There is no force in what Im proposing.

This program is a choice made by parents.

There will be many parent who will choose not to take it and that is fine.

Stop making narratives that I did not create. You keep making arguments for me that I didnt make.

All Im talking about is taxpayer funded healthcare for kids. Thats it. Im not even really for it being mandatory, but I cant understand why a parent who could not afford it themselves would not put their kid in the program.Reply to Eric
Post #21
1 replyEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Ive realized that you keep making slippery slope arguments out of what Im talking about.

Please stop doing that and just address the issue.Reply to Eric
Post #22Joe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM
by force i means you're forcing soceity to pay for it. Unless you propose to make the healthcare appear out of thin air, then you are forcing society to pay for it.Reply to Joe
Post #23Joe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:32 PM
no, im not making slippery slope arguments, re-read what i said. Im not saying anything will happen, im saying that, using your logic, the same arguments can be made for other things that hold the same logical validity as your argument for healthcare.

you said universal healthcare is vital to help kids grow to reach their potential and therefore should be taxpayer funded. I then said many other things that are vital for kids to reach their potential. Unless you can provide how universal healthcare is more important or notably different from those other things, then your argument about it being necesary for potential is moot.Reply to Joe
Post #24Connor Sorensen (Portage Northern High School) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Don't forget that once doctor's are all paid the same the quality of their care drops quite a bit, once you take out competition then noone will care how well they do their job, they will be paid all the same. Do we really want a horrible health care system for all or a great one for most? Look at countries that do have UHC, their health care systems all suck! Their doctors are not nearly as good as ours. We already have one of the best health care systems, how about we don't mess with it and keep it that way.Reply to Connor
Post #25
1 replyJesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:40 PM
The Quebec supreme court recently ruled that universal healthcare is in violation of that province's constitution because of the long wait times.

Getting your tonsils out and cancer care are pretty routine things that won't take too long.

Where you start to have huge waitlists is for any sort of medical testing - x-rays are no wait but MRIs and ultrasounds take months - and things like hip and joint replacement take years. Seeing any sort of medical specialist beyond your average family doctor takes months and months.

The statement that there isn't long and unnessecary wait lists in countries with UHC is just plain untrue. The Canadian government has made it one of the top five national priorities to try to reduce wait times because there's protests and complaints across the country.Reply to Jesse
Post #26
1 replyYou wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:40 PM
interesting disccution from youtube

milena4032 (1 year ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply Thanks for your comments: my intention was just as "yocallmed" described it. Universal health care for everyone NOW!
rabblewatch (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Ontario's healthcare is a death-machine. I've seen relatives of mine die a horrible death thanks to bureaucracy and basically waiting to die. Also, when I was willing to pay to expedite some treatments, I was told that this was 'illegal'. Thank you Health Canada. Thank you Tommy Douglas. I now can watch my loved ones die a horrible death.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam agree rabblewatch. Trying for 4-years to get on a lung transplant list in Canada is exceedingly frustrating. Waiting 9 months to get in to see a specialist and get no where is frustrating, no to mention the other long waits. Watching your senior mother suffer and go untreated for a cat bite infection (6-months of suffering and no treatment) and we do have VERY LONG waiting lists in Canada. There are many, many problems.
mongobobo (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I should say first of all that I'm a US citizen living in the USA. I've heard many negative stories as well from many Canadian friends, so I wonder why milena would make this video if it weren't true?
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Like in the United States some people receive good care. The same is true of Canada. I would not have made my comments if they also were not true. If you click on my name you'll see a video of my mom's video, she has Alzheimer's and clearly, I'm wearing O2. My family and I've had many experiences with Canadian healthcare - mostly negative. Thanks.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I did want to point out however that my mom does receive excellent care at the nursing home. Her care is however not fully government funded and certainly is not free. We pay every month towards mom's care. It this regard its somewhat private and not fully covered. We ran into problems with some care in hospitals, with long waiting lists, follow up care being denied for my lungs, and so on.
mongobobo (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I lived in England for a number of years and I know for a fact that those who can afford it pay for private health insurance. To rely soley on the NHS is akin to a death sentance. However, if you need a check up or a prescription, it works very well and very fast.
milena4032 (1 year ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply The health care system in Canada does need some continuing attention; however, the experiences I described in the video are true and come from, on the one hand, one of the poorer provinces in Canada and, on the other, one of the richest. Having said that, I'm sorry about your lung, lizzielou73, and about your mom.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks milena, I just hope that I can get on a lung transplnt list in time. Hope your family members are doing well. :)
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I live in Nova Scotia and my friend's father died of cancer. It took too long for the doctors to do anything. Some of our hospital ERs are closed on weekends, holidays and during the week, and QEII respirologists refuse to treat me and provide follow up care. In my opinion NS's healthcare is terrible.
filiusardentis (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam This whole issue has brought out some interesting debate among those willing to avoid "attack" responses. Seems like there is plenty of room to improve on all of the systems. Has anyone seen reliable, non-partisan polls for major nations concerning whether they would like to return to a US-style market system? I got some interesting stats from Wikipedia: en<dot>wikipedia<dot>org/wiki/Universal_health_car e#Health_care_economics
jscottupton (1 year ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I like your style...even though I oppose government run health care. My kids learned to read and write in a government run school. That doesn't change the fact that the government run schools are a mess. We need to get the government out of most of what it is doing. Liberty forever.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Medicare, schooling, police, fire departments, postal services, and libraries are already 'socialized' in America. It works in every other industrialized nation. 9-11 resuce workers are REFUSED health care, thousands die or are left destitute in America... its utterly stupid to be against universal health care in the U.S. GREED is killing Americans.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Utterly stupid? Try living in Canada and going without specialised care for a severe lung condtion, because of our medical system. Healthcare in Canada is not all its cracked up to be. In Canada people DIE waiting and trying to get care.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Many Americans have to wait as well, and millions are DENIED care. I read that annually maybe 100 Canadians die waiting, while 18,000 Americans die. You would prefer NO health care for 47 million Canadians as with Americans? I doubt Canadians in ERs are denied attention as Americans die in the ER waiting room. Which system sounds more humane?
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Americans are NOT denied care. I have many American friends with cystic fibrosis who are poor, middle class and wealthy. None are denied care. Americans in ERs are not denied care either. Legally, ERs are not allowed to deny care. As for the hospital Moore spoke about it was a government funded hospital - like Canada's - that has a long history of negligent care. People have tried to shut it down and lobbyists keep trying to keep King Harbor open. American system is more humane.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam A woman just died in LA for no ER treatment. Wife and I pay $1100 monthly for 80% coverage in America. My heart surgery costs $365000 leaving $73,000 I owe AND they are partial denying the 70% too. Was stuck with $10,000 from previous insurance company denying coverage on broken leg. Everyone I know has a similar story. HMOs SUCK! Wait til you have major medical.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Unfortunately, this lady died at King-Harbor Hospital which happens to be government funded (just like our Canadian hospitals). The money is available at this hospital to care for everyone. This hospital has been in trouble on many other occasions and still people are fighting to keep it open. It needs to close.
Canada's healthcare system works like the giant HMO's that you are hoping to avoid.
met66 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam You dont even live here and yet proclaim to know our system and that no one is denied because you know some people? WHat? Lizzie. You're beginning to appear not all that bright.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I have some relatives and many American friends with chronic illnesses who receive excellent care (and even lung transplants) and have been to the US for medical care and one emergency - was supposed to be on vacation, Care was excellent. I have lived in Canada my whole life and "know" what the system is "really like here" and unless you live in Canada and must come to the US for care, because you are not receiving it in Canada than you are not in the position to judge me, met66.
met66 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam You make pronouncements about the US system but have no experience. Previously, you stated "no one dies from tooth infections" - wrong.." no one dies because they are denied care" - wrong. You said all thiswithout knowing OUR system. I made NO claims to know how things are in Canada because I've not experienced them.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I've told you that I've received healthcare in the US and in Canada and can therefore compare both systems, and that I have American relatives and many friends in the US who are receiving excellent care - they are not rich. If you think that people do not die in Canada, met66 FOR A LACK of care you are sadly mistaken.
burtonchalmers (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam are you trying to say that the us helth care system isn't broken
gergenheimer (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Obviously, the U.S. system has its problems, but the Canadian solution is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Canadians have been able to sustain their system out of national pride and willing self-sacrifice, but they are getting tired of suffering in silence. That is why "illegal" private clinics are emerging all over Canada, much to the chagrin of politicians who want to maintain their stranglehold on individual liberties. Now it is being sold in the U.S. with the help of a complicit media.
Jakoliss (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I don't think what bothers politians is important... so i am agreeing. but really that is a broad and very generalized assumption. i live in Canada, i pay for health care $44 dollars a month per person. whether i am working or not i get it. it is becomeing broken because less and less is covered. but i think universal health care should be the ultimate goal, affordable and universal. when anyone in need of treatment in either country is being left behind, the system had fallied. just ask them.
gergenheimer (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I am categorically opposed to any system of universal healthcare, and here's why. To accept the premise you must believe access to healthcare is a right. It cannot be a right, however, because no person may claim a right that deprives another person of their life, liberty or the fruits of their labor. To believe in universal healthcare you must be prepared to look a doctor in the eye and tell them why he/she should be your indentured servant.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Google "Socialized Medicine Killing Hundreds Of Thousands In Scotland"
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam That may be in Scotland, but not in France, Britain, Canada, etc.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Actually, it is true in Canada. I happen to be Canadian and hear of people dying due to our long waiting lists. Stories have been on the national and local news and in our papers. I'm sorry to say it happens.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Mr. Rid: Sorry about your medical bills and I agree this is an obstacle. However, I'm actually coming to the US this fall, because I'm going without necessary respiratory care in Canada.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Sorry had to break comment up:

Expensive "medical" trip, yes. Worth it? Our hope (family, friends, doctors, nurses, mine) is yes. My point is that the Canadian model of UHC is not the answer. With the greater population in the US a Canadian model on its own will not work. Perhaps, the answer is a combination of European type UHC and American healthcare.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Good luck, when 9-11 rescue workers cant get necessary respiratory care in the U.S.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, have had success before in the US and hope this is another successful medical trip. As for Michael Moore if he truly cared about the 911 Rescuers why not donate the profits from Sicko towards helping them and their families? Seriously, this would be an excellent idea and could help many.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam How about you go make a movie about trying to save 47 MILLION people from having no basic health care, and stop greedy corporations from profiting billions off suffering and death of millions of Americans, and turn all the profits over to a small group of people. Then get back with us about your criticism of Moore.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, but you claim Mr. Moore has already done this with the exception of turning over the money to help the people who you claim to be uninsured. He's a multimillionaire and could afford to help others. At this time, I'm concentrating on my health and getting listed for a double lung transplant and hope one day to do more to help society.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Good for you. Stop knocking Moore.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, but I still disagree with you about Mr. Moore. Until he tells the complete truth without distortions in making his films someone has to keep him honest.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam So the girl who posted this video is lying too?
clemep (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam what are you? up michael moore's ass or something? why do you care so much if someone criticizes him?
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Moore's films increase awareness to change the crap in the world and attempt to help millions in desperate need, and people attack him for it. WTH? If U can do better then do it! Its not Moores responsibility to pay rescue workers health care, or mine or yours. Government cant keep excluding the poor from basic human services.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam lizzielou, about Moore helping the rescue workers- if you go to michaelmooredotcom, 11% of Sicko profits go to help the rescue workers. They also offer suggestions on what else you can do to help.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Its good that he is helping, however he only publishes the "good' letters and not the "not so happy letters" on Canadian healthcare (on his website) My point is do not be mislead. I also wrote Moore a letter about my mom not receiving treatment for a severe cat bite infections and about specialists refusing to treat me. Interestingly, my letter and I'm sure those sent by others were ignored, because they did not favour his viewpoint.Reply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #27Jesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Bottom line is that single payer universal healthcare is stupid.

It subsidizes the medical care of rich people via price controls - how backwards is that?

Everyone pays the same generally low amount and then you have Warren Buffet and Bill Gates getting unlimited medical care for a pricer lower than they afford to pay.

You need a private system alongside any public system as a safety release valve for long wait lists.

Let Bill Gates pay more, considerably more (money for a doctor to work overtime) so that he can jump to the front of the line - thereby reducing the wait lists without draining resources which is a win win situation.Reply to Jesse
Post #28
3 repliesJesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:52 PM
People die in hospital waiting rooms all the time in Canada.

When Michael Moore made the movie Sicko, which sang the praises of UHC without talking about the downside, everybody here thought the guy was a complete idiot. Reply to Jesse
Post #29You replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM
and he loved cuba's
a little fact check for him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WAReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #30
1 replyJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM
it's like ive said before, the usa has the best healthcare in the world for those who can pay. Your healthcare is fast, effective, and efficent. If i banged up my wrist at football practice, i could walk to the hospital, get an x-ray, and know whats wrong with it in only hours. In canada, id be extremely lucky if that was the case. A kid who i used to work with used to live in france and said he broke his shin playing soccer and it took 5 days to get an x-ray.
Displaying posts 31 - 55 out of 55 by 11 people.Prev

Post #31You replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM
i think we, the people who oppose uhc, are very lucky to have moore as uhc's spoacksman b/c he is soo stupidReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #32Eric Schiferl (Madison, WI) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I'm tired of seeing the liberals in this thread saying "free healthcare" instead of "universal healthcare." Universal healthcare is NOT free healthcare. NO healthcare is FREE. It is payed for with OUR taxes, unless of course the democrats have some sort of magical money pit that will pay for it. Don't think that universal healthcare will take the burden of paying for it off your shoulders. You will just be paying for it with taxes instead.Reply to Eric
Post #33
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM
So instead of waiting.... we chose to let Americans go uninsured for the pure fact that they NEED the insurance? If not UHC... then something. Because it's not ethical to turn down people who are in most need of the insurance, simply because they need the insurance. There is no logical way to argue that that is ok. If not government controlled health care, then how do you suppose we fix this?Reply to Bethany
Post #34
1 replyAshley Turner Galvin (Portland, OR) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM
"If not government controlled health care, then how do you suppose we fix this?"

anything but that. Pretty sure we already had this discussion, but when has the government ever done anything efficiently? Reply to Ashley
Post #35
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:57 PM
People die in American hospital rooms too.


Canada's deaths represent "long waiting lists". America's deaths represent lack of care. It's money more than care. I know this argument is a cornerstone of logical fallacy, but it doesn't take away the initial frustration of the whole thing. Reply to Bethany
Post #36
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Ashley's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM
But the health care system isn't taking care of the people who need it. They drive up the costs because the insurance will pay whatever. However, for those of us unable to get health insurance, it just makes it impossible to do anything to help ourselves. It's so... pathetic to be so helpless, to see that you have problems and not be presented a solution.

We need someone to step in and say "this isn't working, let's fix it". If not UHC... then something. Because it's not ethical to only cater to the fix and the healthy. Reply to Bethany
Post #37
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM
There is no problem with healthcare.14 million opt out of medicare that they could get, 17 million uninsured live in households that earn over 50,000, 9 million live in houses that earn an income over 70,000.

Look, they may have to cut back on luxury items a bit to pay for healthcare, but tough luck, we shouldn't have to pick up the tab for them, they ought to make healthcare more of a priority in their budget. Reply to Stephen
Post #38
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I'm not talking about those people. Read my earliest post... I'm talking about people who can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Those people who NEED the insurance that can't get it unless they pay out the ass for it. When it comes to be almost $900/month for a two person household, it isn't cutting back on luxury items, it's impossible. Reply to Bethany
Post #39
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
They can go to health clinics and hospitals.

We shouldn't overturn a successful healthcare system for 7 million or so people.Reply to Stephen
Post #40
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM
... what are you talking about. We shouldn't reevaluate a health care system for the people that need it the most.

And going to clinics and hospitals STILL costs money. Getting medicine STILL costs money. Having surgery STILL costs money.

--- quite a bit of it. I would know. Reply to Bethany
Post #41
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Yea, it does cost money, deal with it. Deal with your budget accordingly, it shouldn't have anything to do with my pocketbook.

FYI,m there are free clinics and cheaper clinics, sure the care might not be first class, but it is pretty good. Reply to Stephen
Post #42
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Wow... deal with it? Are ya serious kid? How does a married college student figure in 13K into their budget?

And why should I be denied first class care? Because I had an injury at one point that has NOTHING to do with my current injuries? What kind of messed up logic is that.

I've moved past the UHC... because it's obviously too much to ask for. I'm wondering how we solve the problem of the uninsured who want to be insured, just can't afford it or can't get it. Reply to Bethany
Post #43
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Yes, you get what you pay for, the more you pay for something, the better it should be.

Stop mooching off me and the 250k classReply to Stephen
Post #44
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Wow, I'm done replying to you. I'll wait for a McCain supporter to reply that knows something about couth.

I'm not talking about mooching you idiot. I'm talking about solutions. But it's time for bed, and I don't really care what you have to say anyway. Reply to Bethany
Post #45Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
McCain is going to give everyone healthcare vouchers essentially, tax rebates worth thousands of dollars, stop trying to raise taxes on us in the upper middle class and take back you own money, you don't need to take ours. Reply to Stephen
Post #46
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM
By this I mean... perhaps not taxing anyone or having UHC. I'm not talking about "mooching" like the ever so eloquent high school put it. I'm talking about how we make sure health care is available to everyone. We won't tax anyone, and everyone will pay for their own... but we need to revisit the system itself, so that people who need it can't be denied. It's just so unethical on every level. Reply to Bethany
Post #47Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
You realize expansion of government healthcare cost money, and they get that money through taxes, c'mon, this is basic economics.

Reply to Stephen
Post #48
1 replyAshley Turner Galvin (Portland, OR) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I hear ya. I don't have any solutions...but I do like McCain's plan. Sorry that kid is being a dick to you. He seems to do that to someone every night, and is apparently hasn't mastered the skill of debating and discussing like an adult.Reply to Ashley
Post #49
1 replyKristen Massabni (Maryland) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 6:50 AM
I don't have that strong of an opinion on whether or not children should get free health care just because I've never really thought about it so I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion that they should. However, nutrition and sleeping habits mainly affects childrens performance in school. I know healthcare is a broad term, but the main issue in poverty stricken issues is that these kids are simply hungry or tired! That is why they may get sick...their immune system isn't working properly because they haven't been fed or haven't slept. I know of teachers that bring food to their classrooms to make sure their children get to eat so they can concentrate. Yeah, there are free/reduced breakfasts and lunch but some kids can't make it to school early enough to receive the breakfast. It is really sad. Kids pay for their parents mistakes in life..its not fair and it does suck but I don't have the answer for it because its not a simple answer! Maybe free healthcare for children is a start. Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I learned in one of my education classes (I'm going to school to be a teacher-almost finished- yay!!) that the US is second to last (as in the rates are horrible!) when it comes to child poverty- out of the developed nations that is. Only Mexico's child poverty rates are worse. I couldn't believe it. Its really sad. We can't expect these children to do well in school when they aren't eating or sleeping at home. These children don't have supervision at home since their parents are either working all the time or participating in illegal activities (just wanted to put it nicely- there was this one women that was hoeing herself out in her home. she would kick her kid out of the house between 10-2 AM to "work"). Sorry, I'm getting a little off topic but my point is there are far worse issues affecting childrens performace in school then if they get to goto the doctors when they're sick. Reply to Kristen
Post #50Kristen Massabni (Maryland) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 7:05 AM
I just got finished taking a life/accident/health insurance class to get certified to sell insurance. You may have to double check on this (I haven't taken my test yet, I take it Tuesday so I'm in the middle of reading a very long/boring ass book that makes me want to fall asleep after every page I read), but I think a great way to ensure insurability for children is to purchase life insurance for them when they are young and do not have health problems. There are many policies that once they are purchased, there is no requriement for medical exams when you extend the coverage,change the policy type,etc. If you buy a policy that accumulates a cash value, when certain health issues arise, you are able to take money out of your policy. Now I know this doesn't help you at all since you are an adult, but it's just an idea for when you have children. I'm still in the life section of this book. When I get to the health part, I'll let you know if I have anything better then that that may help you out :-). Reply to Kristen
Post #51Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Kristen's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Me too.


But what you are saying is the point that I was trying to make to Joe.

The evidence to support this is overwhelming.Reply to Eric
Post #52
1 replyYou replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM
what happened to that individual was a crime and an outrage, a similar event happened a few months ago in la in which a woman was lying on the floor of a hospital lobby suffering and bleeding, and not only was she ignored, but a janitor was sent mop up the blood while she was still alive and suffering. but i hope you do realize that this is illeagal and not the norm in any way, that is why their is outrage about these individual insidents, and it is not really valid to judge such a vast and complex system as our healthcare system on rare individual incidentsReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #53Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Aye, I'm not naive enough to think this is a standard or even close to normal. I was just using it as an example (which is why I included my own logical fallacy clause). Reply to Bethany
Post #54Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Ashley's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Meh, I've noticed how his youth and partisan ignorance pans out every once in awhile. It happens.

I have a very good opinion of McCain supporters in general. You all, for the most part, are very debatable and knowledgeable.