I was in Belgium with a college class a few years ago and one of my classmates came down with a bug. She was able to make an appointment for the next day (so much for the waiting myth) and paid the equivalent of 20USD each for the appointment and the prescribed medication.

As for Massachusetts, the reason they won't increase taxes on the upper income bracket is because progressive taxation is actually prohibited by the state constitution.

Things change in 200 years. I'm not all that concerned about regulating weapons that were available in 1791 either, but obviously technology is greatly advanced. The drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't know about broadcast licenses when crafting the first amendment either. The Bill of Rights must suit the times, though even the language of the second amendment refers to a well-regulated militia. It seems to me the states have broad authority to determine who can get what weaponry as long as they are not arbitrary and capricious about it. My own preference would be to register the weapons and license the users, just as we do with cars. I realize the DMV can be a hassle, but nobody is arguing that it is the first step toward taking our cars away. If we can't settle this within the current constitutional framework, then maybe it's time to go for broke and propose a repeal of the second amendment.

I don't know much about Byrd's priorities or specific health condition, but this has been Kennedy's number one priority for most of his career. Being from MA myself, I can pretty much guarantee that if he hasn't died or resigned yet he WILL cast a vote for health care reform, even if he has to be carried into the Senate chamber on a stretcher.

..."extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue."

So it's now extreme to uphold a Constitution, which protects due process and jury trials while forbidding cruel and unusual punishment and warrantless searches? Methinks it's time to remind the right of the words of their hero - Barry Goldwater!

Could someone please explain why this isn't resolved by a simple inspection of one's anatomy in the crotch area? Even transgendereds have discernible body parts, though I suppose an argument could be made for testing hormone levels to see whether estrogen or testosterone is dominant.

I'm not aware of any proposal that would fund abortions. As far as I can tell the Hyde Amendment would remain intact. If I'm correct, what's all the episcopal fuss about?

I also completely agree that any rules should be published in advance, though I suspect on something like this as our awareness and technology evolves, so too will the rules.

...that assuming the process is fair, the US will stand for democracy and abide by whatever results come forth.

Also, I'm almost finished reading "Engaging the Muslim World" and think it makes a lot of very good points, which I only wish more Americans were aware of.

Seeing all the blackouts just makes me more suspicious. I realize there may be genuine safety concerns as it appears names are often blacked out, but in a free society such as ours openness should be the default setting. I hope the special prosecuter has been vetted enough to be allowed the highest security clearance granted by the government.

Torture is both morally wrong and illegal! How would you like it if you had no information, but the enemy tried forcing it out of you anyway? Might you not say something, anything, for some relief? That this is even a debatable question scares me.

I think liberalism can be a force without actual unions, but it still needs to reach out to those who would be union members in a different time and champion their issues. In other words, labor unions - not necessary, labor issues - very necessary.

I thought he was one of the more reasonable Republicans. I forget how he ultimately voted, but I know he publicly wavered on Clinton's impeachment. Speaking of Clinton's impeachment, why is the same crowd who thought a little white lie about sex would be disasterous to the rule of law now excusing torture?

The references throughout many of these Ted Kennedy threads to Chappaquiddick are just about the most offensive and disgusting posts that I've ever seen on Salon. Have some respect for the deceased, for crying out loud! He admitted the mistake and apologized a long time ago; the incident itself was 40 YEARS AGO; and is a single episode in a lifetime of dedicated public service for all the right reasons. By the way, the people of Massachusetts re-elected him SEVEN TIMES SINCE that happened, usually overwhelmingly, so obviously the people who know him best DON'T CARE and neither should anyone else. Even the Kopechnes forgave him, and I believe even supported his WH bid in 1980.

If so, there's a newly vacant Senate seat I wouldn't mind if you occupied!

This isn't the kind of thing you "deserve", "earn", or are in some other way are "worthy" of. It should be considered just a fundamental right. I don't care if you're a panhandling illegal alien. You have a right to your health and the way it is now we DO treat those "least of these" in an emergency and end up paying MORE overall for it than we would if we covered them legitimately. We also need to delink coverage from employment. That way, we're not as tempted to think only the employed should be covered and employers would not be expected to cover their employers, leaving them at a competitive disadvantage against businesses in countries with universal coverage.