"Medicare - Bankrupt. Does this mean anything to the Single Payer crowd? I beg a response here because it is completely ignored, but is undisputable proof that single payer will not work in our country - people don't want it and Congress is incapable of managing it without bankrupting it."

___

Straw Man.

Congress FUNDS medicare. CMS manages it, and they do a good job overall, given the resources they are accorded by Congress. The fact that Medicare has future unfunded liabilities doesn't have shit to do with its management. And, perhaps the politics of Medicare funding would be wholly different under a single payer model.

There is by now long and incontrovertible evidence that single payer and other types of universal coverage models "work" in comparable industrial nations-- significantly better than does our non-system.

"proof that single payer will not work in our country"

That is beyond lame. How can you assert "proof" denying something that has not even been tried? That is simply your subjective opinion, not "proof."

Again, henceforth just ignore me. Or, (of course) have the last word, and then ignore me. You are a waste of time.

I guess you too have a reading comprehension problem. I was asking him to ignore me. You can do likewise.

We spend more than $2.5 trillion dollars a year now on "health care," approximately 2x per capita relative to comparable industrial nations (all of whom provide one manner or another of universal coverage) with documentably inferior aggregate clinical outcomes. A lot of influential people and their extremely profitable corporations are perfectly fine with that, and are not about to see it substantively messed it. They are winning. The ignorant masses ranting their angrily mindless bumper sticker platitudes of late are the media-effective dupes of these con artists.

Of course, this is why our comparable counterpart industrial nations, all with one form or another of universal coverage, government-mandated "monopolies," deliver better overall outcomes at approximately half the cost per capita.

Real genius, you are. LOL.

YEAH!

And no more free military defense either.

$2.55 trillion in annual health care expenditure. Just divide by 307 million population. Send everyone their first annual bill year, for $8,143.32 each in 2009.

Simple. done. Move on.

'Life is unfair. Get over it. My job is not about meting out 'justice,' it's narrowly about what the words in the Constitution meant at the time of its enactment, period."

Scalia also thinks torture is Constitutional if used "tactically" and not simply as punishment.

http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/02/catachresis.html

He sux.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

Of course, the Repu'ublicist strategy here is simply to hand Obama an outright defeat, or to have the cowardly Dems end up passing a POS bill that does nothing substantive, so they can then say "SEE! we told ya teh government can't do heath care right!"

It's all about political power, not about rational governance.

should be called what they are. Period.

What an idiot.

Yeah.

BTW, you're welcome to comment at my place. Link in my name.

Link in my name. This woman needs our help.

Please give generously

Link in my name. This woman needs our help.

That's why it's SO important for the Repu'ublicists to necklace Obama with a "defeat" on health care legislation. Costs will continue to spiral out of control, people will continue to lose effective coverage...and then blame Obama for the worsening condition.

Yes, I understand that this could cut both ways. But, I see no net upside for the GOP in helping Obama do anything now. It's all about positioning to reclaim power.

I love the part where she scolded Jon Stewart with "You just don't know what words mean!"

That is classic Orly Taitz. No one but she knows the meaning of "natural born citizen."

When you need to throw full-stoppage sand in the gears of a debate, just quibble core definitions to death.

"The one possibility completely taboo to liberals, even smart ones like Greenwald is that the American people are genuinly rejecting health care reform. That is, the American people, with full knowledge of what Obama wants to do, are rejecting his ideas."

____

Is there in fact "full knowledge of what Obama wants to do"?

It's not all that clear to me.

"America is #1 in health care"

___

By what metrics?

"the claim our current system produces lower quality outcomes is false if auto deaths and homicides are factored out of mortality rates."

___

For ALL comparable industrial counterpart nations, or just us? You got any links?

can be Pet Rock Judgie's campaign manager.

Is that truly so? Link?

I'd like to include evidence of that in my current policy reform post (link in my name).

"Uh... explain again how these people are NOT terrorists? They use force and the threat of violence to pursue political objectives. They are terrorists."

____

I think that may be a little over the top. "Terrorists" are more aptly described as those who terrorize innocent populations in pursuit of their objectives.

____

"If Peta decided that no one should own pets and they set your house on fire for owning a dog they would rightly be called terrorists. How are these people different?"

____

That analogy is a bit off. Were these people to come into a marina and set fire to or sink private boats to draw attention to and protest general civilian apathy toward the plight of whales, that would be an apt comparison. These people are certainly political "guerrilla fighters," to be sure -- and arguably illegally so -- but calling them "terrorists" is excessive. Just my $0.02.