All right, let's take this POS apart, point by point, and see where and why it's all smoke and mirrors--like virtually all of the Right's arguments.

para one: It's not a "conundrum," it's a simple fact: the English, the Europeans, and the Canadians are happy with their health care. Not wholly, not every single one, but happy enough not to ditch it. It's not a "conundrum," unless you figure that the free market is great for everything (and if you think that, watch and tell me what you think of Saturday morning cartoons for kids).

Para two through eight: what we're told is that most people who live in a nationalized system are perfectly happy with it. The analogy to welfare is, of course, nonsense; welfare affected only a few people, unlike national healthcare, and it had many movements in the states, as versus Federally, to remove it early. This is typical of the Right--a blue smoke analogy.

Para nine and afterwards: here we begin to anecdotes rather than facts. How many Canadians die from long lines? You won't know from this essay--just that "some do" (unlike, say, the waiting rooms in the US). How many wait? We don't know. How many with "extreme pathologies" aren't treated? We don't know. "Some do." Possibly; but we get nothing but blowing smoke and hand-waving from this conservative.

And then we find that the free market in the US acts as a safety valve--presumably for the rich. Does nationalization promise to take this away? No. Does it have to? No. Will the free market exist in India and Switzerland and Korea, regardless of what happens in the US? Of course.

Conclusion: no facts. Much blowing smoke and hand-waving. Arguments based on fear. Typical GOP argument; EPIC FAIL.

I read this in the letters section:

I can not see for the life of me why the republicans are so against constructing a viable universal health care plan.

This one is simple. The GOP cares not about things like how good or bad the health care in this country is. The notion that government might construct something that works and that benefits people destroys their entire ideological raison d'etre, however. Where would they be if government wasn't the problem, but was actually the solution?

Middle Eastern politicians will often say one thing to their own constituency, in their own language, and then deny it in English.

This was Perry's notion: he'd talk about secession in Texan, and then deny it to us English speakers.

For very good reasons we have a law that prohibits using the armed forces domestically.

Sigh.

No, we don't have a law that prohibits using the armed forces domestically.

We have a law that prohibits using the armed forces to enforce the law.

The act says nothing about using troops in disaster relief.

If you're a lawyer, consider returning all the fees you've collected so far.

Like generals who prepare for the last war, we're preparing for the last great movement in technology.

We should stop thinking about building cars. We should stop thinking about building electric cars--oh, for a stopgap, sure, until the new technology is on line.

What is the new technology?

We should start growing cars. Cars should be organisms genetically designed, literally from the ground up. And they'll use "biofuels" fersure. Waste products? Designed to be useful.

Want a second car? Your first car will bud off with the right stimulation. Feed, water, and take care of it, and in six months you'd have a mature second car.

Think I'm kidding? Just wait. 10 years ago you didn't think you'd be carrying a 1977 supercomputer in your pocket, either.

Yep, a fair number of Americans like Dick Cheney.

These are the same folks who believe in angels and don't believe in evolution.

But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things.

First, let's be honest and substitute the word "torture" for the phrase "unpleasant things."

But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from torture.

Huh. Changes things, doesn't it? Because the "moral value" held by the American people--enshrined in the Constitution ("cruel and unusual"--remember that?) would seem to contradict what Cheney said.

So let's put it the way he actually meant it:

But no moral value held dear by me obliges me ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from torture.

There we go. Now we can see that Dick Cheney = Jack Bauer, save that Jack at least will do the torture himself.

You can't disprove any claim about ACORN .

Wow, lacking in basic logic here, dude. You don't "disprove claims"--you prove 'em. So, don't let me stop you. Go ahead.

Prove it.

No one should celebrate the Confederate war dead. They were traitors to their country.

When former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee attacked Sotomayor, he got her name wrong and called her Maria.

Huckabee's confusion is understandable. For every GOP white male, every Hispanic woman they've ever addressed they've called "Maria" (as in, "Hey, Maria honey, come over and refill my drink"), just as every Hispanic male is "Jose" (it used to be just "boy," but you've got to give it to the GOP, they've learned from their mistakes).

The GOP has no problem with a Hispanic woman in the SCOTUS, as long as she's there to empty the wastebaskets and mop the floors.