Bush acted with the Authority granted him by Congress when he invaded Iraq.

Authority yes, approval no... ;)

Approval, yes...

Congress gave it's approval when they passed the resolution that Authorized Bush to do what he has done. And since they have yet to officially revoke that approval, Congress *still* approves. That some members of Congress have voiced their own personal disapproval is meaningless. For Congress to 'change its mind', the Members of Congress need to vote on it, and revoke Congress' approval, and thus its authorization.

Oh, and a large number of Members of Congress that currently publicly voice their personal disapproval happened to have voted their Approval back when Congress voted to authorize it. They really have nobody to blame but themselves.

Congress, not the President, holds the War Power under the Constitution. The War Powers Act exists to allow the President to wage war in emergency situations where Congress has not had the time to meet and deliberate the question. This Act, however, only grants authority for the President to do so for a period of 90 days. The blame for the problem of 'Iraq', like ALL of the other problems that the US Government has created, does not rest with the President, but with Congress. And, judging by Congress' low approval ratings in a very recent (this month) poll, the American People are beginning to realize this.

Congress creates the problems. It is up to THEM to fix these problems. If Congress was serious about ending the Iraq 'war' THEY started (by taking off Dubya's leash and saying 'Sic'em!'), all they would have to do would be to tell the President to 'bring them home'. And the US Constitution would back them up 100% in doing so. It is Congress' responsibility to reign in the President when the President starts acting like a nutjob on any issue, foreign or domestic. Heel! Sit! Bad Dog!

That Congress hasn't done so yet indicates that Congress doesn't 'want to' yet, especially since the President's party lost the majority in both chambers of Congress. If 'We The People' don't like what is going on, there is one remedy. Vote them ALL out of office. While Dubya is about twice as popular as Congress is now, he is still so unpopular with The People that Congress could, if it wishes, ignore him. That is, in my opinion, what is going on in Washington, DC today. Both the President and Congress are doing their best to make the other irrelevant. But, the Constitution is clear... Congress will win this 'urination contest'.

Now *other* actions of Dubya may lead to Impeachment, especially his extended, protracted 'urination contest' with Congress over Executive Privilege. Now, the Executive branch DOES have a certain level of necessary 'Privilege', but I think Dubya is beginning to go quite a bit beyond that which has customarily been allowed. Speaker Pelosi may change her mind if Dubya continues to insult the dignity and authority of Congress by further insisting on Executive Privilege. But, if she does change her mind and allow Impeachment to go forward, it will be on those grounds (abuse of Constitutionally granted power by the President in forbidding testimony to Congress by members of his administration), and NOT on the Iraq 'war'.

Never happen because mostly those are just opinion calls. Clinton got impeached because he lied under oath.

"Abuse of Constitutionality" is way too ephemeral to support impeachment. More importantly, she likely doesn't have the votes.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

*** EXTRA *** EXTRA ***

Michael Moore's: Sicko Thread moved to the political forums!


:)

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Michael Moore blasts Giuliani for leaving September 11th rescue workers in the dust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AzmTe2_bRY



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Michael Moore's cure is worse than what ails American health care

By Liz Mair

August 5, 2007

On June 22, Michael Moore's new film, “Sicko,” debuted, and in the weeks since, buzz about the film has not died down.

Millions have seen the movie, renewed calls for socialized medicine in the United States have been made, and attention has been focused on the not-insubstantial failings of the American health care system, which are depicted grimly in Moore's documentary. But while the film's prompting of a debate over health care policy and its highlighting of the major failures of our own system are worthwhile, its depiction of systems of socialized medicine is far off-base. And I say that as someone who for 10 years was a patient of one of the systems given the most attention (and praise) in the film: Britain's National Health Service, or NHS.

“Sicko” depicts a perfect NHS, the answer to all of our prayers, equipped with pristine and beautiful hospitals, friendly doctors, helpful pharmacists and happy patients, all getting the care they need in a timely manner – and all for free. But the image is inaccurate and Americans should be careful not to fall for it when determining our own priorities when it comes to fixing health care in this country.

In creating “Sicko,” Moore must have overlooked some of the major news stories about the NHS from recent years. Stories such as one from the BBC stating that in September 2006 more than 6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed by their doctors. Or a BBC story, also from 2006, noting that over 40,000 patients in Wales had to wait more than six months between being referred for, and actually having, an outpatient appointment. Or the recent London Times story regarding an admission, by Britain's Department of Health, that some patients will have to wait more than a year for treatment, and that 52 percent of hospital inpatients are currently waiting more than 18 weeks to receive treatment.

Or stories such as those widely publicized in 2006 and 2007 about cancer patients who were denied access to life-saving cancer drugs by the NHS, which had refused to make them available because they were not “cost-effective” (i.e., cheap).

Or they might even have included the spate of stories in 2005 about the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant MRSA infections being spread throughout the National Health Service due to poor hygiene in NHS hospitals, and which in 2005 were blamed for 20 percent of the 5,000 deaths occurring each year in British hospitals. Or maybe even one 2006 story from a Glasgow newspaper that indicated that despite the supposed wonders of the NHS, average life expectancy in one part of the city was just 53 years.

These are all stories readily found through a quick Google search, and yet utterly ignored in Moore's “assessment” of the relative quality of health care in the UK. They were disregarded, just like the stories of countless patients who have experienced some of the worst care in the world, courtesy of the NHS – like the 23-year-old with mild endometriosis who was told to have a full hysterectomy, because treating her illness with birth control pills or minor operations was “too expensive”; or the woman who was suicidal but was told it would take six months to get her to see a psychiatrist, despite the urgency of her condition.

Those are both stories from within my immediate circle of friends, and together with the stories publicly reported they indicate that no matter how great socialized medicine may sound, the best that it achieves is dishing up very poor care for all, as opposed to good care for all, or even most. And that, largely, is the result of bureaucrats working to cut costs, which has the same basic effect, only a more widespread one, of insurance companies looking to maximize profit (the major problem Moore identifies in our system).

Ultimately, we can have the debate about whether it is better to have a health system that prioritizes something basic, and quite poor, for everyone, or something good for the vast majority. But Moore is wrong to pretend that socialized medicine delivers real quality of care over and above what we see in America today. And he is wrong to portray Britain's National Health Service as an entity where quality of care, as opposed to budgets, always comes first.

- Mair is a political columnist, commentator and consultant operating out of Arlington, VA, and previously out of London. She writes daily at www.lizmair.com and regularly with The New York Sun.

---

me@rescam.org

Or stories such as those widely publicized in 2006 and 2007 about cancer patients who were denied access to life-saving cancer drugs by the NHS, which had refused to make them available because they were not “cost-effective” (i.e., cheap).

Huh. Imagine that, the NHS making decisions the exact same way that private corporations do: on cost.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Or...

Those are both stories from within my immediate circle of friends, and together with the stories publicly reported they indicate that no matter how great socialized medicine may sound, the best that it achieves is dishing up very poor care for all, as opposed to good care for all, or even most. And that, largely, is the result of bureaucrats working to cut costs, which has the same basic effect, only a more widespread one, of insurance companies looking to maximize profit (the major problem Moore identifies in our system).

Get it folks? It ain't universal health care. It's ain't free. It ain't even cheap. It ain't any of the claims made for it. Oh, except for these: it IS a gov't monopoly, mandated by LAW. It does take away your choices, you can't leave, because it's mandated by law. You WILL pay for it, dearly, incessantly, and you'll STILL get decision making solely on cost because the system can't afford to keep everyone alive at all costs.

"Let's have the gov't run it, YAY!!"

That's just stupid.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Anyone find data on France's system?

They are, after all, number one in the world.

I liked the house calls by doctors, and much more.


Misfit:

I wonder what age Liz Mair moved to the US?

Ah, the power of Google:

Fred Thompson Interview:

Soren Dayton and Liz Mair interview Fred Thompson at the 2007 Young Republican National Convention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJjuErf2OI
2 min 21 secs

I wonder if she lost the accent, ever had one, or ditched it?


We all remember Fred Thompson from below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYH0i3UnWAY

I love the Cuban cigar hanging from his lips the last 40 years...

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Your Life Ain't Worth a Nickel: Against the FDA

by Manuel Lora and Wilton D. Alston

Bureaucratic management, as distinguished from profit management, is the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs the result of which has no cash value on the market. ~ Ludwig von Mises

When it comes to our health, one would assume that the government is there to protect us through reasonable and sensible regulations. This is, however, far from the truth. The FDA in particular has been the cause of misery for those who have been unable to legally seek cures and treatment, the result of which ranges anywhere from health complications to death.

Millions Hurt, Billions Wasted

Imagine that you are critically ill, terminally perhaps, and a new experimental treatment has just been discovered. The doctors say that it's still very new, barely tested, but it shows early signs of promise. You have tried every mainstream treatment available. None of them have worked. In a fit of complete desperation, you decide that, since you're going to die anyway, you might as well go out swinging. You ask for the new treatment. Your doctor is aghast! Not only will he not be "party to someone preying on you," he knows the new treatment is expensive and your insurance won't cover it anyway. Even if you can pay, the answer is a resounding, "No." You're stuck. But hey, at least they're looking out for you.

By the way, there are some who would say that this is exactly what happened to Coretta Scott King. Regardless of the somewhat dicey background of the "alternative medicine practitioner" she went to see, it seems rather clear that the decision should have been hers, not some government agency, no matter how well-intentioned. They and people like them protect you from yourself, but unfortunately, no one is available to protect you from them.

These appalling incidents are not, as many would think, exceptions. They are indeed how the FDA works. It holds a state monopoly on the ultimate decision-making ability when it comes to drug and treatment approval. In other words, it's health socialism. Instead of the patient making a decision (with the help of doctors and other specialists), the one who gets the final word is a group of government "experts" who, through their decrees, have your best intentions in their selfless hearts. Just a glance at some of the recent behavior from the FDA reaffirms the point. When the FDA removes a senior scientist for voicing concerns about the safety of a product, one has to wonder what their real purpose might be.

When it comes to attacking private property and forcefully preventing peaceful exchange, the FDA is not a newbie. On the contrary, they are quite experienced in the crackdown department. For decades, the FDA has raided healers, vitamin shops and supplement companies. Here we have people who are engaging in mutually beneficial exchange and in comes the almighty state to destroy it all. Regardless of one's position on "alternate" medicine, what matters is that those willing to sell products have found others willing to buy them. No one should have the right to impede that relationship.

In terms of its effects in the health industry, the FDA slows down the adoption of new technology, creating a chilling effect on development of potential life-saving treatments. Instead of the new drugs, treatments and medical devices being immediately available to hospitals, physicians and patients, they have to go through a lengthy and expensive bureaucratic process. This hurts patients, the ones who would otherwise be able to consume these new products and services. And though companies are sometimes precluded from being unable to develop and sell their technology, they often benefit from intervention. This is because only those who can afford to stay in business long enough to survive the FDA approval process are likely to receive such an approval. Bigger companies, therefore, are able to marginalize smaller ones.

When we combine the nefarious Food and Drug Administration with other policies enacted by the national and local governments, the panorama is not quite a glorious one. Medical patents, corporate welfare, subsidies, tariffs, quotas, regulations and a highly litigious legal system have established barriers that increase the cost of doing business. As usual, we find high prices and low quality. For some folks things are so bad that, just as foreigners travel to the U.S. for treatment that their FDA equivalent has prohibited, some locals are starting to travel to other countries to seek treatment that has been banned here.

If the above wasn't bad enough, what's worse is that since this is a government program financed through that pesky practice called taxation, the victims of the FDA are actually contributors to the very system that kills them. The charade is over once we realize that the FDA, far from protecting, is actually victimizing its "customers" by forcing them into a closed set of choices (and sometimes no choice at all). Withdrawing one's consent exposes this agency's true criminal nature.

Capitalism: Cause or Cure?

Looking at how insurers tend to influence health care in the U.S. one might reach the conclusion that the free market is the reason why people can't obtain any type of care they wish. While it is definitely true that insurers can negatively impact how one is treated, the real problem – as expected – extends from the interaction between the state and those who use the state to close down the market. Regulation drives the market to take a certain shape and that shape precludes many of the choices that consumers would otherwise have. Let's examine a couple of working cases.

Case 1: Person A is sick and he knows exactly what it will take to cure him. He knows both where to obtain his cure and he knows that it will be effective. He decides to obtain his cure from Person B. How is this situation normally handled in a regulated market?

First of all, Person B must be licensed to provide a cure of this type or likely any related services. Based upon the laws in the locale, Person A or Person B, or both of them, could be breaking the law if they were to interact! Consider the lunacy here. A person with knowledge and desire is prevented from exercising his free will, and prevented from making a decision in his own self-interest simply because another organization – an organization only peripherally interested, if at all, in his health – has succeeded in controlling access to the market. Make no mistake, licensing requirements are about little else but control of who can enter a market.

Conversely, how would the free market react? There would be no licensing (state-enforced) requirements. Membership in any professional organizations would be voluntary. While the consumer could take advantage of the recommendations of such a body, no outside influence could require it. Those who wish to consume make the choices and those who wish to provide items for that consumption would be subject to market backlash if what they provide proves to be less than satisfactory.

Case 2: Person A is sick and has no idea what it will take to cure him. He has heard of a cure that has promise, available from Person C, but the possible cure is expensive, due simply to high demand and small supply – that is, because of the market – and this price point will preclude him from obtaining it without help. How is this situation normally handled in a regulated market? This situation would be handled exactly the same way as Case 1, with licensing requirements, artificially smaller markets for cures, etc. Person A is stuck. What about the free market?

Even in a truly free market, it is still possible that Person A's insurance company could decide that certain treatments are "outside the norms" that would be automatically covered. However, in all probability, there would exist insurers that specialized in "risky" or "experimental" treatments, versus the case now where all insurers' hands are tied by statist regulation. These insurers could charge a higher premium from their customers, in exchange for allowing them to seek out the "latest-and-greatest" approaches to care. In fact, purveyors of experimental cures would seek insurers out to get on their list of options! Again, with no state to artificially shrink the supply, the "pull" of the market – demand for the treatments – would automatically require insurers to cover more options or risk losing customers. It's also possible that the drug manufacturers and other health specialists, eager to show insurers (as well as hospitals and doctors) that their treatment is safe, would pay for and publicize their latest test results. Like today, they might also pay for the costs of this experimental treatment.

What these two simple examples are intended to show is that capitalism, sometimes reduced to "the profit motive" does not, by itself preclude any option for which there is a market. In fact, it is only mechanisms intended to reduce choice and implemented with the help of the state that can do this. Without intervention, choices rise to their highest natural level and poor choices are weeded out automatically. With intervention – in the manner of licensing requirements, regulations, etc. – choices fall to the level most appropriate to make those "pulling the strings" the most wealthy, and shield those responsible from the costs normally doled out by the market.

Errors

The FDA intervenes in the economy by being the only organization with the power to determine which products can be bought, sold, imported and used. As such, any errors that it makes impact everyone. There are two kinds of errors that the FDA can make: Type I and Type II.

Also called a "false positive," a Type I error, in the context of the FDA's testing system, means not approving a drug or treatment that should be approved. Conversely, a Type II error, also called a "false negative" in the context of the FDA's testing system, means approving a drug or treatment that should not be approved. Setting the criteria for efficacy too tight means that tests that should be allowed to be sold are not. Setting the criteria for efficacy too loose means that tests that are either ineffective or dangerous get through. So besides having to arbitrarily determine the criteria for testing and coming up with a metric to determine safety, the FDA also has to gamble a bit, for it is simply impossible for it to assume that every drug it approves will not have a detrimental effect on anyone who uses it. Nor can it guarantee that drugs it prohibits would not have worked on some.

At this point we would like to point out that errors do exist in the free market. The difference, however, between the market and the state is that the latter lacks a negative feedback mechanism. In the market, if a company makes a mistake, it can be severely punished by the customers. With the government, no such thing happens. When the FDA makes a mistake, it doesn't go away or downsize; it cannot be boycotted or legally bypassed; one cannot seek alternate quality control and certification systems. In fact, we are perpetually tied to the FDA and any state agency through taxation. The state has no incentive to be more effective by controlling cost or increasing quality because it can always rely on a constant influx of funds. Private enterprise, on the other hand, has to rely on the repeat satisfaction of its customers for it continue to stay in business and prosper.

Again, the problem is not that errors exist, but rather that when you have a monopoly on drug and treatment testing, when there are errors, some of the key people responsible are unfairly insulated from the backlash. Responsibility without negative consequence always breeds inefficiency and corruption. Imagine that instead of a monolithic FDA we had a myriad of competing agencies. It is the purpose of the testing agency to offer comprehensive and reliable reports on new technologies and to offer insurance companies, hospitals, physicians, and the public in general, an idea of the risks involved with treatments. Therefore if an agency states that drug X contains significant risks (let's say an above number of severe side effects), it would make this information available. Other agencies, whose clients depend on them for accurate information, would almost certainly jump on this and either corroborate or rebuff the report about drug X.

The FDA has implanted a one-size-fits-all regimen, eliminating choice and crowding out potential advances in the health care industry. Our recommendation? Abolish the FDA!

Conclusion

Medical treatment socialism is but one of the many ways that the state makes our lives less livable. In their magnanimous quest to keep us safe from ourselves, they ultimately close many critical avenues that would have saved thousands (maybe millions by now) of lives.

The state kills. But do not despair. It's For Your Own Good.

August 24, 2007

Manuel Lora works at Cornell University as a TV and multimedia producer. Wilt Alston lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

---

Whether its' the government run VA or for profit medicine, American medical culture is rotten to the core. I have had up close and personal experience with both. There is no nurse shortage in this country, the problem there is that all the nurses quit and leave the profession in disgust and frustration. We have doctors of which the majority are only in it for the money. State medical boards which don't remove dangerous doctors unless they rape or commit mass murder. Lawyers who will sue anyone for a hangnail. Hospital staff who don't even remember to wash there hands after using the toilet much less when they handle another patient. HMO doctors who must see 12 patients every hour...guess how much time they get to exam each person. Medicince priced out in the range of gold or platinum. This rant is exhausting me...

---

Account frozen...

Whether its' the government run VA or for profit medicine, American medical culture is rotten to the core.

You can thank the gov't for its meddling.

I have had up close and personal experience with both. There is no nurse shortage in this country, the problem there is that all the nurses quit and leave the profession in disgust and frustration. We have doctors of which the majority are only in it for the money.

A) How would you know? B) No one goes to work for free, everyone is "in it for the money."

State medical boards which don't remove dangerous doctors unless they rape or commit mass murder.

Yeah, it's the state that keeps you safe. I mean, what else could it be.

Lawyers who will sue anyone for a hangnail.

Which, of course, is simply untrue. But you know it's true, so it must be, right?

Hospital staff who don't even remember to wash there hands after using the toilet much less when they handle another patient. HMO doctors who must see 12 patients every hour...guess how much time they get to exam each person.

But people begged for HMOs. Begged Congress to create them. To cut costs. Heh. That irony is delicious--begging the gov't to regulate something in order to cut costs.

Medicince priced out in the range of gold or platinum. This rant is exhausting me...

But you seem thrilled to have the gov't meddle, in fact, you seem to want them to meddle more. Should that happen, let's see, you'll create an actual monopoly, enforced by law. You will cease to have any choice whatsoever. Your costs will go up, you'll just pay them indirectly, and every single thing you complain about in your post will still exist.

What a great plan.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What would you suggest, Rush?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

What would you suggest, Rush?

Rush's view points are based on rhetorical assumptions and not fact. He has very little real life experience to fall back on, and loves to spout platitudes like so many spit balls. His solutions always focus on the fox watching the hen house. A hundred years he would be one of the crowd who vilified Upton Sinclair. He should pray to his god that he doesn't ever fall seriously ill.

---

Account frozen...

What would you suggest, Rush?

Rush's view points are based on rhetorical assumptions and not fact.

You are, of course, entitled to your erroneous opinions, however far from reality they may stray. However, if you actually want to convince your readers of your position, your best bet would be to present an actual argument instead of your worthless feelings or the vague hand-waving that you seem to think passes as rational argument.

Similarly, although it's quaint that you feel that discussing me is a substitute for actually presenting substantive reasoning, that as well is misguided at best.

To illustrate, previously I said, in reference to the socialized health care you seem to fond of: You'll create an actual monopoly, enforced by law. You will cease to have any choice whatsoever. Your costs will go up, you'll just pay them indirectly, and every single thing you complain about in your post will still exist.

The evidence for that are the socialized medicine systems around the world: The are a monopoly, enforced by law. Because they are actual monopolies, you no longer have any choice whatsoever. Because, as you've noted, they are paid for by taxes, you will still pay DEARLY for the care you wish were free, but you pay for it indirectly. And there will still be a shortage of nurses, money-grubbing (to hear you tell it) doctors, medical boards which still won't remove dangerous doctors, lawsuits, staff that doesn't wash their hands, pressure on doctors to move quickly through the system, and actual monopoly pricing on medicine.

Should you wish to convince your readers that that is untrue, then your best bet is to address the arguments presented instead of your mindless and nearly irrational blathering about me.

He has very little real life experience to fall back on, and loves to spout platitudes like so many spit balls.

A) What possible knowledge about me could you have to comment authoritatively on my real life experience? This is just another one of your "something is true, 'cause I sezed so's" because you don't have a basis for that statement. B) I don't spout platitudes, as usual, I present arguments, in the form (especially in your case): "You just said something really stupid and unfounded and here's why."

His solutions always focus on the fox watching the hen house.

My solutions focus on removing the cause of many of life's little problems, which often happens to be gov't meddling that people have begged for. Again, if you find any of my arguments flawed, by all means, refute one. If they're just platitudes that should be really really easy.

Here, I'll start it for you: "The NHS is not a monopoly created by law in the UK because..."

A hundred years he would be one of the crowd who vilified Upton Sinclair.

Which, of course, is just dead wrong. Most simply, if you are incapable of understanding something, it would behoove you not to make ignorant comments about it.

He should pray to his god that he doesn't ever fall seriously ill.

Duh. I would bet that nearly every person on the planet has that prayer, regardless of their health care status.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Enough debate!

Post solutions for God's sake!

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I know it's OT... But if I could change the system, I simply would say: all medicals and all medical treatment have to be "off the market", with no chance to raise fees nor prices on a whim. In opposite I would strictly cut medicine prices down (and if it were by subventions) and suggest a nation-wide real social insurance system, with no allowance to treat "private" patients otherwise than Social insurance patients. One patient is as needy as the other one, and no person should be treated worse only because the social insurance pays their medical treatment bill.

Then, to bring research and stuff as a reason to hold medicine costs high is just a poor excuse for making big money by supplying the needy.

---

Account frozen...

I know it's OT... But if I could change the system, I simply would say: all medicals and all medical treatment have to be "off the market", with no chance to raise fees nor prices on a whim.

Which is pure idiocy. It's not possible to take anything "off the market," ever because everything is always part of the market and regulations just drive the costs up.

In opposite I would strictly cut medicine prices down (and if it were by subventions) and suggest a nation-wide real social insurance system, with no allowance to treat "private" patients otherwise than Social insurance patients. One patient is as needy as the other one, and no person should be treated worse only because the social insurance pays their medical treatment bill.

(Emphasis added.) These types of silly comments are substantial evidence of the fact that you truly don't understand why they had to build that wall.

You not only want to "help" (heh) the poor, you actually want to take personal choices away from everyone else in the process, based solely on what you think is best. That is force, and that's why you need guns, a wall, and why the machine gun nests have to point inwards.

Health care isn't provided by fiat, there are costs involved--costs that can't be avoided or lessened by gov't orders.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Enough debate!

Ummmm, people will post as they wish, not as you wish.

Post solutions for God's sake!

Did you read the thread? Get gov't out of the way.

The "poor" in the U.S. have color TVs, mobile phones, cable, and on and on and on.

Let the health care companies kill each other to drive costs down, because the market is huge. While not everyone needs or will buy a mobile phone or a microwave, they will all buy health care.

Driving costs down to where everyone can afford them is the best way to insure access to nearly everyone, just like with consumer goods. Given that health care is a consumer good just like the examples mentioned.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I know but at some point there needs to be a point, or people just keep dying. Just like the government you dance and side step, never giving a solution. Why? Because you don't care, just like them. Or, you don't have a solution.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I know but at some point there needs to be a point, or people just keep dying.

What does this mean? In English please?

Just like the government you dance and side step, never giving a solution.

I gave you the solution--get the entity that is causing the problems out of the way. That IS the solution. That isn't dancing, or side stepping, mostly because other posts in this thread spell out specifically why the system is the way it is (the gov't) and why more gov't is not a solution. It doesn't happen overnight, but nothing does. The thread gives examples of how even the poorest among us can afford consumer goods, just like they could afford medical consumer goods that are far simpler to produce--most drugs and medical paraphernalia are nowhere near as complex or costly to create as a mobile phone. Note, that the poor can generally not only afford them, they can afford the service plan as well.

Why? Because you don't care, just like them. Or, you don't have a solution.

Learn to read slowly and carefully and then re-read the thread. Or, your ideology is blinding you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Experts: U.S. childbirth deaths on rise:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_he_me/dying_from_childbirth;_ylt=Ahc_Vbu_0Ls7Jja0hRRebgzVJRIF

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss