I have a chronic, fatal condition. When the doctor asks me if I have had my cholesterol checked, I tell him I have not and will not have it done. The reason? My condition will lead to my eventually drowning in my own liquids. Compared to that, a heart attack and sudden nonexistence looks good.

Another thought on the subject: Sometimes we act out of experience. Not all role models are positive. My mother was a hypochondriac. Sometimes this makes me skeptical of what my own body is telling me.

he's the only game in town. The only alternative is the right wing crazies who, as is shown in Salon, add nothing to the debate. I am not about to support them. I hope that Obama will eventually see the light and recognize who put him where he is.

Since our electoral college forces us into a two party system, a progressive third party is not an option. The best it can hope to do is throw an election into the House of Representatives where the rules would favor the right wing states.

It would have been necessary to create him." Voltaire's observation was more about human society than about religion. There are those who argue that there is a God and there are those who argue that there isn't, so we have created one. What you believe, exists. What you don't believe, doesn't. I have a friend who married a divorcee with two sons that he adopted. One day, as they were returning home from Church, one of the boys said to his father, "Dad, the ..... God is a lot friendlier than the ......... one." The "God-no God" argument is not winnable and relatively unimportant. What is important in the public discourse is how either belief impacts our society.

There are ethical atheists and ethical Christians. There are unethical atheists and unethical Christians. I would rather deal with atheists than with Christians who betray, what is to me, the ethical constraints of my religion.

I guess you prefer the big business, profit generating, exclusive, bureaucratic system that we have now. Senator Snowe said it best when she proclaimed that she didn't want to upset the health care industry.

Soonerliberty really comes to the crux of the matter: who are we going to insure and how are we going to do it. Oklahoma's Senator Coburn, while opposing any public healthcare, unwittlingly gave an argument for its enactment when he stated "we should help each other" during a PBS interview. The system as it exists has come to the conclusion that we should not be required to do so. In fact, it assumes that not doing so is in the public interest through lower taxes and/or fees.

As to his/her mention of the "European system" returning to private insurance, a cursory study of the so-called European system will find a variety of approaches to the health care problem--many which include combinations of public-private involvement.

We spend more per capita for health care than any other country in the world, yet millions of us have no access to regular healthcare. As a result, we lag behind other developed countries when outcomes of our healthcare industry are measured. It is reasonable to assume that a decent bill would change our system to one that would provide health care for all people and cost less. This bill doesn't do this. What it will do is give the radical right the opportunity to say "I told you so"! This bill attempts to reconcile the medical needs of our people with the current health care industry. It will fail.

You are voicing the ultimate supply side heresy. The economy actually needs consumers before there is any incentive to invest. Shame!

I am astounded that 48% of men approve of Sarah Palin. Using old-fashioned phrasing, I am as delighted as anyone by a well-rounded bosom and a well-turned ankle. However, when Sarah opened her mouth, she took on the vapid perkiness of a Miss Congeniality in a second-rate beauty contest. This was obvious from the very beginning, but long-term relationships, and a Presidential term is one, depend on intelligence as well as looks and personality. She may very well be intelligent, but it isn't obvious to me.

Like the frost on the punkin, geese flying south, bears hibernating, every autumn we have the war against Christmas. Despite what the religious right thinks, Christmas is very resilient. It has survived the raucous and lawless practices of late medieval times and the austerity of the Puritans. It will also survive the commercial expropriation by the retail corporations. It will survive the blathering of the religious right. As a Christian, I consider the war on Christmas about as seriously as when they prattle about loving one's neighbor.

Theologians have long speculated and argued about when "ensoulment" occurs--when the fetus becomes human. The final consensus was that ensoulment occurs when the fetus could live outside the womb. This was not a legal definition, since there was not really quantifiable standard. Modern science has increased the survival rate of preemies and our knowledge of the fetal growth process. For myself, I'll stick with the 14th Amendment. If we agree that an fetus has not been "born" during an abortion, the act of abortion is a moral wrong, but not a legal one. In this paradigm, only third trimester abortions would be suspect. The argument that a fetus is protected because it will become human is specious. Under that definition (potential of the fetus), even the rhythm method would be illegal because it is a deliberate act, refusing intercourse, that leads to a desired outcome, the death of an ovum, with potential for being human.